End Default custody to women!

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be just as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is awarded 100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to be changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent responsible for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163AF936A15754C0A961958260
http://www.nowpublic.com/money/father-kills-his-children-government-culpable
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/15745572/detail.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13705845/

This man claimed his autistic child was a burden
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t67417.html

And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer

http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-wife-suffer.html

Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.

Chris

2008-12-13 20:18:41 UTC

l***@gmail.com

2008-12-13 23:51:50 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...http://www.nowpublic.com/money/father-kills-his-children-government-c...http://www.wbaltv.com/news/15745572/detail.htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13705845/
This man claimed his autistic child was a burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy. For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920. Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.

t***@gmail.com

2008-12-14 00:32:55 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

Only a little over 400! You should be thanked for spending your
energies on such a small audience. Though I suppose such consistent
dedication is its own reward.

Chris

2008-12-14 05:46:50 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...http://www.nowpublic.com/money/father-kills-his-children-government-c...http://www.wbaltv.com/news/15745572/detail.htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13705845/
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.

****************

And you'd guess incorrectly.

**************

For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.

****************

No I don't.

**************

Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.

******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.

*****************

It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.

********************

Would you clarify "all this wrong"?

l***@gmail.com

2008-12-14 18:22:41 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

2008-12-14 18:34:52 UTC

<***@gmail.com> wrote in

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Do you ever hear from the Vet Affairs crowd?
Do you care about their issues?

Ever hear of cancer, it's rare to hear anything about the thousands that
dies every year from it.

l***@gmail.com

2008-12-20 21:04:04 UTC

Post by l***@gmail.com
Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Do you ever hear from the Vet Affairs crowd?
Do you care about their issues?

I haven't checked them out as of yet, but I completely support
veterans, and I feel they are entitled to a lot more benifits than
they will ever get, but that's because most of the men in my family
have been carrear military.

Post by l***@gmail.com
Ever hear of cancer, it's rare to hear anything about the thousands that
dies every year from it.

Actually, you do hear about the thousands that die from cancer every
year, and all types of cancer. What would your point be about these
things, and why would they be pertinant to this issue at hand?

t***@gmail.com

2008-12-14 21:23:09 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You could try searching for the proof yourself. Use some of that
energy you waste on posting to a group of only a little more than 400
subscribers.

Post by l***@gmail.com
of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.

l***@gmail.com

2008-12-20 21:04:24 UTC

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be just as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is awarded 100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent responsible
for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You could try searching for the proof yourself. Use some of that
energy you waste on posting to a group of only a little more than 400
subscribers.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

But the burden of proof rests with you.

Chris

2008-12-14 23:32:08 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Bob W

2008-12-15 01:22:06 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.

======

Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.

Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it is not
unusual.

Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex was
excused from those same standards.

Chris

2008-12-15 15:34:46 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that
is just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the
system, the response is we are not being specific. If men talk
collectively about how men are treated, the response is we are whiners.
If men mention how they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people
who have not been through the system, the response is we are exaggerating
or we had a bad attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts
wouldn't be that unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this
group we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it
is not unusual.

As a friend of mine puts it: "the screwin' ya get for the screwin' ya got".

Post by l***@gmail.com
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my
gross income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live
on. I have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I
actually made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally
while my ex was excused from those same standards.

l***@gmail.com

2008-12-20 21:09:02 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it is not
unusual.
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex was
excused from those same standards.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Bob W

2008-12-21 01:29:09 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that
is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it is not
unusual.
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my
gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex
was
excused from those same standards.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then I can see where you are upset, but it is not the same with all
cases. There are so many cases that do not get enforced because the
NCP can not be found, or they quit a job when child support garnishes
a payment. It's possible that those cases that are hard to enforce
would be the reason those who pay get screwed. Would it not be fair to
say that the NCP's that take NO responsibility for thier children are
the reason that NCP's who do right get the shaft, and that the custody
go to mothers most of the time be because of those that abandon thier
responsibilities..
I'm not sayng the system is 100%, but where so many do not comply, the
few that do get the harsh end of the stick.

======
Don't overlook the politics of CSE. Sure it sounds bad that $107.2 billion
in CS arrearage is on the books. What the feds tell you in the "fine print"
(which you have to look for) is the $107.2 billion is the total CS
arrearages for all years from the mid-80's until today with interest and
penalties added into the total. They also don't make a big deal about
noting some of the obligors are deceased, incarcerated, non-resident foreign
nationals, never found fathers, fathers who could have had an order against
them, and various other categories of uncollectable obligors. Another way
of looking at these numbers is to say the size of the CS arrearage is a
clear indication the federal CS enforcement laws are a failure. The
political game is to exaggerate the arrearage amount to continue to justify
the $5 billion budget they asked for from congress.

Kenneth S.

2008-12-21 15:34:10 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that
is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it is not
unusual.
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my
gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex
was
excused from those same standards.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then I can see where you are upset, but it is not the same with all
cases. There are so many cases that do not get enforced because the
NCP can not be found, or they quit a job when child support garnishes
a payment. It's possible that those cases that are hard to enforce
would be the reason those who pay get screwed. Would it not be fair to
say that the NCP's that take NO responsibility for thier children are
the reason that NCP's who do right get the shaft, and that the custody
go to mothers most of the time be because of those that abandon thier
responsibilities..
I'm not sayng the system is 100%, but where so many do not comply, the
few that do get the harsh end of the stick.
======
Don't overlook the politics of CSE. Sure it sounds bad that $107.2 billion
in CS arrearage is on the books. What the feds tell you in the "fine print"
(which you have to look for) is the $107.2 billion is the total CS
arrearages for all years from the mid-80's until today with interest and
penalties added into the total. They also don't make a big deal about
noting some of the obligors are deceased, incarcerated, non-resident foreign
nationals, never found fathers, fathers who could have had an order against
them, and various other categories of uncollectable obligors. Another way
of looking at these numbers is to say the size of the CS arrearage is a
clear indication the federal CS enforcement laws are a failure. The
political game is to exaggerate the arrearage amount to continue to justify
the $5 billion budget they asked for from congress.

The other element that the "child support" enforcement
bureaucrats usually fail to acknowledge is the one-way flow of this
money. I have never seen in any of these reports any reference to the
fact that, overwhelmingly, this is money that men are supposed to be
paying women. Instead, the reports go to great lengths to try to
conceal this reality, e.g. by the using the term "noncustodial
parents," instead of "fathers," and "custodial parents" instead of
"mothers." The bureaucrats like to talk about the money being owed to
children, although they know full well that it's NOT owed to children;
it's owed to mothers.

A very important part of the politics of CSE should never be
overlooked. The whole system is grotesquely distorted to favor
mothers. If any similar distortion were occurring in any other field
(e.g. race) we would at least be hearing about it. It is very likely
that significant measures would be taken to correct the distortion.
But nothing is done in the field of "child support."

Bob W

2008-12-21 18:08:19 UTC

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be just as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is
awarded
100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to
be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent responsible
for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that
is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it is not
unusual.
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my
gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex
was
excused from those same standards.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then I can see where you are upset, but it is not the same with all
cases. There are so many cases that do not get enforced because the
NCP can not be found, or they quit a job when child support garnishes
a payment. It's possible that those cases that are hard to enforce
would be the reason those who pay get screwed. Would it not be fair to
say that the NCP's that take NO responsibility for thier children are
the reason that NCP's who do right get the shaft, and that the custody
go to mothers most of the time be because of those that abandon thier
responsibilities..
I'm not sayng the system is 100%, but where so many do not comply, the
few that do get the harsh end of the stick.
======
Don't overlook the politics of CSE. Sure it sounds bad that $107.2 billion
in CS arrearage is on the books. What the feds tell you in the "fine print"
(which you have to look for) is the $107.2 billion is the total CS
arrearages for all years from the mid-80's until today with interest and
penalties added into the total. They also don't make a big deal about
noting some of the obligors are deceased, incarcerated, non-resident foreign
nationals, never found fathers, fathers who could have had an order against
them, and various other categories of uncollectable obligors. Another way
of looking at these numbers is to say the size of the CS arrearage is a
clear indication the federal CS enforcement laws are a failure. The
political game is to exaggerate the arrearage amount to continue to justify
the $5 billion budget they asked for from congress.

The other element that the "child support" enforcement
bureaucrats usually fail to acknowledge is the one-way flow of this
money. I have never seen in any of these reports any reference to the
fact that, overwhelmingly, this is money that men are supposed to be
paying women. Instead, the reports go to great lengths to try to
conceal this reality, e.g. by the using the term "noncustodial
parents," instead of "fathers," and "custodial parents" instead of
"mothers." The bureaucrats like to talk about the money being owed to
children, although they know full well that it's NOT owed to children;
it's owed to mothers.
A very important part of the politics of CSE should never be
overlooked. The whole system is grotesquely distorted to favor
mothers. If any similar distortion were occurring in any other field
(e.g. race) we would at least be hearing about it. It is very likely
that significant measures would be taken to correct the distortion.
But nothing is done in the field of "child support."

A couple of years ago I inquired of the statistician who puts together the
Census Bureau's annual CS report why they no loner reported on the
demographics of CS obligees. The response was the Federal OCSE was their
source for CS obligor/obligee demographics and that agency no longer
compiled the information.

I can only speculate, but it seems the demographic imbalance was getting so
great they decided to stop reporting the "bad news".

The last time I saw the numbers, the Federal OCSE statistics on CS
recipients reported by the Census Bureau were: 85% mothers, 8% fathers, and
7% other relatives which were defined as grandparents, aunts and uncles,
brothers and sisters, etc.

Kenneth S.

2008-12-21 19:15:48 UTC

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be just as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is
awarded
100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to
be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent responsible
for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that
is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it is not
unusual.
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my
gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex
was
excused from those same standards.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then I can see where you are upset, but it is not the same with all
cases. There are so many cases that do not get enforced because the
NCP can not be found, or they quit a job when child support garnishes
a payment. It's possible that those cases that are hard to enforce
would be the reason those who pay get screwed. Would it not be fair to
say that the NCP's that take NO responsibility for thier children are
the reason that NCP's who do right get the shaft, and that the custody
go to mothers most of the time be because of those that abandon thier
responsibilities..
I'm not sayng the system is 100%, but where so many do not comply, the
few that do get the harsh end of the stick.
======
Don't overlook the politics of CSE. Sure it sounds bad that $107.2 billion
in CS arrearage is on the books. What the feds tell you in the "fine print"
(which you have to look for) is the $107.2 billion is the total CS
arrearages for all years from the mid-80's until today with interest and
penalties added into the total. They also don't make a big deal about
noting some of the obligors are deceased, incarcerated, non-resident foreign
nationals, never found fathers, fathers who could have had an order against
them, and various other categories of uncollectable obligors. Another way
of looking at these numbers is to say the size of the CS arrearage is a
clear indication the federal CS enforcement laws are a failure. The
political game is to exaggerate the arrearage amount to continue to justify
the $5 billion budget they asked for from congress.

The other element that the "child support" enforcement
bureaucrats usually fail to acknowledge is the one-way flow of this
money. I have never seen in any of these reports any reference to the
fact that, overwhelmingly, this is money that men are supposed to be
paying women. Instead, the reports go to great lengths to try to
conceal this reality, e.g. by the using the term "noncustodial
parents," instead of "fathers," and "custodial parents" instead of
"mothers." The bureaucrats like to talk about the money being owed to
children, although they know full well that it's NOT owed to children;
it's owed to mothers.
A very important part of the politics of CSE should never be
overlooked. The whole system is grotesquely distorted to favor
mothers. If any similar distortion were occurring in any other field
(e.g. race) we would at least be hearing about it. It is very likely
that significant measures would be taken to correct the distortion.
But nothing is done in the field of "child support."

A couple of years ago I inquired of the statistician who puts together the
Census Bureau's annual CS report why they no loner reported on the
demographics of CS obligees. The response was the Federal OCSE was their
source for CS obligor/obligee demographics and that agency no longer
compiled the information.
I can only speculate, but it seems the demographic imbalance was getting so
great they decided to stop reporting the "bad news".
The last time I saw the numbers, the Federal OCSE statistics on CS
recipients reported by the Census Bureau were: 85% mothers, 8% fathers, and
7% other relatives which were defined as grandparents, aunts and uncles,
brothers and sisters, etc.

Several years ago, in this very news group, I half-jokingly
suggested that, if a state child support agency could ever find a
mother who was paying CS to the father of her children, they should
put up a statue to her in front of their offices. It would be very
helpful in their ongoing attempts to conceal the way the system is so
grossly discriminatory against men.

My suggestion followed the adoption in my own state of a rule
enabling the CS enforcement agency to withdraw the drivers'
licenses of those who were behind on their CS payments. The
then-director of the state CS agency was a great believer in
manipulating the media, which of course is kept ignorant of the basic
realities of the system. There was a blaze of publicity for the first
case where a driver's license was taken away, because it was A WOMAN
who was losing her license.

No one explained, and apparently the reporters didn't ask, who
this woman was supposed to be paying. I'll bet it wasn't the father,
but was some other relative who had custody, or the child was in
foster care.

l***@gmail.com

2008-12-21 20:41:06 UTC

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be just as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is awarded 100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent responsible
for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that
is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it is not
unusual.
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my
gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex
was
excused from those same standards.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then I can see where you are upset, but it is not the same with all
cases. There are so many cases that do not get enforced because the
NCP can not be found, or they quit a job when child support garnishes
a payment. It's possible that those cases that are hard to enforce
would be the reason those who pay get screwed. Would it not be fair to
say that the NCP's that take NO responsibility for thier children are
the reason that NCP's who do right get the shaft, and that the custody
go to mothers most of the time be because of those that abandon thier
responsibilities..
I'm not sayng the system is 100%, but where so many do not comply, the
few that do get the harsh end of the stick.
======
Don't overlook the politics of CSE. Sure it sounds bad that $107.2 billion
in CS arrearage is on the books. What the feds tell you in the "fine print"
(which you have to look for) is the $107.2 billion is the total CS
arrearages for all years from the mid-80's until today with interest and
penalties added into the total. They also don't make a big deal about
noting some of the obligors are deceased, incarcerated, non-resident foreign
nationals, never found fathers, fathers who could have had an order against
them, and various other categories of uncollectable obligors. Another way
of looking at these numbers is to say the size of the CS arrearage is a
clear indication the federal CS enforcement laws are a failure. The
political game is to exaggerate the arrearage amount to continue to justify
the $5 billion budget they asked for from congress.

The other element that the "child support" enforcement
bureaucrats usually fail to acknowledge is the one-way flow of this
money. I have never seen in any of these reports any reference to the
fact that, overwhelmingly, this is money that men are supposed to be
paying women. Instead, the reports go to great lengths to try to
conceal this reality, e.g. by the using the term "noncustodial
parents," instead of "fathers," and "custodial parents" instead of
"mothers." The bureaucrats like to talk about the money being owed to
children, although they know full well that it's NOT owed to children;
it's owed to mothers.
A very important part of the politics of CSE should never be
overlooked. The whole system is grotesquely distorted to favor
mothers. If any similar distortion were occurring in any other field
(e.g. race) we would at least be hearing about it. It is very likely
that significant measures would be taken to correct the distortion.
But nothing is done in the field of "child support."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I don't know if the system favors the mother. I know that it favors
the CP, and that could be the mother or the father. To refer to all
fathers as a NCP is wrong, because not all are NCP's, and not all
mothers are CP's. I guess it boils down to who has the baddest lawyer
when in the divorce proceedings, rather than who the better candidate
for CP is.

Kenneth S.

2008-12-21 23:17:55 UTC

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be just as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is awarded
100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent responsible
for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that
is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it is not
unusual.
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my
gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex
was
excused from those same standards.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then I can see where you are upset, but it is not the same with all
cases. There are so many cases that do not get enforced because the
NCP can not be found, or they quit a job when child support garnishes
a payment. It's possible that those cases that are hard to enforce
would be the reason those who pay get screwed. Would it not be fair to
say that the NCP's that take NO responsibility for thier children are
the reason that NCP's who do right get the shaft, and that the custody
go to mothers most of the time be because of those that abandon thier
responsibilities..
I'm not sayng the system is 100%, but where so many do not comply, the
few that do get the harsh end of the stick.
======
Don't overlook the politics of CSE. Sure it sounds bad that $107.2 billion
in CS arrearage is on the books. What the feds tell you in the "fine print"
(which you have to look for) is the $107.2 billion is the total CS
arrearages for all years from the mid-80's until today with interest and
penalties added into the total. They also don't make a big deal about
noting some of the obligors are deceased, incarcerated, non-resident foreign
nationals, never found fathers, fathers who could have had an order against
them, and various other categories of uncollectable obligors. Another way
of looking at these numbers is to say the size of the CS arrearage is a
clear indication the federal CS enforcement laws are a failure. The
political game is to exaggerate the arrearage amount to continue to justify
the $5 billion budget they asked for from congress.

The other element that the "child support" enforcement
bureaucrats usually fail to acknowledge is the one-way flow of this
money. I have never seen in any of these reports any reference to the
fact that, overwhelmingly, this is money that men are supposed to be
paying women. Instead, the reports go to great lengths to try to
conceal this reality, e.g. by the using the term "noncustodial
parents," instead of "fathers," and "custodial parents" instead of
"mothers." The bureaucrats like to talk about the money being owed to
children, although they know full well that it's NOT owed to children;
it's owed to mothers.
A very important part of the politics of CSE should never be
overlooked. The whole system is grotesquely distorted to favor
mothers. If any similar distortion were occurring in any other field
(e.g. race) we would at least be hearing about it. It is very likely
that significant measures would be taken to correct the distortion.
But nothing is done in the field of "child support."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That's utter nonsense -- and is, I'm sorry to say, very
characteristic of this poster, who seems to be driven by ideology,
rather than any knowledge of the realities of the situation.

The statistics clearly indicate that, where custody is
contested. fathers in the U.S. have virtually no chance of winning.
Custody fights are "fights" in the same sense that bullfights are
"fights" -- in other words, there's very little doubt about which
party is going to win. As a practical matter, custody is decided by
mothers. If they want it, they get it.

If there were any significant number of cases where mothers
were paying "child support" to fathers, the CS system would be
COMPLETELY different. But then if mothers ever had to PAY CS, rather
than receiving it, that in itself would indicate that the system had
already changed completely.

Chris

2008-12-23 07:06:31 UTC

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be
just
as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is
awarded
100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent responsible
for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that
is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it is not
unusual.
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my
gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex
was
excused from those same standards.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then I can see where you are upset, but it is not the same with all
cases. There are so many cases that do not get enforced because the
NCP can not be found, or they quit a job when child support garnishes
a payment. It's possible that those cases that are hard to enforce
would be the reason those who pay get screwed. Would it not be fair to
say that the NCP's that take NO responsibility for thier children are
the reason that NCP's who do right get the shaft, and that the custody
go to mothers most of the time be because of those that abandon thier
responsibilities..
I'm not sayng the system is 100%, but where so many do not comply, the
few that do get the harsh end of the stick.
======
Don't overlook the politics of CSE. Sure it sounds bad that $107.2
billion
in CS arrearage is on the books. What the feds tell you in the "fine
print"
(which you have to look for) is the $107.2 billion is the total CS
arrearages for all years from the mid-80's until today with interest and
penalties added into the total. They also don't make a big deal about
noting some of the obligors are deceased, incarcerated, non-resident foreign
nationals, never found fathers, fathers who could have had an order against
them, and various other categories of uncollectable obligors. Another way
of looking at these numbers is to say the size of the CS arrearage is a
clear indication the federal CS enforcement laws are a failure. The
political game is to exaggerate the arrearage amount to continue to justify
the $5 billion budget they asked for from congress.

The other element that the "child support" enforcement
bureaucrats usually fail to acknowledge is the one-way flow of this
money. I have never seen in any of these reports any reference to the
fact that, overwhelmingly, this is money that men are supposed to be
paying women. Instead, the reports go to great lengths to try to
conceal this reality, e.g. by the using the term "noncustodial
parents," instead of "fathers," and "custodial parents" instead of
"mothers." The bureaucrats like to talk about the money being owed to
children, although they know full well that it's NOT owed to children;
it's owed to mothers.
A very important part of the politics of CSE should never be
overlooked. The whole system is grotesquely distorted to favor
mothers. If any similar distortion were occurring in any other field
(e.g. race) we would at least be hearing about it. It is very likely
that significant measures would be taken to correct the distortion.
But nothing is done in the field of "child support."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I don't know if the system favors the mother. I know that it favors
the CP,

****************

Which is code for "mother".

**************

and that could be the mother or the father. To refer to all
fathers as a NCP is wrong, because not all are NCP's, and not all
mothers are CP's. I guess it boils down to who has the baddest lawyer
when in the divorce proceedings, rather than who the better candidate
for CP is.

***************

Correction: It comes down to what sex organs the candidate has. But you
already knew this.
[note: unlike fathers, mothers have FREE legal representation..........
next.]

Chris

2008-12-23 06:44:10 UTC

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be just as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is
awarded
100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to
be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent responsible
for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that
is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it is not
unusual.
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my
gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex
was
excused from those same standards.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then I can see where you are upset, but it is not the same with all
cases. There are so many cases that do not get enforced because the
NCP can not be found, or they quit a job when child support garnishes
a payment. It's possible that those cases that are hard to enforce
would be the reason those who pay get screwed. Would it not be fair to
say that the NCP's that take NO responsibility for thier children are
the reason that NCP's who do right get the shaft, and that the custody
go to mothers most of the time be because of those that abandon thier
responsibilities..
I'm not sayng the system is 100%, but where so many do not comply, the
few that do get the harsh end of the stick.
======
Don't overlook the politics of CSE. Sure it sounds bad that $107.2 billion
in CS arrearage is on the books. What the feds tell you in the "fine print"
(which you have to look for) is the $107.2 billion is the total CS
arrearages for all years from the mid-80's until today with interest and
penalties added into the total. They also don't make a big deal about
noting some of the obligors are deceased, incarcerated, non-resident foreign
nationals, never found fathers, fathers who could have had an order against
them, and various other categories of uncollectable obligors. Another way
of looking at these numbers is to say the size of the CS arrearage is a
clear indication the federal CS enforcement laws are a failure. The
political game is to exaggerate the arrearage amount to continue to justify
the $5 billion budget they asked for from congress.

The other element that the "child support" enforcement
bureaucrats usually fail to acknowledge is the one-way flow of this
money. I have never seen in any of these reports any reference to the
fact that, overwhelmingly, this is money that men are supposed to be
paying women. Instead, the reports go to great lengths to try to
conceal this reality, e.g. by the using the term "noncustodial
parents," instead of "fathers," and "custodial parents" instead of
"mothers." The bureaucrats like to talk about the money being owed to
children, although they know full well that it's NOT owed to children;
it's owed to mothers.
A very important part of the politics of CSE should never be
overlooked. The whole system is grotesquely distorted to favor
mothers. If any similar distortion were occurring in any other field
(e.g. race) we would at least be hearing about it. It is very likely
that significant measures would be taken to correct the distortion.
But nothing is done in the field of "child support."

Now that interracial relationships are becoming more common, it's going to
be interesting to see the outcome when a negro man cries discrimination
after he gets sued for "child support" by a caucasion woman. I wonder who
the libs will side with then?

Phil

2008-12-23 13:49:13 UTC

Post by Chris

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be
just
as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is
awarded
100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and
needs to be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent responsible
for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel
government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is
happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched
complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that
is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found
this
group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and
it is
not
unusual.
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my
gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex
was
excused from those same standards.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then I can see where you are upset, but it is not the same with all
cases. There are so many cases that do not get enforced because the
NCP can not be found, or they quit a job when child support garnishes
a payment. It's possible that those cases that are hard to enforce
would be the reason those who pay get screwed. Would it not be fair to
say that the NCP's that take NO responsibility for thier children are
the reason that NCP's who do right get the shaft, and that the custody
go to mothers most of the time be because of those that abandon thier
responsibilities..
I'm not sayng the system is 100%, but where so many do not comply, the
few that do get the harsh end of the stick.
======
Don't overlook the politics of CSE. Sure it sounds bad that $107.2 billion
in CS arrearage is on the books. What the feds tell you in the "fine print"
(which you have to look for) is the $107.2 billion is the total CS
arrearages for all years from the mid-80's until today with interest and
penalties added into the total. They also don't make a big deal about
noting some of the obligors are deceased, incarcerated, non-resident foreign
nationals, never found fathers, fathers who could have had an order against
them, and various other categories of uncollectable obligors.
Another way
of looking at these numbers is to say the size of the CS arrearage is a
clear indication the federal CS enforcement laws are a failure. The
political game is to exaggerate the arrearage amount to continue to justify
the $5 billion budget they asked for from congress.

The other element that the "child support" enforcement
bureaucrats usually fail to acknowledge is the one-way flow of this
money. I have never seen in any of these reports any reference to the
fact that, overwhelmingly, this is money that men are supposed to be
paying women. Instead, the reports go to great lengths to try to
conceal this reality, e.g. by the using the term "noncustodial
parents," instead of "fathers," and "custodial parents" instead of
"mothers." The bureaucrats like to talk about the money being owed to
children, although they know full well that it's NOT owed to
children;
it's owed to mothers.
A very important part of the politics of CSE should never be
overlooked. The whole system is grotesquely distorted to favor
mothers. If any similar distortion were occurring in any other field
(e.g. race) we would at least be hearing about it. It is very likely
that significant measures would be taken to correct the distortion.
But nothing is done in the field of "child support."

Now that interracial relationships are becoming more common, it's
going to be interesting to see the outcome when a negro man cries
discrimination after he gets sued for "child support" by a caucasion
woman. I wonder who the libs will side with then?

I don't think there's any doubt that sex overrides race in American
culture today, plus the fact that racial discrimination is illegal in
every form of American society while sexual bigotry (misandry) is not
only legal, it is mandated in some cases.
Phil #3

Chris

2008-12-23 16:19:22 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
**************
That's right, women just never get a fair shake.

I guess you're one of the not-so-bright folks that feel government and
women are the enemy.
****************
And you'd guess incorrectly.
**************
For all your complaining, you fail to remember
that women were not able to vote until 1920.
****************
No I don't.
**************
Who, I wonder , did men
like you blame for all thier problems on before 1920.
******************
That would all depend on just who is creating the problem.
*****************
It seems like the 418 people that subscribe to this group do not want
woman to have any say in anything at all. I don't have to wonder why
you don't have a bigger following, or atleast a bigger subscriber
number.
If all this wrong happens to all men that pay child support, I would
think you would have a bigger sub base than a little over 400.
********************
Would you clarify "all this wrong"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Everything, and all the cover up's NCP's are "claiming" is happening
in the child support system. If this were true to the point as you
claim, why is it only the same people complaining. Seems to me as
though a few are unhappy, but not many. Out of the millions of child
support cases, not even 1,000 people have such far fetched complaints
as this group.
Before you get ur panties in a bunch, I want proof of any "claims" you
have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or
article pertaining directly to you or someone you know personally. If
the things you "claim" are happening, then surely you actually know
someone who has had the same experience as you.
If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call
Shenanigans on you.
======
Here's the deal. If men talk about their own cases, the response is that
is
just an isolated instance. If men talk in generalities about the system,
the response is we are not being specific. If men talk collectively about
how men are treated, the response is we are whiners. If men mention how
they were treated in the divorce/CS system to people who have not been
through the system, the response is we are exaggerating or we had a bad
attorney or we must have been at fault because the courts wouldn't be that
unfair.
Some of us stick to the statistics with particular emphasis on government
reports like from the Federal OCSE and the U.S. Census Bureau. I can tell
you that the average CS order is for 1.6 children and equates to close to
$300 per month. Most of the men who post here have had CS orders far in
excess of the average order. Many are like me who felt as I did we were
being singled out for a discretionary screwing, but when we found this group
we realized there are many more men who got the same screwing and it is not
unusual.
Let me give you the general numbers from my case. The combination of CS,
SS, healthcare coverage, and life insurance took 37% of my gross income.
Taxes took another 38%. The two factors added together took 75% of my
gross
income. That left me with $.25 out of every dollar earned to live on. I
have had my income imputed twice for modifications to more than I actually
made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally while my ex
was
excused from those same standards.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then I can see where you are upset, but it is not the same with all
cases. There are so many cases that do not get enforced because the
NCP can not be found, or they quit a job when child support garnishes
a payment.

*****************

Somehow it's wrong for a father to quit his job, but no problem when the
mother never worked in the first place! Oh wait, I get it, this is because
ONLY fathers have the obligation to work. Mothers are exempt because they
are incapable of working. But then again, if that is the case, how come ONLY
men are forced to be responsible for a choice which they are incapable of
making? Perhaps SOMEBODY can shed some light on this.

****************

It's possible that those cases that are hard to enforce
would be the reason those who pay get screwed. Would it not be fair to
say that the NCP's that take NO responsibility for thier children are
the reason that NCP's who do right get the shaft, and that the custody
go to mothers most of the time be because of those that abandon thier
responsibilities..

****************

It would not be fair. One cannot be responsible for a choice they are
incapable of making. For some odd reason, you lack the ability to make this
rather simple connection; a concept taught in second grade.

********************

I'm not sayng the system is 100%, but where so many do not comply, the
few that do get the harsh end of the stick.

2008-12-14 18:25:17 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.

Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, there are sick males and females who abuse their children and there are
laws to address child abuse!

Are you saying these small case samples should be used as a model to
determine custody?
Are you saying men are bad and do not deserve custody to their own children?
Are you saying that men should bare all the expenses of raising a child?

l***@gmail.com

2008-12-20 20:33:03 UTC

Post by DB
yes, there are sick males and females who abuse their children and there are
laws to address child abuse!

What does child abuse have to do with custody?

Post by DB
Are you saying these small case samples should be used as a model to
determine custody?

If those small case samples should be used as a moder to determine
custody, and men have just as much pentient to abuse children as
women, how would this benifit anybody? Wouldn't the CPS people be
making the determination as to custody instead of family court?

Post by DB
Are you saying men are bad and do not deserve custody to their own children?

Please point out where I said such a thing, or even alluded to such. I
didn't. I just pointed out that men also abuse thier children. Please
do tell how you came to this conclusion when I only pointed out that
men abuse thier children as well.

Post by DB
Are you saying that men should bare all the expenses of raising a child?

Once again, please do tell how you cam to this conclusion, because
that is nowhere near what I said.

***********************************************************************************************************************************

Phil

2008-12-15 14:54:07 UTC

l***@gmail.com

2008-12-20 21:14:26 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...http://www.nowpublic.com/money/father-kills-his-children-government-c...http://www.wbaltv.com/news/15745572/detail.htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13705845/
This man claimed his autistic child was a burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

Kenneth S.

2008-12-20 22:41:21 UTC

Leabuckley says below that it "would be fair if men had the same
reproductine (sic) rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us
could become pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go
through the same thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman
be like the earth and give birth to that which was sewn."

I'm puzzled by the logic of this comment. It seems designed to
provide support for the status quo, in which (in the U.S.) ever newer
ways are being found to provide more post-conception reproductive
choices for women, while simultaneously doing more and more to deny
post-conception reproductive choices for men.

If God is to be invoked, what is the justification for allowing women
to make unilateral decisions to abort unborn children? Conversely,
since God has given men the ability to walk away from unwanted
pregnancies, what is the justification for the law to deny them that
opportunity?

But then I'm just a man, and I suppose I shouldn't worry my pretty
little head about such matters! They're best left to clever,
well-educated women like Leabuckley.

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...http://www.nowpublic.com/money/father-kills-his-children-government-c...http://www.wbaltv.com/news/15745572/detail.htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13705845/
This man claimed his autistic child was a burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

l***@gmail.com

2008-12-21 20:33:51 UTC

Post by Kenneth S.
Leabuckley says below that it "would be fair if men had the same
reproductine (sic) rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us
could become pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go
through the same thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman
be like the earth and give birth to that which was sewn."
I'm puzzled by the logic of this comment. It seems designed to
provide support for the status quo, in which (in the U.S.) ever newer
ways are being found to provide more post-conception reproductive
choices for women, while simultaneously doing more and more to deny
post-conception reproductive choices for men.
If God is to be invoked, what is the justification for allowing women
to make unilateral decisions to abort unborn children? Conversely,
since God has given men the ability to walk away from unwanted
pregnancies, what is the justification for the law to deny them that
opportunity?
But then I'm just a man, and I suppose I shouldn't worry my pretty
little head about such matters! They're best left to clever,
well-educated women like Leabuckley.

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

- Show quoted text -

If Gob be invoked, marriage would be forever, and there would be no
unwed parents. I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point. I
won't hold my breath.

Kenneth S.

2008-12-21 23:24:44 UTC

Alas, Leabuckley, it's abundantly clear from your earlier
postings that no one can rely upon you to be the judge of what is a
"valid point." So I'll leave others to decide whether you have
answered the issues I have raised.

In Gob, we trust!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

- Show quoted text -

If Gob be invoked, marriage would be forever, and there would be no
unwed parents. I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point. I
won't hold my breath.

Chris

2008-12-23 06:57:23 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

- Show quoted text -

If Gob be invoked, marriage would be forever, and there would be no
unwed parents. I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point. I
won't hold my breath.

*****************

I'm waiting for you to answer his question: "Conversely,
since God has given men the ability to walk away from unwanted
pregnancies, what is the justification for the law to deny them that
opportunity?" Or is the answer a mystery to you too?

Bob W

2008-12-21 01:16:08 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...http://www.nowpublic.com/money/father-kills-his-children-government-c...http://www.wbaltv.com/news/15745572/detail.htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13705845/
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

I know it's pointless replying to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Please provide proof of this "fact" that mothers are more likely to
abuse thier children. If this is truely fact, you have a study that
has been conducted to back this statement of yours up.

======
The most comprehensive study is called the National Incidence Study of Child
Abuse and Neglect. It is available on the Internet. Starting with the
"Fourth" study, which is the most recent, the congressionally mandated study
is only available for a fee. I have the "Third" version and it shows the
following:

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).

Those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other non-parental
perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80-90%) versus
females (14-15%). Note that this is the statistic that gets discussed here
the most. While the most child abuse is done by males it is not done by
bio-fathers. The males doing the child abuse are men whom women have
invited into their lives and have allowed the perpetrators access to their
children. Phil #3 was alluding to the fact many of us believe the incidence
of child abuse would be much lower if mothers were held accountable for
exposing their children to people who turn out to be abusers. Unfortunately
mothers get a free pass in the legal system, and in how the abuse statisitcs
are recorded, even though their personal relationships have a direct
influence on which children get abused by non-bio father males.

You didn't ask about child neglect but the same study shows 87% of child
nelglect is done by mothers.
=======

Yes you are correct. It would be fair if men had the same reproductine
rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us could become
pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go through the same
thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman be like the
earth and give birth to that which was sewn. It can't be helped, but
it won't change the fact that most people spend more time picking out
a pair of jeans than they do picking a person to have sex with.

l***@gmail.com

2008-12-21 20:37:03 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

I know it's pointless replying to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Please provide proof of this "fact" that mothers are more likely to
abuse thier children. If this is truely fact, you have a study that
has been conducted to back this statement of yours up.
======
The most comprehensive study is called the National Incidence Study of Child
Abuse and Neglect. It is available on the Internet. Starting with the
"Fourth" study, which is the most recent, the congressionally mandated study
is only available for a fee. I have the "Third" version and it shows the
Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
Those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other non-parental
perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80-90%) versus
females (14-15%). Note that this is the statistic that gets discussed here
the most. While the most child abuse is done by males it is not done by
bio-fathers. The males doing the child abuse are men whom women have
invited into their lives and have allowed the perpetrators access to their
children. Phil #3 was alluding to the fact many of us believe the incidence
of child abuse would be much lower if mothers were held accountable for
exposing their children to people who turn out to be abusers. Unfortunately
mothers get a free pass in the legal system, and in how the abuse statisitcs
are recorded, even though their personal relationships have a direct
influence on which children get abused by non-bio father males.
You didn't ask about child neglect but the same study shows 87% of child
nelglect is done by mothers.
=======
Yes you are correct. It would be fair if men had the same reproductine
rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us could become
pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go through the same
thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman be like the
earth and give birth to that which was sewn. It can't be helped, but
it won't change the fact that most people spend more time picking out
a pair of jeans than they do picking a person to have sex with.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Bob W

2008-12-21 21:31:04 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

I know it's pointless replying to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Please provide proof of this "fact" that mothers are more likely to
abuse thier children. If this is truely fact, you have a study that
has been conducted to back this statement of yours up.
======
The most comprehensive study is called the National Incidence Study of Child
Abuse and Neglect. It is available on the Internet. Starting with the
"Fourth" study, which is the most recent, the congressionally mandated study
is only available for a fee. I have the "Third" version and it shows the
Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
Those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other non-parental
perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80-90%) versus
females (14-15%). Note that this is the statistic that gets discussed here
the most. While the most child abuse is done by males it is not done by
bio-fathers. The males doing the child abuse are men whom women have
invited into their lives and have allowed the perpetrators access to their
children. Phil #3 was alluding to the fact many of us believe the
incidence
of child abuse would be much lower if mothers were held accountable for
exposing their children to people who turn out to be abusers.
Unfortunately
mothers get a free pass in the legal system, and in how the abuse statisitcs
are recorded, even though their personal relationships have a direct
influence on which children get abused by non-bio father males.
You didn't ask about child neglect but the same study shows 87% of child
nelglect is done by mothers.
=======
Yes you are correct. It would be fair if men had the same reproductine
rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us could become
pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go through the same
thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman be like the
earth and give birth to that which was sewn. It can't be helped, but
it won't change the fact that most people spend more time picking out
a pair of jeans than they do picking a person to have sex with.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were
about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers
(58%).

I guess the *fact* is FATHERS are more likely to abuse thier children
(unless that is a mistype), or mothers AND fathers have the same abuse
ratio. Not mothers being more likely than fathers or vice versa. So I
guess that would mean that it is NOT a *fact* that mothers are more
likely to abuse thier children.

======
There is a lot more detail in the full report which is 19 pages long. I
cited the report language as it is written without any spin to try to answer
your initial questions. One of the major discussions in the report is the
various "standards" used to define abuse and neglect. As an example one
standard is for actual reported abuse while another standard is for a
broader "potential" abuse and neglect concern. The former abuse standard is
for actual reports to authorities and the latter abuse standard is for
perceptions about abuse and/or estimates of abuse reported and unreported.

The point the report makes is when an abused child's birth parents are
together both parents are about equally responsible for the abuse and it is
typical both parents are co-perpetrators of the abuse. That is why the
percentages are similar.

The second point is "father" abuse is done more by non-bio father figures
than actual bio-fathers. Also it is important to recognize "father" abuse
is reported more frequently than mother abuse because mothers tend to use
government authorities as surrogate protectors while "fathers" tend to deal
with the mother abuse on their own without the aid of government
authorities.

l***@gmail.com

2008-12-21 22:05:21 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

I know it's pointless replying to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Please provide proof of this "fact" that mothers are more likely to
abuse thier children. If this is truely fact, you have a study that
has been conducted to back this statement of yours up.
======
The most comprehensive study is called the National Incidence Study of Child
Abuse and Neglect. It is available on the Internet. Starting with the
"Fourth" study, which is the most recent, the congressionally mandated study
is only available for a fee. I have the "Third" version and it shows the
Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
Those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other non-parental
perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80-90%) versus
females (14-15%). Note that this is the statistic that gets discussed here
the most. While the most child abuse is done by males it is not done by
bio-fathers. The males doing the child abuse are men whom women have
invited into their lives and have allowed the perpetrators access to their
children. Phil #3 was alluding to the fact many of us believe the
incidence
of child abuse would be much lower if mothers were held accountable for
exposing their children to people who turn out to be abusers.
Unfortunately
mothers get a free pass in the legal system, and in how the abuse statisitcs
are recorded, even though their personal relationships have a direct
influence on which children get abused by non-bio father males.
You didn't ask about child neglect but the same study shows 87% of child
nelglect is done by mothers.
=======
Yes you are correct. It would be fair if men had the same reproductine
rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us could become
pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go through the same
thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman be like the
earth and give birth to that which was sewn. It can't be helped, but
it won't change the fact that most people spend more time picking out
a pair of jeans than they do picking a person to have sex with.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
I guess the *fact* is FATHERS are more likely to abuse thier children
(unless that is a mistype), or mothers AND fathers have the same abuse
ratio. Not mothers being more likely than fathers or vice versa. So I
guess that would mean that it is NOT a *fact* that mothers are more
likely to abuse thier children.
======
There is a lot more detail in the full report which is 19 pages long. I
cited the report language as it is written without any spin to try to answer
your initial questions. One of the major discussions in the report is the
various "standards" used to define abuse and neglect. As an example one
standard is for actual reported abuse while another standard is for a
broader "potential" abuse and neglect concern. The former abuse standard is
for actual reports to authorities and the latter abuse standard is for
perceptions about abuse and/or estimates of abuse reported and unreported.
The point the report makes is when an abused child's birth parents are
together both parents are about equally responsible for the abuse and it is
typical both parents are co-perpetrators of the abuse. That is why the
percentages are similar.
The second point is "father" abuse is done more by non-bio father figures
than actual bio-fathers. Also it is important to recognize "father" abuse
is reported more frequently than mother abuse because mothers tend to use
government authorities as surrogate protectors while "fathers" tend to deal
with the mother abuse on their own without the aid of government
authorities.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I am sorry. I must have mis-read. I thought the report was children
abused by birth parents.

Bob W

2008-12-21 22:27:48 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

I know it's pointless replying to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Please provide proof of this "fact" that mothers are more likely to
abuse thier children. If this is truely fact, you have a study that
has been conducted to back this statement of yours up.
======
The most comprehensive study is called the National Incidence Study of Child
Abuse and Neglect. It is available on the Internet. Starting with the
"Fourth" study, which is the most recent, the congressionally mandated study
is only available for a fee. I have the "Third" version and it shows the
Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
Those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other non-parental
perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80-90%) versus
females (14-15%). Note that this is the statistic that gets discussed here
the most. While the most child abuse is done by males it is not done by
bio-fathers. The males doing the child abuse are men whom women have
invited into their lives and have allowed the perpetrators access to their
children. Phil #3 was alluding to the fact many of us believe the
incidence
of child abuse would be much lower if mothers were held accountable for
exposing their children to people who turn out to be abusers.
Unfortunately
mothers get a free pass in the legal system, and in how the abuse statisitcs
are recorded, even though their personal relationships have a direct
influence on which children get abused by non-bio father males.
You didn't ask about child neglect but the same study shows 87% of child
nelglect is done by mothers.
=======
Yes you are correct. It would be fair if men had the same reproductine
rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us could become
pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go through the same
thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman be like the
earth and give birth to that which was sewn. It can't be helped, but
it won't change the fact that most people spend more time picking out
a pair of jeans than they do picking a person to have sex with.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
I guess the *fact* is FATHERS are more likely to abuse thier children
(unless that is a mistype), or mothers AND fathers have the same abuse
ratio. Not mothers being more likely than fathers or vice versa. So I
guess that would mean that it is NOT a *fact* that mothers are more
likely to abuse thier children.
======
There is a lot more detail in the full report which is 19 pages long. I
cited the report language as it is written without any spin to try to answer
your initial questions. One of the major discussions in the report is the
various "standards" used to define abuse and neglect. As an example one
standard is for actual reported abuse while another standard is for a
broader "potential" abuse and neglect concern. The former abuse standard
is
for actual reports to authorities and the latter abuse standard is for
perceptions about abuse and/or estimates of abuse reported and unreported.
The point the report makes is when an abused child's birth parents are
together both parents are about equally responsible for the abuse and it is
typical both parents are co-perpetrators of the abuse. That is why the
percentages are similar.
The second point is "father" abuse is done more by non-bio father figures
than actual bio-fathers. Also it is important to recognize "father" abuse
is reported more frequently than mother abuse because mothers tend to use
government authorities as surrogate protectors while "fathers" tend to deal
with the mother abuse on their own without the aid of government
authorities.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I am sorry. I must have mis-read. I thought the report was children
abused by birth parents.

======
You read it right. The statistic I cited from the report is for children
abused by birth parents (meaning both parents). The difference being if it
was just one of the parents who did the abuse the report statistic about the
gender of the perpetrator would have been about "a birth parent". Some of
the language in the report is written in a very clumsy manner and this is a
good example. But I cited the report as written.

The second statistic is more telling because it cites the incidence of
non-bio father male abuse that gets discussed here. As I indicated, many of
us believe divorced/single mothers should be held accountable for inviting
non-bio father figures into close relationships with their children when the
males turn out to be child abusers.

Chris

2008-12-23 07:05:12 UTC

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be just as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is
awarded
100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to
be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent
responsible for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

I know it's pointless replying to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Please provide proof of this "fact" that mothers are more likely to
abuse thier children. If this is truely fact, you have a study that
has been conducted to back this statement of yours up.
======
The most comprehensive study is called the National Incidence Study of Child
Abuse and Neglect. It is available on the Internet. Starting with the
"Fourth" study, which is the most recent, the congressionally mandated study
is only available for a fee. I have the "Third" version and it shows the
Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
Those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other
non-parental
perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80-90%) versus
females (14-15%). Note that this is the statistic that gets discussed here
the most. While the most child abuse is done by males it is not done by
bio-fathers. The males doing the child abuse are men whom women have
invited into their lives and have allowed the perpetrators access to their
children. Phil #3 was alluding to the fact many of us believe the
incidence
of child abuse would be much lower if mothers were held accountable for
exposing their children to people who turn out to be abusers.
Unfortunately
mothers get a free pass in the legal system, and in how the abuse statisitcs
are recorded, even though their personal relationships have a direct
influence on which children get abused by non-bio father males.
You didn't ask about child neglect but the same study shows 87% of child
nelglect is done by mothers.
=======
Yes you are correct. It would be fair if men had the same reproductine
rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us could become
pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go through the same
thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman be like the
earth and give birth to that which was sewn. It can't be helped, but
it won't change the fact that most people spend more time picking out
a pair of jeans than they do picking a person to have sex with.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
I guess the *fact* is FATHERS are more likely to abuse thier children
(unless that is a mistype), or mothers AND fathers have the same abuse
ratio. Not mothers being more likely than fathers or vice versa. So I
guess that would mean that it is NOT a *fact* that mothers are more
likely to abuse thier children.
======
There is a lot more detail in the full report which is 19 pages long. I
cited the report language as it is written without any spin to try to answer
your initial questions. One of the major discussions in the report is the
various "standards" used to define abuse and neglect. As an example one
standard is for actual reported abuse while another standard is for a
broader "potential" abuse and neglect concern. The former abuse standard
is
for actual reports to authorities and the latter abuse standard is for
perceptions about abuse and/or estimates of abuse reported and unreported.
The point the report makes is when an abused child's birth parents are
together both parents are about equally responsible for the abuse and it is
typical both parents are co-perpetrators of the abuse. That is why the
percentages are similar.
The second point is "father" abuse is done more by non-bio father figures
than actual bio-fathers. Also it is important to recognize "father" abuse
is reported more frequently than mother abuse because mothers tend to use
government authorities as surrogate protectors while "fathers" tend to deal
with the mother abuse on their own without the aid of government
authorities.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I am sorry. I must have mis-read. I thought the report was children
abused by birth parents.
======
You read it right. The statistic I cited from the report is for children
abused by birth parents (meaning both parents). The difference being if
it was just one of the parents who did the abuse the report statistic
about the gender of the perpetrator would have been about "a birth
parent". Some of the language in the report is written in a very clumsy
manner and this is a good example. But I cited the report as written.
The second statistic is more telling because it cites the incidence of
non-bio father male abuse that gets discussed here. As I indicated, many
of us believe divorced/single mothers should be held accountable for
inviting non-bio father figures into close relationships with their
children when the males turn out to be child abusers.

Many folks consider one of the most severe forms of child abuse is to
prohibit their child to have the other parent; and guess which parent
usually is the one doing this.

Kenneth S.

2008-12-23 12:09:19 UTC

Post by Chris

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be just as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is
awarded
100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to
be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent
responsible for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

I know it's pointless replying to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Please provide proof of this "fact" that mothers are more likely to
abuse thier children. If this is truely fact, you have a study that
has been conducted to back this statement of yours up.
======
The most comprehensive study is called the National Incidence Study of Child
Abuse and Neglect. It is available on the Internet. Starting with the
"Fourth" study, which is the most recent, the congressionally mandated study
is only available for a fee. I have the "Third" version and it shows the
Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
Those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other non-parental
perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80-90%) versus
females (14-15%). Note that this is the statistic that gets discussed here
the most. While the most child abuse is done by males it is not done by
bio-fathers. The males doing the child abuse are men whom women have
invited into their lives and have allowed the perpetrators access to their
children. Phil #3 was alluding to the fact many of us believe the
incidence
of child abuse would be much lower if mothers were held accountable for
exposing their children to people who turn out to be abusers.
Unfortunately
mothers get a free pass in the legal system, and in how the abuse statisitcs
are recorded, even though their personal relationships have a direct
influence on which children get abused by non-bio father males.
You didn't ask about child neglect but the same study shows 87% of child
nelglect is done by mothers.
=======
Yes you are correct. It would be fair if men had the same reproductine
rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us could become
pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go through the same
thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman be like the
earth and give birth to that which was sewn. It can't be helped, but
it won't change the fact that most people spend more time picking out
a pair of jeans than they do picking a person to have sex with.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
I guess the *fact* is FATHERS are more likely to abuse thier children
(unless that is a mistype), or mothers AND fathers have the same abuse
ratio. Not mothers being more likely than fathers or vice versa. So I
guess that would mean that it is NOT a *fact* that mothers are more
likely to abuse thier children.
======
There is a lot more detail in the full report which is 19 pages long. I
cited the report language as it is written without any spin to try to answer
your initial questions. One of the major discussions in the report is the
various "standards" used to define abuse and neglect. As an example one
standard is for actual reported abuse while another standard is for a
broader "potential" abuse and neglect concern. The former abuse standard
is
for actual reports to authorities and the latter abuse standard is for
perceptions about abuse and/or estimates of abuse reported and unreported.
The point the report makes is when an abused child's birth parents are
together both parents are about equally responsible for the abuse and it is
typical both parents are co-perpetrators of the abuse. That is why the
percentages are similar.
The second point is "father" abuse is done more by non-bio father figures
than actual bio-fathers. Also it is important to recognize "father" abuse
is reported more frequently than mother abuse because mothers tend to use
government authorities as surrogate protectors while "fathers" tend to deal
with the mother abuse on their own without the aid of government
authorities.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I am sorry. I must have mis-read. I thought the report was children
abused by birth parents.
======
You read it right. The statistic I cited from the report is for children
abused by birth parents (meaning both parents). The difference being if
it was just one of the parents who did the abuse the report statistic
about the gender of the perpetrator would have been about "a birth
parent". Some of the language in the report is written in a very clumsy
manner and this is a good example. But I cited the report as written.
The second statistic is more telling because it cites the incidence of
non-bio father male abuse that gets discussed here. As I indicated, many
of us believe divorced/single mothers should be held accountable for
inviting non-bio father figures into close relationships with their
children when the males turn out to be child abusers.

Many folks consider one of the most severe forms of child abuse is to
prohibit their child to have the other parent; and guess which parent
usually is the one doing this.

All the evidence indicates that divorce itself does serious
emotional damage to the children involved, even if the mother does not
interfere with the father's access to the children. For that reason,
I consider divorce to be a form of child abuse, and by no means the
least serious.

Most divorces in the U.S. today are initiated by wives. Put
the various elements together and there can be no doubt which sex is
most responsible for abuse of children.

Chris

2008-12-23 16:27:46 UTC

Post by Chris

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be
just
as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is
awarded
100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to
be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent
responsible for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

I know it's pointless replying to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Please provide proof of this "fact" that mothers are more likely to
abuse thier children. If this is truely fact, you have a study that
has been conducted to back this statement of yours up.
======
The most comprehensive study is called the National Incidence Study
of
Child
Abuse and Neglect. It is available on the Internet. Starting with the
"Fourth" study, which is the most recent, the congressionally
mandated
study
is only available for a fee. I have the "Third" version and it shows the
Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
Those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other non-parental
perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80-90%) versus
females (14-15%). Note that this is the statistic that gets discussed here
the most. While the most child abuse is done by males it is not done by
bio-fathers. The males doing the child abuse are men whom women have
invited into their lives and have allowed the perpetrators access to their
children. Phil #3 was alluding to the fact many of us believe the
incidence
of child abuse would be much lower if mothers were held accountable for
exposing their children to people who turn out to be abusers.
Unfortunately
mothers get a free pass in the legal system, and in how the abuse statisitcs
are recorded, even though their personal relationships have a direct
influence on which children get abused by non-bio father males.
You didn't ask about child neglect but the same study shows 87% of child
nelglect is done by mothers.
=======
Yes you are correct. It would be fair if men had the same
reproductine
rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us could become
pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go through the same
thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman be like the
earth and give birth to that which was sewn. It can't be helped, but
it won't change the fact that most people spend more time picking out
a pair of jeans than they do picking a person to have sex with.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
I guess the *fact* is FATHERS are more likely to abuse thier children
(unless that is a mistype), or mothers AND fathers have the same abuse
ratio. Not mothers being more likely than fathers or vice versa. So I
guess that would mean that it is NOT a *fact* that mothers are more
likely to abuse thier children.
======
There is a lot more detail in the full report which is 19 pages long. I
cited the report language as it is written without any spin to try to answer
your initial questions. One of the major discussions in the report is the
various "standards" used to define abuse and neglect. As an example one
standard is for actual reported abuse while another standard is for a
broader "potential" abuse and neglect concern. The former abuse standard
is
for actual reports to authorities and the latter abuse standard is for
perceptions about abuse and/or estimates of abuse reported and unreported.
The point the report makes is when an abused child's birth parents are
together both parents are about equally responsible for the abuse and
it
is
typical both parents are co-perpetrators of the abuse. That is why the
percentages are similar.
The second point is "father" abuse is done more by non-bio father figures
than actual bio-fathers. Also it is important to recognize "father" abuse
is reported more frequently than mother abuse because mothers tend to use
government authorities as surrogate protectors while "fathers" tend to deal
with the mother abuse on their own without the aid of government
authorities.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I am sorry. I must have mis-read. I thought the report was children
abused by birth parents.
======
You read it right. The statistic I cited from the report is for children
abused by birth parents (meaning both parents). The difference being if
it was just one of the parents who did the abuse the report statistic
about the gender of the perpetrator would have been about "a birth
parent". Some of the language in the report is written in a very clumsy
manner and this is a good example. But I cited the report as written.
The second statistic is more telling because it cites the incidence of
non-bio father male abuse that gets discussed here. As I indicated, many
of us believe divorced/single mothers should be held accountable for
inviting non-bio father figures into close relationships with their
children when the males turn out to be child abusers.

Many folks consider one of the most severe forms of child abuse is to
prohibit their child to have the other parent; and guess which parent
usually is the one doing this.

All the evidence indicates that divorce itself does serious
emotional damage to the children involved, even if the mother does not
interfere with the father's access to the children. For that reason,
I consider divorce to be a form of child abuse, and by no means the
least serious.
Most divorces in the U.S. today are initiated by wives. Put
the various elements together and there can be no doubt which sex is
most responsible for abuse of children.

But for some reason, the government people claim that having a father is
abuse and NOT having a mother is abuse. The only conclusion I can draw from
this is that fathers are a danger to children while mothers are
protectors/nuturers.

Phil

2008-12-23 14:05:25 UTC

http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2...
Here is one of many cases that demonstrates that women can be just as
abusive to their own children as men are accused of being.
The notion that the women is always the better parent and is
awarded
100%
custody in the interest of the child mantra is false and needs to
be
changed
in the law to reflect fair parenting practices.
The default should always be 50/50 custody with each parent
responsible for
their own expenses!

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

I know it's pointless replying to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Please provide proof of this "fact" that mothers are more likely to
abuse thier children. If this is truely fact, you have a study that
has been conducted to back this statement of yours up.
======
The most comprehensive study is called the National Incidence Study of Child
Abuse and Neglect. It is available on the Internet. Starting with the
"Fourth" study, which is the most recent, the congressionally mandated study
is only available for a fee. I have the "Third" version and it shows
the
Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about
equally likely to have been abused by mothers (50%) and fathers (58%).
Those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other
non-parental
perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80-90%) versus
females (14-15%). Note that this is the statistic that gets discussed
here
the most. While the most child abuse is done by males it is not done
by
bio-fathers. The males doing the child abuse are men whom women have
invited into their lives and have allowed the perpetrators access to their
children. Phil #3 was alluding to the fact many of us believe the
incidence
of child abuse would be much lower if mothers were held accountable for
exposing their children to people who turn out to be abusers.
Unfortunately
mothers get a free pass in the legal system, and in how the abuse statisitcs
are recorded, even though their personal relationships have a direct
influence on which children get abused by non-bio father males.
You didn't ask about child neglect but the same study shows 87% of child
nelglect is done by mothers.
=======
Yes you are correct. It would be fair if men had the same reproductine
rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us could become
pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go through the same
thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman be like the
earth and give birth to that which was sewn. It can't be helped, but
it won't change the fact that most people spend more time picking out
a pair of jeans than they do picking a person to have sex with.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Phil

2008-12-23 14:02:03 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...http://www.nowpublic.com/money/father-kills-his-children-government-c...http://www.wbaltv.com/news/15745572/detail.htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13705845/
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

I know it's pointless replying to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Please provide proof of this "fact" that mothers are more likely to
abuse thier children. If this is truely fact, you have a study that
has been conducted to back this statement of yours up.

Yes you are correct. It would be fair if men had the same reproductine
rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us could become
pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go through the same
thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman be like the
earth and give birth to that which was sewn. It can't be helped, but
it won't change the fact that most people spend more time picking out
a pair of jeans than they do picking a person to have sex with.
*******************************************************
*******************************************************

Yes it IS pointless because you won't accept the truth when it goes
against your dogma but here is one anyway:
It is not a study but statistics from the US government
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/chapter3.htm#perp
"Approximately, 40 percent (39.9%) of child victims were maltreated by
their mothers acting alone; another 17.6 percent were maltreated by
their fathers acting alone; and 17.8 percent were abused by both
parents.19 Victims abused by nonparental perpetrators accounted for 10.0
percent (figure 3-5). A nonparental perpetrator is defined as a
caregiver who is not a parent and can include foster parent, child
daycare staff, unmarried partner of parent, legal guardian, and
residential facility staff."

OR this in regard to neglect:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/chapter5.htm
"Approximately 60 percent (60.4%) of perpetrators were found to have
neglected children; and
Approximately 58 percent (57.9%) of perpetrators were women and 42
percent (42.1%) of perpetrators were men."

There's more but I'm sure you can find some a way to blame it all on
men.
Phil #3

Chris

2008-12-23 16:32:30 UTC

What did the father have to say , or was he not in the picture? FYI,
there are many articles on fathers that do bad things to thier
children, far more than the mothers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D06E2DE163...http://www.nowpublic.com/money/father-kills-his-children-government-c...http://www.wbaltv.com/news/15745572/detail.htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13705845/
This man claimed his autistic child was a
burdenhttp://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t...
And of course, the vindictive man who will do anything to make the ex-
wife suffer
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/father-killed-his-sons-make-his-...
Be fair, and acknowledge that the scale tips both ways on this type of
thing.
********************************************************
Yet the *fact* is that mothers are more likely to abuse their children
than fathers and by a large margin.
"Fair" would be men getting the same reproductive rights women have.
Phil #3

I know it's pointless replying to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Please provide proof of this "fact" that mothers are more likely to
abuse thier children. If this is truely fact, you have a study that
has been conducted to back this statement of yours up.
Yes you are correct. It would be fair if men had the same reproductine
rights as women. It would be fair if any one of us could become
pregnant, man or woman, and then both sides could go through the same
thing, but God chose that men sew the seed, and woman be like the
earth and give birth to that which was sewn. It can't be helped, but
it won't change the fact that most people spend more time picking out
a pair of jeans than they do picking a person to have sex with.
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
Yes it IS pointless because you won't accept the truth when it goes
It is not a study but statistics from the US government
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/chapter3.htm#perp
"Approximately, 40 percent (39.9%) of child victims were maltreated by
their mothers acting alone; another 17.6 percent were maltreated by their
fathers acting alone; and 17.8 percent were abused by both parents.19
Victims abused by nonparental perpetrators accounted for 10.0 percent
(figure 3-5). A nonparental perpetrator is defined as a caregiver who is
not a parent and can include foster parent, child daycare staff, unmarried
partner of parent, legal guardian, and residential facility staff."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/chapter5.htm
"Approximately 60 percent (60.4%) of perpetrators were found to have
neglected children; and
Approximately 58 percent (57.9%) of perpetrators were women and 42 percent
(42.1%) of perpetrators were men."
There's more but I'm sure you can find some a way to blame it all on men.
Phil #3

Even when the stats are published by their OWN people, they STILL deny it.
Just curious where they get THEIR (contradictory) information. Perhaps she
will be so kind as to share.

unknown

2009-11-19 01:05:21 UTC