Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Exposing Child Abuse

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-09-2014, 04:25 PM   #1
jpcusicksr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 20636 USA
Posts: 392
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Arrow "Child Support" is the biggest abuser.

I know that people love to jump onto individuals but the bigger problems come from the large political and institutional forms of abuse, and where it comes to children and families then nothing is more harmful then the mindless policy known as "Child Support" and also the Custody Laws.

Even though I agree with this link below - that is no where near far enough:
Baltimore Sun - Hurting Dads Hurting kids.

What the children really need is full access to both their parents, and yet the laws divide the families.

The very idea that an absent parent must pay the custodial parent is inhuman and unjust and absurd.

When one takes the child (custody) then that is very close to kidnapping, and the demand for payments as "Child Support" is the ransom money and extortion, or else the absent parent will never see their child(ren) again.

The fundamental concept of the "Child Support" is based on unjust ideals.

If I take away our child then you need to pay me - that is the inhuman law.
__________________
SIGNATURE:
Mr. Know-it-all, sir.
jpcusicksr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2014, 07:18 PM   #2
lyrag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 871
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

It is.

But what about the cases where the father/mother is a danger to the child and refuses to pay anything towards them, then what?

I think child support is important but the sexism needs to be cut out.
lyrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2014, 08:13 PM   #3
tamlinn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,901
Likes: 824 (482 Posts)
Default

A far bigger issue is the parents who walk away from their children and neither pay anything for their survival nor participate in their care. Plenty of custodial parents have to work two jobs and never get time with their kids.
tamlinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-09-2014, 01:29 AM   #4
absurddesign
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Outside of both the square and pyramid
Posts: 196
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post
I know that people love to jump onto individuals but the bigger problems come from the large political and institutional forms of abuse, and where it comes to children and families then nothing is more harmful then the mindless policy known as "Child Support" and also the Custody Laws.

Even though I agree with this link below - that is no where near far enough:
Baltimore Sun - Hurting Dads Hurting kids.

What the children really need is full access to both their parents, and yet the laws divide the families.

The very idea that an absent parent must pay the custodial parent is inhuman and unjust and absurd.

When one takes the child (custody) then that is very close to kidnapping, and the demand for payments as "Child Support" is the ransom money and extortion, or else the absent parent will never see their child(ren) again.

The fundamental concept of the "Child Support" is based on unjust ideals.

If I take away our child then you need to pay me - that is the inhuman law.
I agree. It's pure evil to do this a man. To do this to the father of your children is child abuse by proxy. I say that as both a woman and mother myself.
absurddesign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-09-2014, 04:19 AM   #5
tamlinn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,901
Likes: 824 (482 Posts)
Default

Why do you say men? Both my sisters have had to go to court when the fathers filed for full custody. It's very common now. And nearly all places do not tie visitation to child support not being paid. If a parent is denied visitation by the other parent, they should call the police because it is kidnapping.
tamlinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-09-2014, 04:27 AM   #6
absurddesign
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Outside of both the square and pyramid
Posts: 196
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
Why do you say men? Both my sisters have had to go to court when the fathers filed for full custody. It's very common now. And nearly all places do not tie visitation to child support not being paid. If a parent is denied visitation by the other parent, they should call the police because it is kidnapping.
Yes, you are correct - it does happen to mothers too. I also agree that denying visitation to other parent, be it the mother or father is kidnapping.
Of course there may be times it's justified when the child has been abused by the parent in question.
absurddesign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-09-2014, 05:24 PM   #7
jpcusicksr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 20636 USA
Posts: 392
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Exclamation Response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrag View Post
It is.

But what about the cases where the father/mother is a danger to the child and refuses to pay anything towards them, then what?
Then nothing.

That is when one is to be happy to be rid of them.

The idea that the Custodial parent is going to hunt down that abusive other parent just means that they are both abusers and that mentality is probably why the one is absent - and God have mercy of the children of two such parents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrag View Post
I think child support is important but the sexism needs to be cut out.
The so-called "sexism" is the after-effects of the age old policy of "Divide and Rule" which is created by the Child Support and Custody laws.

Laws that pit men against women and fathers against mothers and that is not sexism.


============================

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
A far bigger issue is the parents who walk away from their children and neither pay anything for their survival nor participate in their care. Plenty of custodial parents have to work two jobs and never get time with their kids.
That is misunderstanding the bigger picture.

The parents are pushed and pressured away from their children by the Child Support and Custody laws.

See an example HERE.

The parents can not even give up or surrender as the laws are ongoing.

The Custodial parents are just more victims of that evil system.
__________________
SIGNATURE:
Mr. Know-it-all, sir.
jpcusicksr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-09-2014, 07:04 PM   #8
noworldgovt
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 335
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post
I know that people love to jump onto individuals but the bigger problems come from the large political and institutional forms of abuse, and where it comes to children and families then nothing is more harmful then the mindless policy known as "Child Support" and also the Custody Laws.

Even though I agree with this link below - that is no where near far enough:
Baltimore Sun - Hurting Dads Hurting kids.

What the children really need is full access to both their parents, and yet the laws divide the families.

The very idea that an absent parent must pay the custodial parent is inhuman and unjust and absurd.

When one takes the child (custody) then that is very close to kidnapping, and the demand for payments as "Child Support" is the ransom money and extortion, or else the absent parent will never see their child(ren) again.

The fundamental concept of the "Child Support" is based on unjust ideals.

If I take away our child then you need to pay me - that is the inhuman law.
The really interesting part is that the same system/establishment that has systematically dismantled the nuclear heterosexual family as the primary vehicle for rearing of children through policies and propaganda since the 1960s, is also so adamant about "non-custodial" parents forking over moolah to the "custodial" parent. If children are raised in two biological parent families with both parents living and raising them together in the same dwelling unit (what used to be called marriage), these issues wouldn't exist.

Divorce and non-marital/non-cohabitational child bearing are the root of the problem but these are considered "good things" by the establishment that also demands "dead beats" fork over ca$h for kids they never get to see, or they are considered some sort of monsters.
noworldgovt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-09-2014, 08:47 PM   #9
tamlinn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,901
Likes: 824 (482 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noworldgovt View Post
The really interesting part is that the same system/establishment that has systematically dismantled the nuclear heterosexual family as the primary vehicle for rearing of children through policies and propaganda since the 1960s, is also so adamant about "non-custodial" parents forking over moolah to the "custodial" parent. If children are raised in two biological parent families with both parents living and raising them together in the same dwelling unit (what used to be called marriage), these issues wouldn't exist.

Divorce and non-marital/non-cohabitational child bearing are the root of the problem but these are considered "good things" by the establishment that also demands "dead beats" fork over ca$h for kids they never get to see, or they are considered some sort of monsters.
So are you suggesting that parents be forced to stay together? You do realize that often fathers walk out on their women and children quite voluntarily? Women are the ones who usually want a marriage and family situation the most. How do you compel the parents to stay together so there are no custody issues to begin with?
tamlinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-09-2014, 10:08 PM   #10
jpcusicksr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 20636 USA
Posts: 392
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Exclamation Follow up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
So are you suggesting that parents be forced to stay together? You do realize that often fathers walk out on their women and children quite voluntarily? Women are the ones who usually want a marriage and family situation the most. How do you compel the parents to stay together so there are no custody issues to begin with?
I realize this question was not directed at me, but I feel compelled to answer it.

What we have is huge society pressure onto couples to break up their families and to break up their marriages and as such it is very misinformed to blame the simple people who are being trampled under.

As like "adultery" was not intended to mean a married person as it means some outsider person who adulterates the marriage or adulterate the family unit, but as it is now the person married gets blamed and the only recourse is divorce and broken families while the outsider adulterer is treated as doing nothing wrong.

Take the example of President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, as the debased opinion wanted to impeach the President and expected Hillary to divorce her husband and for their child Chelsy to be separated from her father - while Lewinsky who knowingly violated the family and that marriage walks away as a celebrity.

That is a big example but there are million and millions of unsung examples of this same scenario where our society empowers the adulterers while punishing the family unit.

We have an entire Divorce Industry who get rich off of destroying families and destroying marriages, and yet the violated people get the blame and get the boot.

We do not need to compel the two parents to get together as they already have human compulsion to get together, and what we really do need is to STOP stop the orchestrated destruction of the families by the State laws.
__________________
SIGNATURE:
Mr. Know-it-all, sir.
jpcusicksr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-09-2014, 10:29 PM   #11
tamlinn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,901
Likes: 824 (482 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post
I realize this question was not directed at me, but I feel compelled to answer it.

What we have is huge society pressure onto couples to break up their families and to break up their marriages and as such it is very misinformed to blame the simple people who are being trampled under.

As like "adultery" was not intended to mean a married person as it means some outsider person who adulterates the marriage or adulterate the family unit, but as it is now the person married gets blamed and the only recourse is divorce and broken families while the outsider adulterer is treated as doing nothing wrong.

Take the example of President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, as the debased opinion wanted to impeach the President and expected Hillary to divorce her husband and for their child Chelsy to be separated from her father - while Lewinsky who knowingly violated the family and that marriage walks away as a celebrity.

That is a big example but there are million and millions of unsung examples of this same scenario where our society empowers the adulterers while punishing the family unit.

We have an entire Divorce Industry who get rich off of destroying families and destroying marriages, and yet the violated people get the blame and get the boot.

We do not need to compel the two parents to get together as they already have human compulsion to get together, and what we really do need is to STOP stop the orchestrated destruction of the families by the State laws.
Of course the married person should be blamed, they are the one who is breaking their marriage vows. The other person is not breaking any vows because they never made any to anyone although society most certainly does frown on them as well.
The marriage doesn't have to end, like in the case of the Clinton's, but, forgiving it does often lead to further violations of the marriage vows, just ask my mother. And knowing your partner is out having relations with others will change your feelings of love towards that person and can often change the one who is doing it as well. Try having sex with someone who you know is regularly joining up with someone else. Not very conducive to a happy marriage, maybe just a tolerable one at best.
tamlinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 12:27 PM   #12
lyrag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 871
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post
Then nothing.

That is when one is to be happy to be rid of them.

The idea that the Custodial parent is going to hunt down that abusive other parent just means that they are both abusers and that mentality is probably why the one is absent - and God have mercy of the children of two such parents.

I understand what you are getting at. But that to me is human rights gone bonkers.

The parent on the run is being passively abusive and neglectful to the child by
denying them resources.
Resources and/or care should be coming from both parents equally.

I know some of the mens rights activists are wanting the laws to change so that men can go around fertilizing as many women as possible and having no participation in the child's life what so ever. They arguing that its natural for men to behave in this way and any other set up is unnatural for men and so against their rights.
lyrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 02:51 PM   #13
wildhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a stable by a sacred spring
Posts: 5,257
Likes: 220 (114 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrag View Post
I understand what you are getting at. But that to me is human rights gone bonkers.

The parent on the run is being passively abusive and neglectful to the child by
denying them resources.
Resources and/or care should be coming from both parents equally.

I know some of the mens rights activists are wanting the laws to change so that men can go around fertilizing as many women as possible and having no participation in the child's life what so ever. They arguing that its natural for men to behave in this way and any other set up is unnatural for men and so against their rights.
ok, many NRPs (that covers both fathers and mothers who for whatever reason, do not have access to their children) are financially raped by the CSA. This is not just a fathers rights issue, it is across both genders.

They are a disgusting bunch of stealth taxers.

You say it is passively abusive towards the child by denying them resources. What if the NRP does not have their own resources to even care for themselves, let alone a child?

Did you know that rent, food, heating and travel to work costs are classed as NON ESSENTIALS in the eyes of the CSA? So say I got £1000.00 pm after tax. Then take 15% from that (for one child that is), you would be left with £850.00.

rent at least £450-500 for bog standard hovel
and of course minus:
council tax
heating
food
water
electric
car insurance/car/petrol/MOT/tax etc or bus fares to get to work...

can you see where this is going?...

many NRPS are not able to meet the CSA demands. They are forced from work, by being sacked or unable to get there, they live a life of entrapment, and depression, and still are denied contact with their children. For those who can manage it, they can hardly afford to care for their child when/if the child does stay, due to the demands of CSA and PWC.

Also their standard of living is always the same basic low level standard, because the more you earn the more you have taken from you, which is ridiculous because a persons work is their work, not the PWCs, and as long a child is being fed and clothed, then all this extra is only there to maintain the PWCs lifestyle, to which they are not entitled to because they are no longer with the NRP. I wont even get into he left/she left argument, because it doesnt matter...what matters is a fairer system for all where children get to see the NRP, if possible. If not, you know what...thats life...get over it, and focus on you and your child.

Children are NOT pay per view. They are children, who just want to see their other parent.

And I would like to point out that those PWC that state loudly that both parents should pay and contribute towards their children, I agree, but are these the same PWC that take no benefits from the state?

I mean, if you hold that view, why the fuck should the state, with my taxes, give you money to help bring up your children?

I mean that as food for thought, because an NRP who works, pays taxes, which pay the benefits (ctc/wtc/cb etc etc) of the PWC, so in effect, the NRP is already supporting their child(ren)

I personally have no problem my taxes going towards those in need. But going towards those who have no moral compass when it comes to the CSA, and would happily see someone and their new family worse off and in poverty, so they can live their own lifestyle, yeah that needs questioning.

Did you know the CSA will take the NRPs new partners WTC for their own or new joint children, into consideration as 'total income' in their assessments, so that the new child(ren) will go without for favour of the CSA golden cash cow?

I shall explain, lets say NRP meets new spouse. This new spouse has a child of their own and gets WTC for that child. The new spouse has nothing whatsoever to do with PWC, nor has their child. But the CSA will use the wtc that is paid to the new spouse for their own child as income.

You think thats right? Another unrelated child suffering because of the PWC 'right' for child support.

And its not even fairly done either. For one child, a NRP must give 15% of their net wages to the PWC. Now if NRP has another child in new family, you think that child would negate this 15% because all children are equal. NO.

NRP would get a 5% discount because they have another child. If they have more new children, its something even more insulting of a percentage.

How can anyone support this shit?

I speak as a mother who didnt get help from either fathers of my two children (I didnt use CSA only to blag them when they bullied me, but I gave incorrect info) and then my youngest's father gained custody and put CSA onto me but not let me see her, so I couldnt bond or know her growing up, but I couldnt find work above 16hrs (even if market could let me work) either so I couldnt move on in my life from the pain. He and the CSA were keeping me down, I couldnt even hope for a full time factory job because I couldnt afford to live with the CSA taking what they would.

I nearly topped myself. Seriously.

But hey, ex had his cans of lager and loved seeing me down and daughter now thinks I hate her etc etc

I did find a job and I know that if he contacts CSA again, its all over. Simple as that.

Last edited by wildhorse; 30-09-2014 at 02:55 PM.
wildhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 03:52 PM   #14
tamlinn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,901
Likes: 824 (482 Posts)
Default

I think this is a difficult issue to debate on here because family law is different in each country. The OP is discussing it from an American point of view, which is far different from here, for example.

I have an income of $24000/yr and I support myself and 3 children on this, who are not small children and eat adult amounts. I also do 100% of the things involved for their care. Just as an example, if my ex had an income of $24000 as well, putting exactly zero effort time and care into them, their monthly child support would be $445. Now in my opinion, this is a far from unreasonable amount of money for the support of three children, considering how much it costs me to support the children, which is probably over three times the amount.

Personally, I have never received one penny of money, actually it was the reverse. Never asked either. But bowing out of this debate because it is impossible to discuss how unreasonable child support is when family law varies in each country. Visitation is a separate issue as well; it cannot be with held due to a parent not receiving child support, in fact, all payments go through a government agency and have nothing to do with the CP.
tamlinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 05:45 PM   #15
elenita
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 246 (137 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post
ok, many NRPs (that covers both fathers and mothers who for whatever reason, do not have access to their children) are financially raped by the CSA. This is not just a fathers rights issue, it is across both genders.

They are a disgusting bunch of stealth taxers.

You say it is passively abusive towards the child by denying them resources. What if the NRP does not have their own resources to even care for themselves, let alone a child? ...

How can anyone support this shit?

I speak as a mother who didnt get help from either fathers of my two children (I didnt use CSA only to blag them when they bullied me, but I gave incorrect info) and then my youngest's father gained custody and put CSA onto me but not let me see her, so I couldnt bond or know her growing up, but I couldnt find work above 16hrs (even if market could let me work) either so I couldnt move on in my life from the pain. He and the CSA were keeping me down, I couldnt even hope for a full time factory job because I couldnt afford to live with the CSA taking what they would.

I nearly topped myself. Seriously.

But hey, ex had his cans of lager and loved seeing me down and daughter now thinks I hate her etc etc

I did find a job and I know that if he contacts CSA again, its all over. Simple as that.
I am sorry this happened to you, and to the others. Seen it happen to my brother too, and couldn't wait for my nephew to grow up so the pain would be over. The system delights in tormenting the absent parent, in the vast majority not absent by choice. Unfortunately people who don't know close to them who have gone through this don't even believe this happens, and cannot imagine the pain and frustration.

Also what people seem not to realise is that although yes, the parent with custody has to physically maintain the children, her/his roof etc is guaranteed because the children's housing is guaranteed. So when they complain of not having spare money, at least they have all their necessities met and begrudge the ex anything s/he has. And extremely often they stop the parent from seeing the kids whenever possible. Unbelievable - you think they'd like an evening off! However the mother in law is usually lurking to help destroy the chances of a peaceful relationship.

Last edited by elenita; 30-09-2014 at 05:46 PM.
elenita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 05:56 PM   #16
wildhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a stable by a sacred spring
Posts: 5,257
Likes: 220 (114 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
Of course the married person should be blamed, they are the one who is breaking their marriage vows. The other person is not breaking any vows because they never made any to anyone although society most certainly does frown on them as well.
The marriage doesn't have to end, like in the case of the Clinton's, but, forgiving it does often lead to further violations of the marriage vows, just ask my mother. And knowing your partner is out having relations with others will change your feelings of love towards that person and can often change the one who is doing it as well. Try having sex with someone who you know is regularly joining up with someone else. Not very conducive to a happy marriage, maybe just a tolerable one at best.
no-one should have to stick with an unfaithful partner...life is too short. Ive tried, and stuck around hoping Id get over it and forgive them...didnt work. And it blew up spectacularly at the end. Its just not worth it.

As for the system over in UK, yes its dire. Theres no assessing each case individually.
wildhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 06:13 PM   #17
wildhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a stable by a sacred spring
Posts: 5,257
Likes: 220 (114 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elenita View Post
I am sorry this happened to you, and to the others. Seen it happen to my brother too, and couldn't wait for my nephew to grow up so the pain would be over. The system delights in tormenting the absent parent, in the vast majority not absent by choice. Unfortunately people who don't know close to them who have gone through this don't even believe this happens, and cannot imagine the pain and frustration.

Also what people seem not to realise is that although yes, the parent with custody has to physically maintain the children, her/his roof etc is guaranteed because the children's housing is guaranteed. So when they complain of not having spare money, at least they have all their necessities met and begrudge the ex anything s/he has. And extremely often they stop the parent from seeing the kids whenever possible. Unbelievable - you think they'd like an evening off! However the mother in law is usually lurking to help destroy the chances of a peaceful relationship.
I am sorry your brother is going through this. It is so sad to hear of other cases. You are right however, the PWC will get their house and all benefits AND the child maintenance ontop of all their benefits. Its immense, and yet the NRP is left to exist like they are in the third world. If they cant work, they get shit off CSA and the jobcentre and the two will not agree that their system is at the root of all this.

To have a system where it pays more to stop your child seeing their other parent...its greed powered by vindictiveness. I despise this attitude of game playing using children.

If the NRP is abusive, fair enough, I can understand this, but that just gets bandied round at times (making the genuine more serious cases be doubted)

I had a mate who gave his child everything he could, and then some. Got her a 400 quid mountain bike that was worth 2k and stuff like that. He saw her every other weekend and wanted her more often but she was unable to get bus to college from his home. Well, his ex saw he bought a new bike, he works 12 hr days for a pittance so splashed out on a classic and put it on his visa...not the best idea, but seeing this 6ft4 giant on a little old bike was pure comedy gold

His ex saw it on facebook, and shopped him to the CSA. In fairness, I knew she was hankering after doing so because she was previously giving him demanding letters wanting £100 here and £200 there but not arranging for him to have her in the holidays.

Spite has many daggers. Now his daughter is the one to suffer because he cannot give her what he used to (ie food and treats etc) His life was pretty dire and I was saddened to see him 'go down'

Send my regards to your brother, and send him to google and type in csa hell :luv:
wildhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 06:20 PM   #18
wildhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a stable by a sacred spring
Posts: 5,257
Likes: 220 (114 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
I think this is a difficult issue to debate on here because family law is different in each country. The OP is discussing it from an American point of view, which is far different from here, for example.

I have an income of $24000/yr and I support myself and 3 children on this, who are not small children and eat adult amounts. I also do 100% of the things involved for their care. Just as an example, if my ex had an income of $24000 as well, putting exactly zero effort time and care into them, their monthly child support would be $445. Now in my opinion, this is a far from unreasonable amount of money for the support of three children, considering how much it costs me to support the children, which is probably over three times the amount.

Personally, I have never received one penny of money, actually it was the reverse. Never asked either. But bowing out of this debate because it is impossible to discuss how unreasonable child support is when family law varies in each country. Visitation is a separate issue as well; it cannot be with held due to a parent not receiving child support, in fact, all payments go through a government agency and have nothing to do with the CP.
tamlin I understand your position, as been there myself. The issue I have is with those who use the system to abuse the non resident parent, out of personal vendetta, which then affects the child negatively, both in way of life and emotionally.

The parents with care that try to be fair, and who are, have my admiration and support.
wildhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 06:59 PM   #19
jpcusicksr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 20636 USA
Posts: 392
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Exclamation Response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
I think this is a difficult issue to debate on here because family law is different in each country. The OP is discussing it from an American point of view, which is far different from here, for example.

I have an income of $24000/yr and I support myself and 3 children on this, who are not small children and eat adult amounts. I also do 100% of the things involved for their care. Just as an example, if my ex had an income of $24000 as well, putting exactly zero effort time and care into them, their monthly child support would be $445. Now in my opinion, this is a far from unreasonable amount of money for the support of three children, considering how much it costs me to support the children, which is probably over three times the amount.

Personally, I have never received one penny of money, actually it was the reverse. Never asked either.
But bowing out of this debate because it is impossible to discuss how unreasonable child support is when family law varies in each country. Visitation is a separate issue as well; it cannot be with held due to a parent not receiving child support, in fact, all payments go through a government agency and have nothing to do with the CP.
You are misunderstanding my point and my topic here, in that I am not trying to discuss the ways any Child Support or Custody laws get applied - no, what I am saying is that the very fundamental concept of the Child Support and Custody laws are evil and inhuman.

It does not matter if the UK does it better or that the USA does it worse, or if it is different in Chine or Russia or in Outer Mongolia - the point remains that the Child Support and Custody laws are inhuman and evil.

Those laws hurt families and hurt children and hurt society and there is no right way to enforce such wrong things.


===

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
Of course the married person should be blamed, they are the one who is breaking their marriage vows. The other person is not breaking any vows because they never made any to anyone although society most certainly does frown on them as well.
The marriage doesn't have to end, like in the case of the Clinton's, but, forgiving it does often lead to further violations of the marriage vows, just ask my mother. And knowing your partner is out having relations with others will change your feelings of love towards that person and can often change the one who is doing it as well. Try having sex with someone who you know is regularly joining up with someone else. Not very conducive to a happy marriage, maybe just a tolerable one at best.
You are saying that from a subordinate perspective, and it is the BIGGER picture which needs to be addressed.

If any society or any government want to promote marriages and promote families THEN the laws must be created in such a way as to protect and defend the marriages and the families from any and all dangers.

The person doing adultery is the person outside of the marriage and they are the one(s) doing the damage to society and therefore that is the crime.

Both a wife or husband can feel much better in their marriage if the outside person who adulterated their family is punished by the law and that needs to be the government's true interest.

As it is now an adulterer can run around bragging about the conquest and seek out new families to violate and to destroy and that is both the crime and the criminal.
__________________
SIGNATURE:
Mr. Know-it-all, sir.
jpcusicksr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 07:19 PM   #20
tamlinn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,901
Likes: 824 (482 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post
You are misunderstanding my point and my topic here, in that I am not trying to discuss the ways any Child Support or Custody laws get applied - no, what I am saying is that the very fundamental concept of the Child Support and Custody laws are evil and inhuman.

It does not matter if the UK does it better or that the USA does it worse, or if it is different in Chine or Russia or in Outer Mongolia - the point remains that the Child Support and Custody laws are inhuman and evil.

Those laws hurt families and hurt children and hurt society and there is no right way to enforce such wrong things.


===


You are saying that from a subordinate perspective, and it is the BIGGER picture which needs to be addressed.

If any society or any government want to promote marriages and promote families THEN the laws must be created in such a way as to protect and defend the marriages and the families from any and all dangers.

The person doing adultery is the person outside of the marriage and they are the one(s) doing the damage to society and therefore that is the crime.

Both a wife or husband can feel much better in their marriage if the outside person who adulterated their family is punished by the law and that needs to be the government's true interest.

As it is now an adulterer can run around bragging about the conquest and seek out new families to violate and to destroy and that is both the crime and the criminal.
So you are suggesting that we jail anyone who has sex with a married person. Well good luck with that is all I have to say.
tamlinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
child, child support, crime, injustice, parent

Thread Tools

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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:46 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.