Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Dead-beat parents should lose their future social security to children

0 views
Skip to first unread message

T. GreatOne

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

Sillysal38 wrote:
>
> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all social
> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent & child or
> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay child
> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This should
> be a law in all states!!!!
>
>
>
>
Confiscation of property by the government without due process of law
should be a capital offense.

Sillysal38

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

TeenaMc01

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2
kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat sleep.
They think just let the state take care of them.

Tracy Hornschuch

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

On 24 May 1998, TeenaMc01 wrote:

: I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2


: kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat sleep.
: They think just let the state take care of them.

I personaly disagree with both of you to a point... to a point. I don't
think all social security benifits should be withheld just because they
owe back support...


Tracy

*==*==*==*==*==*==*
tra...@teleport.com |
Tra...@orst.edu | Have you told your children
http://www.teleport.com/~tracyh/ | you love them today?

"A wise man never laughs at his wife's old clothes."


Jack O Trades

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

In article <199805240438...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
silly...@aol.com says...
Are you for real??? If so, such ignorence is truly awe inspiring. I have
a better idea, if a parent dosen't pay HIS child support, let's force him
to carry life insurance. Then, just take him out behind the court house
and shoot him. I mean the poor bastard is only gonna suffer the next 18
to 20 years anyway right? This way you can get your cash right now.
We'll just pass a law that says that "iffin you shout a dead beat dad in
the head behind a court house, it's OK".
This way you and everyone else like you can get their money in one big
lump sum and be done with it. No more hassles or bitching. So remember
boys and girls, euthanise a dead beat dad for posterity.
(If you couldn't tell, this was oozing with sarcasm)
--
jack of all trades
jtr...@iname.com
Troubles borrowed will be repaid with interest compounded on sorrow.

ZenRose

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

>I personaly disagree with both of you to a point... to a point. I don't
>think all social security benifits should be withheld just because they
>owe back support...
>
>
>Tracy
>
>
Tracy,
If their ss payments were held only up to the ammt of what's owed in back CS,
then would u agree??
(i happen tot tink it's ain interesting point.)

Mark Jebens

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote on 24 May 1998 04:38:53 GMT:

> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all social
> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent & child or
> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay child
> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This should
> be a law in all states!!!!

Parents who allow their children to fall below the minimum standard for
neglect should all be subjected to the same penalties. Any
other standard is capricious, sexist and unjust.

--
Mark Jebens
Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)


GudGye11

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

In article <6ka6rk$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Xmje...@primenet.com (Mark
Jebens) writes:

Right, Mark....

Are CPs going to be held to the same standards? Should they make an accounting
to some type of governmental authority to verify that they have spent all of
the CS they receive on their children?

I would agree with Sillysal's proposal if (and that's a BIG IF) if CPs would
also be accountable for the CS they receive. But I don't have to worry,
because CPs will probably never have to be accountable for such.

It's called "equal protection" I believe.

Bill & Stacey

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to Sillysal38

Only problem is, they will NEVER give that money to the custodial parents
or the children. You are barking up the wrong tree.
As with the $0.65 for every dollar of child support the fed pays the
states, never a single penny of that goes to the families of those who are not
receiving child support. It has nothing to do with the kids. It is a power hungy,
insane system that is eating out our substance........

Mark Jebens

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

gudg...@aol.com (GudGye11) wrote on 24 May 1998 22:38:10 GMT:

> In article <6ka6rk$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Xmje...@primenet.com (Mark
> Jebens) writes:

> >silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote on 24 May 1998 04:38:53 GMT:
> >

> >> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
> >social
> >> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
> >child or
> >> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
> >child
> >> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
> >should
> >> be a law in all states!!!!
> >

> >Parents who allow their children to fall below the minimum standard for
> >neglect should all be subjected to the same penalties. Any
> >other standard is capricious, sexist and unjust.
> >
> >--
> >Mark Jebens
> >Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)

> Right, Mark....

> Are CPs going to be held to the same standards? Should they make an accounting
> to some type of governmental authority to verify that they have spent all of
> the CS they receive on their children?

> I would agree with Sillysal's proposal if (and that's a BIG IF) if CPs would
> also be accountable for the CS they receive. But I don't have to worry,
> because CPs will probably never have to be accountable for such.

Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.

> It's called "equal protection" I believe.

GudGye11

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

In article <199805250506...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, nowh...@aol.com
(NoWhere9) writes:

>x-no-archive: yes


>
>In an article teen...@aol.com (TeenaMc01) writes:
>
>>I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2
>>kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat sleep.
>
>>They think just let the state take care of them.
>

>And YOU need to find a job that pays your bills and provides for the kids
>WITHOUT child support!
>
>What good is it going to do if you can not provide for them, and all you do
>is cry about it?!?!

Good point.....on the one hand you criticize these 2 so-called "deadbeat dads"
while at the same time admitting YOU yourself don't support your kids, the
state does.

Do you ever refer to yourself as a "deadbeat mom"? If not, you should start.

User132384

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to


> As with the $0.65 for every dollar of child support the fed pays the
>states, never a single penny of that goes to the families ..........

What's this ?????


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
My Jekyll Doesn't Hyde

SoccerStepMom

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

TeenaMc01 wrote:
>
> I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2
> kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat sleep.
> They think just let the state take care of them.

Just curious - are you done breeding fatherless kids with men who have
no interest in helping you support them? One I can understand. Two
begins to sound like a pattern... SSM

Pat Winstanley

unread,
May 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/26/98
to

In article <3566F1...@sprynet.com>, T. GreatOne <jch...@sprynet.com>
writes

>Sillysal38 wrote:
>>
>> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
>social
>> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent & child
>or
>> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay child
>> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This should
>> be a law in all states!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Confiscation of property by the government without due process of law
>should be a capital offense.

So, what is "due process of the law" if the law says this should happen?

--
Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk

Pat Winstanley

unread,
May 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/26/98
to

In article <199805242238...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, GudGye11
<gudg...@aol.com> writes

>In article <6ka6rk$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Xmje...@primenet.com (Mark
>Jebens) writes:
>
>>silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote on 24 May 1998 04:38:53 GMT:
>>
>>> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
>>social
>>> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
>>child or
>>> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
>>child
>>> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
>>should
>>> be a law in all states!!!!
>>
>>Parents who allow their children to fall below the minimum standard for
>>neglect should all be subjected to the same penalties. Any
>>other standard is capricious, sexist and unjust.
>>
>>--
>>Mark Jebens
>>Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
>
>Right, Mark....
>
>Are CPs going to be held to the same standards? Should they make an accounting
>to some type of governmental authority to verify that they have spent all of
>the CS they receive on their children?
>
>I would agree with Sillysal's proposal if (and that's a BIG IF) if CPs would
>also be accountable for the CS they receive. But I don't have to worry,
>because CPs will probably never have to be accountable for such.
>
>It's called "equal protection" I believe.

Now would it be so difficult to work it so that the CP could be landed
without warning and totally at random (whether the NCP has queried or
not) a notice on a CP stating something like:

You are required to supply to the court within four weeks of the date of
this notice, an accounting of how the CS you received last month for
your child was spent. Supporting dockets will be helpful to you, and in
their absence you will need to present your case verbally to the court.


(Four weeks should give those who don't keep [or occasionally lose]
receipts time to obtain the dockets...)

(How long is it between the date a NCP should have paid CS and hasn't
and a notice chasing the NCP to pay up now or else? Is that shorter or
longer than 4 weeks from date of non-payment? Whatever, the CP and NCP
should have a similar amount of time to get hold of the documentation
they need to support their actions).

Would you see the above as fair?

If not, why not?

Lori moffit

unread,
May 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/26/98
to

I for one would see it as a big step forward. Yes, it would be fair if
things were this way. I doubt it'll ever happen in this country,
however. :-(
Lori

SoccerStepMom

unread,
May 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/26/98
to
> --
> Pat Winstanley
> http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk

It won't solve the problem that NCPs here have, because the courts
consider it reasonable to assess part of the "fixed" costs of the CP as
direct child costs, while many of the NCPs here do not. So in truth the
CP would have to haul in real estate appraisals of the house they
"would" have if they didn't have the kids and compare it to what they
actually pay, to justify the kids' incremental share of housing - and so
on, and so on.

Since we don't receive CS, it is not a factor for us. I'm just
commenting that the people who try to make the discussion all about
variable out of pocket costs are never going to get anywhere, because
that's not the theory behind CS levels. You can lobby to change the
theory, but you can't argue that the theory isn't fairly applied when CS
is *not* designated simply for out-of-pocket costs as the NCPs assert.

SSM

GJP

unread,
May 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/26/98
to

SoccerStepMom wrote:
>

snip

>
> It won't solve the problem that NCPs here have, because the courts
> consider it reasonable to assess part of the "fixed" costs of the CP as
> direct child costs, while many of the NCPs here do not. So in truth the
> CP would have to haul in real estate appraisals of the house they
> "would" have if they didn't have the kids and compare it to what they
> actually pay, to justify the kids' incremental share of housing - and so
> on, and so on.


Not true. The ability to identify the CPs costs and share for the children's
expenses can be done......and it is much simpler than that. The box theory in a
shabby neighborhood is irrelevant since the CP lives in a house/apartment in a
given neighborhood.



> Since we don't receive CS, it is not a factor for us. I'm just
> commenting that the people who try to make the discussion all about
> variable out of pocket costs are never going to get anywhere, because
> that's not the theory behind CS levels.

And the theory is???


Greg Palumbo

Pat Winstanley

unread,
May 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/26/98
to

In article <356AC8F4...@bignet.net>, Lori moffit
<lmo...@bignet.net> writes

>> Now would it be so difficult to work it so that the CP could be landed
>> without warning and totally at random (whether the NCP has queried or
>> not) a notice on a CP stating something like:
>>
>> You are required to supply to the court within four weeks of the date of
>> this notice, an accounting of how the CS you received last month for
>> your child was spent. Supporting dockets will be helpful to you, and in
>> their absence you will need to present your case verbally to the court.
>>
>> (Four weeks should give those who don't keep [or occasionally lose]
>> receipts time to obtain the dockets...)
>>
>> (How long is it between the date a NCP should have paid CS and hasn't
>> and a notice chasing the NCP to pay up now or else? Is that shorter or
>> longer than 4 weeks from date of non-payment? Whatever, the CP and NCP
>> should have a similar amount of time to get hold of the documentation
>> they need to support their actions).
>>
>> Would you see the above as fair?
>>
>> If not, why not?
>
>
>I for one would see it as a big step forward. Yes, it would be fair if
>things were this way. I doubt it'll ever happen in this country,
>however. :-(
>Lori

So why don't you campaign for something along those lines? Lobby your
government reps etc... get it in the media!

Bill & Stacey

unread,
May 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/26/98
to

Pat Winstanley wrote:

> In article <3566F1...@sprynet.com>, T. GreatOne
> <jch...@sprynet.com>
> writes
> >Sillysal38 wrote:
> >>

> >> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child
> support should lose all
> >social
> >> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to
> the the parent & child
> >or
> >> children that suffered without. If the parent did not
> care enough to pay child
> >> support why should we care how thay make it in their
> later years? This should
> >> be a law in all states!!!!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>

> >Confiscation of property by the government without due
> process of law
> >should be a capital offense.
>
> So, what is "due process of the law" if the law says this
> should happen?
>

I hate to burst your bubble, but what about a fair
trial? What about the right to face your accuser? What
about teh right to present facts and wittnesses in your
defense? Without these, the court has no power to order
ANYTHING. But, they do it all the time these days.....

BRONSCH

unread,
May 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/26/98
to

TeenaMc01 wrote:
>
> I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2
> kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat sleep.
> They think just let the state take care of them.


Why didn't you learn after the first one?

Mark Jebens

unread,
May 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/26/98
to

Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote on Tue, 26 May
1998 10:27:34 +0100:

> In article <199805242238...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, GudGye11
> <gudg...@aol.com> writes
> >In article <6ka6rk$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Xmje...@primenet.com (Mark
> >Jebens) writes:
> >
> >>silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote on 24 May 1998 04:38:53 GMT:
> >>

> >>> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
> >>social
> >>> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
> >>child or
> >>> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
> >>child
> >>> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
> >>should
> >>> be a law in all states!!!!
> >>

> >>Parents who allow their children to fall below the minimum standard for
> >>neglect should all be subjected to the same penalties. Any
> >>other standard is capricious, sexist and unjust.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Mark Jebens
> >>Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
> >
> >Right, Mark....
> >
> >Are CPs going to be held to the same standards? Should they make an accounting
> >to some type of governmental authority to verify that they have spent all of
> >the CS they receive on their children?
> >
> >I would agree with Sillysal's proposal if (and that's a BIG IF) if CPs would
> >also be accountable for the CS they receive. But I don't have to worry,
> >because CPs will probably never have to be accountable for such.
> >
> >It's called "equal protection" I believe.

> Now would it be so difficult to work it so that the CP could be landed


> without warning and totally at random (whether the NCP has queried or
> not) a notice on a CP stating something like:

> You are required to supply to the court within four weeks of the date of
> this notice, an accounting of how the CS you received last month for
> your child was spent. Supporting dockets will be helpful to you, and in
> their absence you will need to present your case verbally to the court.

This would not be easy at all. First you would have to change the law.
Since CS is used as backdoor alimony and our representatives like it
that way, the current laws will not be changed.


> (Four weeks should give those who don't keep [or occasionally lose]
> receipts time to obtain the dockets...)
>
> (How long is it between the date a NCP should have paid CS and hasn't
> and a notice chasing the NCP to pay up now or else? Is that shorter or
> longer than 4 weeks from date of non-payment? Whatever, the CP and NCP
> should have a similar amount of time to get hold of the documentation
> they need to support their actions).

> Would you see the above as fair?

> If not, why not?

Better yet, just use that information to set the CS to begin with.

Pat Winstanley

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

In article <356B2B88...@cyberhighway.net>, Bill & Stacey
<Wst...@cyberhighway.net> writes

>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
>> In article <3566F1...@sprynet.com>, T. GreatOne
>> <jch...@sprynet.com>
>> writes
>> >Sillysal38 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child
>> support should lose all
>> >social
>> >> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to
>> the the parent & child
>> >or
>> >> children that suffered without. If the parent did not
>> care enough to pay child
>> >> support why should we care how thay make it in their
>> later years? This should
>> >> be a law in all states!!!!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Confiscation of property by the government without due
>> process of law
>> >should be a capital offense.
>>
>> So, what is "due process of the law" if the law says this
>> should happen?
>>
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but what about a fair
>trial?

What is a "fair trial"?

> What about the right to face your accuser?

What about it?

> What
>about teh right to present facts and wittnesses in your
>defense?

What about it?

> Without these, the court has no power to order
>ANYTHING. But, they do it all the time these days.....
>

In what way?

Bill, you are a CP... you are learning what it's like tio be a CP and
not be listened to because you are a second class citizen as a CP rather
than a member of the "boys club".

Life simply isn't fair if you happen to be on the losing side. Live with
it, or change it.

Anonymous

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

Bill & Stacey wrote:
>
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> > In article <3566F1...@sprynet.com>, T. GreatOne
> > <jch...@sprynet.com>
> > writes
> > >Sillysal38 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child
> > support should lose all
> > >social
> > >> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to
> > the the parent & child
> > >or
> > >> children that suffered without. If the parent did not
> > care enough to pay child
> > >> support why should we care how thay make it in their
> > later years? This should
> > >> be a law in all states!!!!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Confiscation of property by the government without due
> > process of law
> > >should be a capital offense.
> >
> > So, what is "due process of the law" if the law says this
> > should happen?
> >
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but what about a fair
> trial? What about the right to face your accuser? What

> about teh right to present facts and wittnesses in your
> defense? Without these, the court has no power to order

> ANYTHING. But, they do it all the time these days.....
>

Karin

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

>>>
>>>
>>Confiscation of property by the government without due process of law
>>should be a capital offense.
>
>So, what is "due process of the law" if the law says this should happen?
>


How about PROOF that it didn't happen before judgements are arbitrarily
entered to take things?

Karin

Karin

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

Sillysal38 wrote in message
<199805240438...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...


>Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
social
>security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
child or
>children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
child
>support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
should
>be a law in all states!!!!
>

Maybe in your mind this would work, however, the money being paid into the
system right now is actually being paid out to our parents & grand parents.
Also, there is no gaurentee that anyone will live long enough to collect SS,
so you know what the government would have to say abot that.

Karin

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

NoWhere9 wrote in message
<199805250506...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>One point that should be made is not every so-called "deadbeat" parent is
>really in arrears, some are in arrears by no fault of their own, and some
>willfully choose not to pay. Oh, I almost forgot, some "deadbeat parents"
>are really DEAD.
>

Some are actually NOT in arrears & never have been....Our ex got a court
order to have my husbands retirement pension garnished by simply telling the
judge that he hadn't paid and she didn't know where he was. She had been
sending nasty grams to him for months and he had been sending her checks
every week. We presented all of this later in court (we had to institute the
action) and the garnishment was lifted. She told us later that she wanted
the amount of support paid all at once on the first, that's why she had the
garnishment done. She was also charged with perjury in this instance because
we showed proof that she knew where he was and had not fallen behind in his
suipport.

>But I must ask you about the woEmen who refuse the father access to their
>children, what should happen with them?
>
>

What, indeed? In the above referenced court action, the judge also held the
ex in contempt for violation of decree for interfering with visitation for
three years. Even after all of that, she WON'T LET THEM SEE their Dad this
SUMMER! It's in the court order, but she simply refuses. Go figure. She just
WANTS to be this way. We have contacted our attorney, once again, in
Mississippi and she is taking care of the paperwork in court. We don't know
yet whether we will ahve to travel again to appear in court. So, what would
be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??

Karin

Pat Winstanley

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

In article <6kgt0t$qm9$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>, Karin
<nospam...@earthlink.net> writes

What are you talking about? You snipped so much I have lost the context.

Pat Winstanley

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

In article <6kguf8$rd0$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>, Karin
<nospam...@earthlink.net> writes

>>But I must ask you about the woEmen who refuse the father access to their
>>children, what should happen with them?
>>
>>
>
>What, indeed? In the above referenced court action, the judge also held the
>ex in contempt for violation of decree for interfering with visitation for
>three years. Even after all of that, she WON'T LET THEM SEE their Dad this
>SUMMER! It's in the court order, but she simply refuses. Go figure. She just
>WANTS to be this way. We have contacted our attorney, once again, in
>Mississippi and she is taking care of the paperwork in court. We don't know
>yet whether we will ahve to travel again to appear in court. So, what would
>be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??

Hefty fines and/or imprisonment.

What punishment would you like to see?

Pat Winstanley

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

In article <6kgt7t$qqk$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>, Karin
<nospam...@earthlink.net> writes

However it would be perfectly possible to ensure that such defaulters
couldn't claim when they came to retire if there were funds available at
the time.

Why not?

And why would the government have a problem with that? The government
could simply take the non CS paying NCP's contributions and credit them
to the CP as the CP's contributions instead...

Lori moffit

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

Karin wrote:

> >But I must ask you about the woEmen who refuse the father access to their
> >children, what should happen with them?
> >
> >
>
> What, indeed? In the above referenced court action, the judge also held the
> ex in contempt for violation of decree for interfering with visitation for
> three years. Even after all of that, she WON'T LET THEM SEE their Dad this
> SUMMER! It's in the court order, but she simply refuses. Go figure. She just
> WANTS to be this way. We have contacted our attorney, once again, in
> Mississippi and she is taking care of the paperwork in court. We don't know
> yet whether we will ahve to travel again to appear in court. So, what would
> be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??


I believe they should lose custody to the other parent, and that the
custody change should be irrevocable.
Lori

Karin

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

Pat Winstanley wrote in message ...


>In article <6kguf8$rd0$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>, Karin
><nospam...@earthlink.net> writes

>>>But I must ask you about the woEmen who refuse the father access to
their
>>>children, what should happen with them?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What, indeed? In the above referenced court action, the judge also held
the
>>ex in contempt for violation of decree for interfering with visitation for
>>three years. Even after all of that, she WON'T LET THEM SEE their Dad this
>>SUMMER! It's in the court order, but she simply refuses. Go figure. She
just
>>WANTS to be this way. We have contacted our attorney, once again, in
>>Mississippi and she is taking care of the paperwork in court. We don't
know
>>yet whether we will ahve to travel again to appear in court. So, what
would
>>be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??
>

>Hefty fines and/or imprisonment.
>
>What punishment would you like to see?
>

Unfortunately the fines would end being paid by my husband, as the ex
doesn't work & lives on the children's money....trickle up economics, if you
will. Imprisonment? Maybe. What effect this would have on the children, I
don't know. She has kept them away from their father for so long that they
hardly know him. They might be further harmed emotionally, being seperated
from their mom in this manner. I really don't know. There is no simple
answer as each situation differs in circumstance, ie - ages of children, how
long since they have visited with the NCP, finacnial situation of CP, etc.

Any one else have any ideas?

Karin

Mark Jebens

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote on Thu, 28 May 1998 01:38:23 GMT:

> In article <6kamcg$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:

> > Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
> > should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
> > their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.


> How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
> from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
> ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.

How about this: Except when one parent is unfit and can't have the kids
or is unwilling to physically care for them, have the parent with the kids

pay for the things they needs. The parents may also work out some other
arrangement themselves.

> This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.

> But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
> parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
> food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
> for the child)

> Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
> goes to the child.

> Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
> give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
> to the old system).

jon.g...@wonderware.com

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to

In article <199805240438...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote:
>
> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
social
> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
child or
> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
child
> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
should
> be a law in all states!!!!

OK, fine. But now, question for question, under what circumstances can a NCP
prove to the court that they are capable of responsibly supporting their
children without the need for court-ordered support enforced by wage
garnishments.

Under the current system ALL male NCPs are automatically guilty of being
irresponsible louts who require a court to order them to give money to the
mothers of their children (though there are plenty of cases where courts
order men to pay support for children who aren't even theirs).

Unless there is a legal, honorable out for responsible NCPs, the system is a
fraud.

Speaking personally, I would agree to keep all records of all transactions
involving support for my son and would be willing to provide them to a court
office on demand if I could just have the dignity of being able to actually
support my wonderful, beloved son instead of his worthless leech (actually,
'leech' is too kind a term, I prefer 'lamprey') of a mother. It shouldn't be
necessary to do this, but I would willingly agree to it (something, I might
add, which very few recipients of CS are willing to do).

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

jon.g...@wonderware.com

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to

> Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
> should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
> their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.


How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.

This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.

But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
for the child)

Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
goes to the child.

Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
to the old system).

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

jon.g...@wonderware.com

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to

In article <356ADA...@hotmail.com>,
SoccerStepMom <soccer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It won't solve the problem that NCPs here have, because the courts
> consider it reasonable to assess part of the "fixed" costs of the CP as
> direct child costs, while many of the NCPs here do not. So in truth the
> CP would have to haul in real estate appraisals of the house they
> "would" have if they didn't have the kids and compare it to what they
> actually pay, to justify the kids' incremental share of housing - and so
> on, and so on.
>

> Since we don't receive CS, it is not a factor for us. I'm just
> commenting that the people who try to make the discussion all about
> variable out of pocket costs are never going to get anywhere, because

> that's not the theory behind CS levels. You can lobby to change the


> theory, but you can't argue that the theory isn't fairly applied when CS
> is *not* designated simply for out-of-pocket costs as the NCPs assert.

Who here maintains that CS is designed simply to cover out-of-pocket
expenses. It isn't. People who think differently are fooling themselves.
CS is designed to reimburse women for all the expenses of raising children
because that is what the people who made the policy think is right and all
the women, lawyers and politicians who benefit from this idiotic system are
perfectly willing to agree to it.

A Scottish philospher called Alexander Tytler once wrote (I'm paraphrasing)
that Democracy can only exist as a form of government until special interests
discover that they can vote themselves a payday out of someone else's
pocket. So-called "entitlements" are big business in government circles and
I'm not just talking about traditional images of "welfare" as money paid to
the poor and addled but corporate welfare in the form of huge subsidies paid
to bloated corporations as well as money paid to women out of the pockets of
their children's father. Welfare comes from all over and make no mistake, CS
*IS* welfare.

jon.g...@wonderware.com

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to

In article <tPGKY$Be$ta1...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,

Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <356AC8F4...@bignet.net>, Lori moffit
> <lmo...@bignet.net> writes
> >> Now would it be so difficult to work it so that the CP could be landed
> >> without warning and totally at random (whether the NCP has queried or
> >> not) a notice on a CP stating something like:
> >>
> >> You are required to supply to the court within four weeks of the date of
> >> this notice, an accounting of how the CS you received last month for
> >> your child was spent. Supporting dockets will be helpful to you, and in
> >> their absence you will need to present your case verbally to the court.
> >>
> >> (Four weeks should give those who don't keep [or occasionally lose]
> >> receipts time to obtain the dockets...)
> >>
> >> (How long is it between the date a NCP should have paid CS and hasn't
> >> and a notice chasing the NCP to pay up now or else? Is that shorter or
> >> longer than 4 weeks from date of non-payment? Whatever, the CP and NCP
> >> should have a similar amount of time to get hold of the documentation
> >> they need to support their actions).
> >>
> >> Would you see the above as fair?
> >>
> >> If not, why not?
> >
> >
> >I for one would see it as a big step forward. Yes, it would be fair if
> >things were this way. I doubt it'll ever happen in this country,
> >however. :-(
> >Lori
>
> So why don't you campaign for something along those lines? Lobby your
> government reps etc... get it in the media!

The problem is that it is a very easy matter for the sheep to start bleating
"four legs good, two legs bad!"

Pardon the Orwellian metaphor (there is much that is Orwellian about the
current system though) but the problem is very real. The minute you start
talking about anything which could even REMOTELY be construed as reducing
child-support awards under any circumstances then the people who profit by
the current system start screaming at the top of their lungs that you are an
unfeeling creep who just wants to hurt children and benefit deadbeat dads.
It doesn't matter if you have a good point or not and it doesn't matter if
you have facts on your side or not. All that matters is that "they" think
you are wrong and, unfortunately, "they" have the political power at the
moment.

There was a situation in California where this guy had done some studies
which *proved* that the current formula was biased against low-income fathers
and subjected them and their children to significant financial hardships
while allowing wealthier men to get off with a smaller bit out of their
paychecks. He showed his new formula which would correct the imbalance and
close some of the loopholes which were available to the very wealthy.

He was immediately denounced as a child-hating, woman-bashing cretin who just
wanted to help deadbeat dads get away from doing their "duty". His cardinal
sin? He wanted to reduce some of the support payments made by lower-income
men. Gasp! The nerve!!!

The fact is that you have a better chance getting elected or re-elected on a
flat-earth or pro-polygamy platform than you do having been seen as
sympathetic to NCPs.

jon.g...@wonderware.com

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to

In article <199805240512...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

teen...@aol.com (TeenaMc01) wrote:
>
> I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2
> kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat
sleep.
> They think just let the state take care of them.

They'll be hearing from that state before long. The state doesn't like to
pay out those tax dollars. I suspect when you signed up for that care
package from the state, they made you sign over to them the right to collect
child-support on your behalf. And believe me, they mean to collect that
money or put your exes in jail if they don't pay. Not that you should worry
about it much, you won't see much of that money - if any. But then, on the
other hand, you already got it so what's the problem? What difference does
it make to you whether the state gives you taxpayer's money or money from
your exes?

NoWhere9

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to

In article <6kif6f$8bf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon.g...@wonderware.com writes:

>
>
>How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
>from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
>ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
>
>This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.
>
>But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
>parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
>food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
>for the child)
>
>Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
>goes to the child.
>
>Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
>give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
>to the old system).

I have been saying this for about five YEARS! It is the ONLY way CS would
ever be fair! Now I have someone else saying the same thing!!

THANKS!!!! ;-)

Char

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to


jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:

> In article <6kamcg$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> > Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
> > should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
> > their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.
>

> How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
> from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
> ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
>
> This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.
>
> But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
> parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
> food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
> for the child)
>

It all sounds good except "no taking out money for food or utilities". So who
pays for these? What if one parent refuses to share custody and either willingly
or forceably pays their half? The other parent is then accountable solely for
all food and extra costs in utilities 100% of the time? Granted, if JC exists,
each will provide food and utilities. But there are some instances where one
parent just refuses to share custody.

> Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
> goes to the child.
>
> Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
> give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
> to the old system).
>

> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

--
Char

*To send e-mail, replace hell with heaven. LOL

Char

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to


Mark Jebens wrote:

> jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote on Thu, 28 May 1998 01:38:23 GMT:
>

> > In article <6kamcg$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> > Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> > > Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
> > > should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
> > > their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.
>
> > How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
> > from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
> > ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
>

> How about this: Except when one parent is unfit and can't have the kids
> or is unwilling to physically care for them, have the parent with the kids
>
> pay for the things they needs. The parents may also work out some other
> arrangement themselves.
>

Also good advice, except when the one parent that is "unwilling to physically care
for them" is also unwilling to "work out some other arrangement themselves". Then
the other parent must foot the added cost of insurance, medical expenses, etc.

> > This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.
>
> > But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
> > parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
> > food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
> > for the child)
>

> > Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
> > goes to the child.
>
> > Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
> > give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
> > to the old system).
>

> --
> Mark Jebens
> Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)

--

Pat Winstanley

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to

In article <6kiphk$e...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Mark Jebens
<Xmje...@primenet.com> writes

>jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote on Thu, 28 May 1998 01:38:23 GMT:
>
>> In article <6kamcg$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
>> Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:
>
>> > Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
>> > should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
>> > their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.
>
>
>> How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
>> from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
>> ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
>
>How about this: Except when one parent is unfit and can't have the kids
>or is unwilling to physically care for them, have the parent with the kids
>
>pay for the things they needs. The parents may also work out some other
>arrangement themselves.
>

If the child is with each parent more or less the same amount of time
and in more or less the circumstances, then yes. No problem.

However what would you do about expenses that spanned the time the child
was with both parents (annual or monthly fees for instance) one or both
parents will NOT co-operate?

>> This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.
>
>> But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
>> parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
>> food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
>> for the child)
>
>> Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
>> goes to the child.
>
>> Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
>> give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
>> to the old system).
>
>--
>Mark Jebens
>Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
>

--
Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk

Pat Winstanley

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to

In article <199805280525...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, NoWhere9
<nowh...@aol.com> writes
>x-no-archive: yes

>In an article Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>So, what would
>>>be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??
>>
>>Hefty fines and/or imprisonment.
>
>Never will happen [except when the father is a CP]!!

Do you think it should?

Why do you think it would never happen?

Leslie

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to

jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
>
> In article <199805240438...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote:
> >
> > Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
> social
> > security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
> child or
> > children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
> child
> > support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
> should
> > be a law in all states!!!!
>
> OK, fine. But now, question for question, under what circumstances can a NCP
> prove to the court that they are capable of responsibly supporting their
> children without the need for court-ordered support enforced by wage
> garnishments.


Things must be different here in Canada -- CS is not automatically garnished.
However, when my ex stopped paying, I filed with the Family Maintenance
Enforcement Program and they got his wages garnished. At first my ex was
ticked but recently he said he was glad of the garnishment. I think it's much
easier for him to have the CS automatically taken out than directly write a
cheque to me. If you can't get things changed, maybe try to change the way
you look at it.

Leslie


>
> Under the current system ALL male NCPs are automatically guilty of being
> irresponsible louts who require a court to order them to give money to the
> mothers of their children (though there are plenty of cases where courts
> order men to pay support for children who aren't even theirs).
>
> Unless there is a legal, honorable out for responsible NCPs, the system is a
> fraud.
>
> Speaking personally, I would agree to keep all records of all transactions
> involving support for my son and would be willing to provide them to a court
> office on demand if I could just have the dignity of being able to actually
> support my wonderful, beloved son instead of his worthless leech (actually,
> 'leech' is too kind a term, I prefer 'lamprey') of a mother. It shouldn't be
> necessary to do this, but I would willingly agree to it (something, I might
> add, which very few recipients of CS are willing to do).
>

Leslie

unread,
May 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/28/98
to

NoWhere9 wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> In an article Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >So, what would
> >>be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow