So Tired "debate"

[olanna]

Did you lose a bunch on the slots again and need to bump the CS to pay off yet another maxed credit card?

You guise it as selfishness on my part when truth is, poor M would be in a tent if he hadn't of met me because your gambling addiction is out of control.  Why don't you just let us raise those boys in a STABLE house and quit following me around as if you are some guy promoting high CS awards for the sake of the children???  

If you had all of M's salary, you still couldn't make it and the kids are suffering because there is never any food in the house, and half the time, they come to us dirty and filthy...after riding in a car for hours from the casino.

[FatherTime]

Sappy and generalized to the hilt.  

If it was as easy as you attempt to make it appear to be then there would be no SPARC.  There would be no need.  

There are real issues, real demons, real discrimination, and really greedy people in this world.  What are you smoking?

It is NOT as easy as you make it out to be. "Simplify Man!!!" Just doesn't cut it.

I don't have to give reasons, I don't have to justify my position, I don't even have to respond to this post, except that I want potential readers to see that it may not be them, that it may be a discrimination, greed, ignorance (IGNORANCE), bias, self-pity, attention grasping, and many, many other reasons for people and their trouble with or without their children.


I think that I understand why your previous post became so twisted over "stupid $%it".  

So I should allow my daughter to grow and thrive without me?
THAT'S WHAT HER MOTHER WANTS.  I should just be the bigger MAN and walk away, because that's in my daughter's best interest? (according to whom?)

There are too many variables to be so simple minded.

It's ...
FatherTime

[hagatha]

>
>>Actually it is how the laws are currently written that
>creates
>>ownwership of children.  Children are merely property and
>have
>>vertually no rights under the current legal system.  This is
>>yet another example of how the systems is flawed at it's
>very
>>core.
>
>Nothing could be further from the truth.

Are You Kidding Me???

>In most cases, the courts are directed to keep the
>child(ren)'s interests in mind when making a decision. They
>courts are not perfect, of course, but all the laws I've seen
>say that the child's interest is a major (if not the
>overriding) factor.

Can you explain how or why the court would not start at 50/50. Why isn't the court looking at a fathers role in any childs best intrest. The standard we have all seen is EOW and maybe 1 or 2 dinners midweek. And if the CP has a problem and decides to disregard the CO there is no real penality. Visitation interference is a slap on the wrist but if support isn't paid, even if the NCP really can't afford the amount the court can issue arrest warrents and the NCP can be jailed. (please don't tell me there are recourses for those ncps that can't really afford the amount ordered. I have seen time and time again the court making a CS decision based on the CP's word and not the actual facts. I have also been there when a father (my DH) was told "empty your pockets or go to jail) because he was out of work after a heart attack. We filed for a mod once he was out of the hospital but the hearing date was 4mths later and his ex decided she didnt care. Should he have gone to jail? I had given him $200. I borrowed from my parents to get a car part we desperately needed on his way home. He was forced to use that money and we were stuck without a car. BTW the cp choose not to work and rely on us for 100% of the support for their child. Please expain how this is fair or works.........


>
>For that matter, guardian ad litems are provided for the
>children in many cases. When was the last time you saw a
>guardian ad litem provided for a piece of property?

Have you ever heard GALs that are paid by the courts? Or have you heard some are paid by parents? Have you ever heard of any GALs promoting the parent that pays them? Or a GAL that might be biased and will report a parent better simply because of their gender???

The system is flawed and claiming there is no real problems is just ignorant


The Witch

[mistoffolees]

Once again, you find yourself incapable of rational discussion, so you launch yourself into your fantasy world and make personal attacks which are completely unfounded.

Feel free to provide a rational discussion if you'd like.

[mistoffolees]

>>
>>>Actually it is how the laws are currently written that
>>creates
>>>ownwership of children.  Children are merely property and
>>have
>>>vertually no rights under the current legal system.  This
>is
>>>yet another example of how the systems is flawed at it's
>>very
>>>core.
>>
>>Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
>Are You Kidding Me???

No. For the reasons I already gave.

>
>>In most cases, the courts are directed to keep the
>>child(ren)'s interests in mind when making a decision. They
>>courts are not perfect, of course, but all the laws I've
>seen
>>say that the child's interest is a major (if not the
>>overriding) factor.
>
>Can you explain how or why the court would not start at 50/50.

Many courts do - and the number is growing. What's your point?

>Why isn't the court looking at a fathers role in any childs
>best intrest. The standard we have all seen is EOW and maybe 1

Most courts DO consider the involvement of the father to be in the child's best interest.

>or 2 dinners midweek. And if the CP has a problem and decides

I can't comment on your specific situation - nor does one specific problem make the entire system worthless.

>to disregard the CO there is no real penality. Visitation
>interference is a slap on the wrist but if support isn't paid,
>even if the NCP really can't afford the amount the court can
>issue arrest warrents and the NCP can be jailed. (please don't
>tell me there are recourses for those ncps that can't really
>afford the amount ordered. I have seen time and time again the
>court making a CS decision based on the CP's word and not the
>actual facts. I have also been there when a father (my DH) was
>told "empty your pockets or go to jail) because he was out of

And, yet, statistics show that this is rarely a problem.

>work after a heart attack. We filed for a mod once he was out
>of the hospital but the hearing date was 4mths later and his
>ex decided she didnt care. Should he have gone to jail? I had
>given him $200. I borrowed from my parents to get a car part
>we desperately needed on his way home. He was forced to use
>that money and we were stuck without a car. BTW the cp choose
>not to work and rely on us for 100% of the support for their
>child. Please expain how this is fair or works.........

If I had ever claimed that the system was perfect, you might have a point.

>
>
>>
>>For that matter, guardian ad litems are provided for the
>>children in many cases. When was the last time you saw a
>>guardian ad litem provided for a piece of property?
>
>Have you ever heard GALs that are paid by the courts? Or have
>you heard some are paid by parents? Have you ever heard of any
>GALs promoting the parent that pays them? Or a GAL that might
>be biased and will report a parent better simply because of
>their gender???

None of that is relevant. The fact is that courts often assign GALs - which is proof that the children are not being treated like property.

As for the payment, you do realize that the courts don't have any money except what they take from the people, right? So if the court feels that a GAL must be assigned, that someone has to pay for it. Right?

>
>The system is flawed and claiming there is no real problems is
>just ignorant

I never claimed that there were no problems.

[speciallady]

Mist, you've been spouting that while the system is flawed it's not broken.
Now I read...
"There's nothing wrong with the system at all " in another post.

Make up your mind, okay?

[mistoffolees]

>Mist, you've been spouting that while the system is flawed
>it's not broken.
>Now I read...
>"There's nothing wrong with the system at all " in another
>post.
>
>Make up your mind, okay?

I have argued repeatedly that the system as a whole is workable even though it's not perfect. It can be improved, but working to improve the system is far preferable than arguing for completely scrapping the system (partly because the system works most of the time and partly because the chances of modifying the system are infinitely better than the chances of scrapping it and starting over).


My position is quite consistent.

[SPARC Admin]

>Most courts DO consider the involvement of the father to be in
>the child's best interest.

If that was true, this site wouldn't exist. You really DO live in a different world, don't you?


>I can't comment on your specific situation

Of course you won't. You'll just completely disregard her experiences because they don't meet your high standards of 'fact finding' criteria. *cough*

[SPARC Admin]

>My position is quite consistent.

Consistently myopic, misguided, and lacking merit.

[mistoffolees]

>>My position is quite consistent.
>
>Consistently myopic, misguided, and lacking merit.
>

Your lack of a rational response is noted.

Are you ever going to get tired of posting nothing but personal attacks?

And are you ever going to learn to listen to the opinions of others - even if they differ from your radical 'do it my way or you're wrong' mentality?