Please Read!!!! - Page 6 - Mothering Forums

Reply
 
Thread Tools
#151 of 163 Old 04-01-2004, 03:08 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Piglet68
I would think it would be very difficult to make the man pay but deny him access to the child. In fact, I think I would find such an arrangement VERY unfair to the father - you're going to make him pay but he can't have anything to do with the kid?...
The only situations I saw where the father was ordered to pay child support but had no visition where situations that involved abuse (sexual, physical and neglect). And, as I said, even those were very rare. What was far more common was that the father would be granted supervised visitation. Only when that had failed, repeatedly, would the the step be taken to completely sever visitation. Personally, I don't think that's unfair to the father.


Quote:
Originally posted by Piglet68
...I guess it goes back to pug's point: what does the child need? Well, if it's just money, then for god's sakes let the government and society pitch in, rather than chase some bum all over the country trying to get blood out of stone...
I don't agree with this. Many, if not most, of the fathers I saw in court could pay child support, they were just choosing not to as a way to punish the child's mother. These men would tell the judge a very compelling story about financial hardship, then my client's lawyer would ask where they got the money for the new Jetski, etc. It was absolutely maddening to sit through these hearings.

I think we need a combination of greatly expanded government benefits for single parents and a greatly expanded committment to collecting child support. In fact, an idea I've often pondered is to give single parents benefits out of goverment funds and then make it the government's responsibility to be reimbursed. It seems like when it's "just" children getting screwed over, no one cares. But I bet the government would care in a big hurry if they were the one getting blown off by a non-custodial parent who can afford to pay.
pugmadmama is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#152 of 163 Old 04-01-2004, 03:15 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by merpk
...Remember, before submitting her for sainthood, that she is *not* a single mother (despite her current official legal marital status). She has a live-in partner for 20 years now, who considers himself the child's father. But still happily cashes our Friend's checks...And now certainly does not want her moral and emotional dysfunction in his (entirely functional and loving and AP) family's life...
Amy, I realize this person is your friend, but I feel like you are not reading what I am writing. I never, never, never said this woman was a saint or even that what she did was right. I said that your friend made mistakes and that he freely choose to create a child, so he is responsible for that child. Period.

Further, your sentence "And now certainly does not want her moral and emotional dysfunction in his (entirely functional and loving and AP) family's life" is incorrect. It is not the woman he is married that he is depriving of this, it is his own child. I think of that innocent child being deprived even a glimpse into this other way of life and for what? So that your friend can continue to feel victimized? I hope he does, it's certainly coming at a high enough price for this child.
pugmadmama is offline  
#153 of 163 Old 04-01-2004, 05:00 PM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
... by pugmadmama
... Further, your sentence "And now certainly does not want her moral and emotional dysfunction in his (entirely functional and loving and AP) family's life" is incorrect. It is not the woman he is married that he is depriving of this, it is his own child. I think of that innocent child being deprived even a glimpse into this other way of life and for what? So that your friend can continue to feel victimized? I hope he does, it's certainly coming at a high enough price for this child.




What is the child deprived of? She has a mother and a father living with her. She has health insurance. What purpose would Friend's participation in her life serve? The mother already gets a quarter of his salary. She has someone paying her living expenses (boyfriend) and someone paying her child's expenses (Friend) and now, what, Friend should provide free babysitting for her, too?

Not sure what you're suggesting here.

She chose to have this baby ... discovering she was pregnant *after* she walked out of Friend's life to return to her boyfriend. He had no choice in the matter. She had all the choice in the world.

He chose to make a baby with a wife. He didn't know she chose to make a baby and go back to her boyfriend. She left. He (thank G!d) found a wife to make babies with who intended to raise them with him. And they are raising them, the sweetest kids. Always good when two people who are making choices together are honest about what choices they've made. IYKWIM.

Why is his situation different (beyond the con-game aspect) than adoption? Is the adopted child paying a price for not being raised by the people who provided their DNA?

Sorry. I don't see why there is a problem with him not being in the child's life.

Can you imagine what these people think of each other? He feels humiliated by her, totally. He feels as if he were the victim of a crime. A felony, no less.

And she can only feel contempt for him, the sucker that he was, to get sucked into that situation. We heard her answering machine messages, telling him that he should leave her alone, she's with her lover, she's happy, and the other one telling him that she's pregnant, he'd better do the right thing. She evinced total contempt.

He has to subject himself ... *and the child* ... to this? What exactly is the child missing out on?













Yes, he's a close friend, and yes, I'm emotionally tied up in this. It opened my eyes to a lot of things, one of which is that men *can* be taken advantage of by women to an obscene degree. I really had not known this.

merpk is offline  
 
#154 of 163 Old 04-01-2004, 05:09 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by merpk
What is the child deprived of? She has a mother and a father living with her. She has health insurance. What purpose would Friend's participation in her life serve? ...He has to subject himself ... *and the child* ... to this? What exactly is the child missing out on?...
Your wrote that your friend, "And now certainly does not want her moral and emotional dysfunction in his (entirely functional and loving and AP) family's life...". So, by your words, your friend has left his child in a situation that can he describes as "moral and emotional dysfunction". Would you leave your child in that situation? I wouldn't. But your friend did. Why? You already said it, because he doesn't want to deal with the mother.

I know a lot of people who grew up in homes that were morally and emtionally dysfunctional. Many of them have shared with me that it was just one concerned adult (a grandparent, a religious leader, a non-custodial parent, etc.) who showed them that life doesn't have to be like that. That one person changed their entire life.

I'm glad your friend takes his financial responsibility to this child seriously. I wish he took his emotional, spiritual and ethical parenting responsibilities just as seriously.


Quote:
Originally posted by merpk
...Can you imagine what these people think of each other? He feels humiliated by her, totally. He feels as if he were the victim of a crime. A felony, no less...
There is a true victim in your friends story...the child. Maybe someday you're friend will mature past his hurt feelings and see that. I hope so, for both his sake and the child's sake.

Here's my fear for this child, and for your friend, what if that lying, mean, manipulative person is who this mother really is? My hope is that she is a good person who did one horrible act. But what if that's who she really is? And so, years down the road this child comes to your friend and says, "Thank you for the money, but where were you?" What is your friend going to say? "I thought your mother was a manipulative, lying, morally and emotionally dysfunctional woman. I, a grown man, could not deal with her so I left you, a defenseless child, entrusted completely to her care." How is that child going feel when she hears that? Or is he going to lie and say he thought she was in good care all along?

It's a very sad situation, all the way around. But, as I have said all along, my sympathy remains with this child.
pugmadmama is offline  
#155 of 163 Old 04-01-2004, 06:01 PM
 
Piglet68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada
Posts: 10,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by pugmadmama
In fact, an idea I've often pondered is to give single parents benefits out of goverment funds and then make it the government's responsibility to be reimbursed. It seems like when it's "just" children getting screwed over, no one cares. But I bet the government would care in a big hurry if they were the one getting blown off by a non-custodial parent who can afford to pay.
LOL. Now THAT is a great idea!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mama to DD14 and DS12, both born on MDC.
Piglet68 is offline  
#156 of 163 Old 04-01-2004, 07:26 PM
 
Snowy Owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: toronto beaches
Posts: 1,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Piglet68
LOL. Now THAT is a great idea!
I totally agree! single mothers should not have to go through courtroom hassles and personally trying to get money from the fathers. Imagine if the money was guaranteed them. Wow. That would change a lot of things.
Snowy Owl is offline  
#157 of 163 Old 04-01-2004, 07:52 PM
 
dado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Piglet68
LOL. Now THAT is a great idea!
totally, i've been suggesting something along those lines for years. all the momma should have to do is turn over the father's SSN to the feds: she collects the benefits directly from the state, and the state gets "reimbursed" by the IRS come tax time. or sooner, this could even work with regular withholding. this would be cheap, efficient, and virtually everything needed to implement this is already in place. wouldn't even need to get the legal system invovled, there could be a standard percentage of salary that the mother gets. and anybody on the receiving end could, of course, get out from under with a suitable DNA test result.

i suspect the reason such plans meet with resistance is because...well...they would work.
dado is offline  
#158 of 163 Old 04-01-2004, 09:37 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by dado
... and the state gets "reimbursed" by the IRS come tax time. or sooner, this could even work with regular withholding. this would be cheap, efficient, and virtually everything needed to implement this is already in place...
Oh, I love the reimbursing through taxes idea. Pure genius.

Quote:
Originally posted by dado
... i suspect the reason such plans meet with resistance is because...well...they would work.
Very good, and very sad, point.


Quote:
Originally posted by dado
...and anybody on the receiving end could, of course, get out from under with a suitable DNA test results...
I'm going to start another thread regarding DNA and child support...I hope some of you will check it out and give your input.
pugmadmama is offline  
#159 of 163 Old 04-01-2004, 09:57 PM
 
Shenjall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canada!
Posts: 3,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is such a great idea! Why dont we all write to our gov. officials with the idea? Maybe get a few signatures, some media, what do you all think?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Shenjall is offline  
#160 of 163 Old 04-01-2004, 10:16 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
There are things like this in place in some places already. As an example, when my sister was raising my niece on her own she applied to the state of CA for aid. (Do not know exactly which programs, sorry.) Her partner, nieces father had moved to IL and was not paying her any support. They took info on him from her. He was unemployed for a long time but when he got a job they garnished his wages in the dollar ammount that CA was paying my sister. At some point they finally had binding arbitration and set up a legal custody agreement (much delayed - since they were never married and never divorced it didn't become an issue until niece was old enough to start discussing visits) and an ammount was designated for support. At his request this continued to be processed as a payroll deduct.

Also, here in Hawai'i there was a good bit in the news the last year or so about a state run program that was supposed to collect child support and disperse it. Lots of money had gone missing, or was just sitting in accounts not getting to the kids it was supposed to, etc. Maybe I'm a bad liberal, but I'm not sure letting the gov handle it is neccesarily the best answer.
kama'aina mama is offline  
#161 of 163 Old 04-01-2004, 10:27 PM
 
Greaseball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 8,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
It would only work if single mothers were to be adequately provided for. As it stands now, they are given way, way less than what someone on the poverty line would make at a job, and if their partner does pay support the govt keeps it because now they expect the mother to reimburse them. Even if she finds a job later, she still has to pay back the govt.

I thought the govt was paid through tax dollars??? So if a former welfare recipient gets a job, why can't they just be satisfied with the fact that she is now a taxpayer? I sure don't intend to pay the government every time I use one of its services like a public park, police officer, etc. unless it's through taxes.

So if they were to give the mother a decent amount, and then just bill the father for some...that would be the way to go.
Greaseball is offline  
#162 of 163 Old 04-02-2004, 12:44 PM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
... by pugmadmama
... Would you leave your child in that situation? I wouldn't. But your friend did ... so [he] left you ...


My last post here.

pugmadmama, you are so so so so off base.

He never left anyone. He lives in the same exact apartment he was in when this woman left him. His presumed DNA means he is responsible for the child's financial assistance. Why does it mean he's responsible for a child who has two parents of her own?

So someone who puts sperm in a sperm bank is also responsible for the emotional well-being and functionality of the family that chooses to use his sperm to make a child?

You are so so so so off base here. Concern for the welfare of children is a fine thing. Ignoring the facts behind individual situations is entirely another.

Am done with this thread. Assuming you've started that DNA and child support thread, since this story is very appropriate there, will be happy to rehash this there.
merpk is offline  
#163 of 163 Old 04-02-2004, 04:38 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by merpk
...He never left anyone. He lives in the same exact apartment he was in when this woman left him. His presumed DNA means he is responsible for the child's financial assistance. Why does it mean he's responsible for a child who has two parents of her own?

So someone who puts sperm in a sperm bank is also responsible for the emotional well-being and functionality of the family that chooses to use his sperm to make a child?...
So now getting the woman you've married pregant is the same as depositing sperm at a sperm bank? And your friend is somehow trapped in his apartment and cannot get to his child ? I wonder how the children he is raising in his "AP, loving" home are going to feel about the him when they find out he left one of this other children to be raised by, in his own words, a manipulative, lying, morally and emotionally dysfunctional woman?

My sympathy remains with this child, more so the more I find out about your friend.
pugmadmama is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 8,312

7 members and 8,305 guests
gaidinsgirl , girlspn , jamesmorrow , joandsarah77 , NaturallyKait , scaramouche131
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.