 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / January 2006Suggested law
Joint physical custody should be presumed. It's in the best interest of the children, unless there is proven abuse (documented by a conviction in criminal court) or unless the parents make an agreement otherwise. Also, in a divorce, BOTH parents should be mandated to remain in the same immediate geographical area, to enable the children to be in same schools, retain same activities, environment and friends. If one of the parents wishes to move from the area, that's fine, but he or she has to give up joint custody and has to pay child support to the other parent. "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in > Also, in a divorce, BOTH parents should be mandated to remain in the same > immediate geographical area, Here's where the thinking on family issues is all wrong, Government shouldn't be mandating anything for any of it's citizens! I don't remember anybody agreeing that government should have complete control over any citizen because they have entered into Divorce status. > Joint physical custody should be presumed. It's in the best interest of > the children, unless there is proven abuse (documented by a conviction in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wishes to move from the area, that's fine, but he or she has to give up > joint custody and has to pay child support to the other parent. Nonsense! Moving does not justify forcing one parent to give unearned income to the other. There should be no penalty for moving. >> Joint physical custody should be presumed. It's in the best interest of >> the children, unless there is proven abuse (documented by a conviction in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to the other. > There should be no penalty for moving. So if the custodial parent takes the children and moves far away from the non-custodial parent, that's just fine with you? "Moon Shyne" <moonshyne__@hotmail.com> wrote in > So if the custodial parent takes the children and moves far away from the > non-custodial parent, that's just fine with you? That's fine, as long as we're not forced to pay for the move! Does the Government have to control every aspect of our lives? > >> Joint physical custody should be presumed. It's in the best interest of > >> the children, unless there is proven abuse (documented by a conviction in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So if the custodial parent takes the children and moves far away from the > non-custodial parent, that's just fine with you? The custodial parent has already taken the children away; what's the difference? > > Joint physical custody should be presumed. It's in the best interest of > > the children, unless there is proven abuse (documented by a conviction in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to the other. > There should be no penalty for moving. Like hell there shouldn't. Taking off with your kids, without court approval; without allowing the children's other parent to remain a significant part of their lives; to uproot them, to tear them away from their family and friends by a self-serving parent - the penalty for such an offence should be death by firing squad, no blindfold, no possible reprieve, no last wish. > > > Joint physical custody should be presumed. It's in the best interest of > > > the children, unless there is proven abuse (documented by a conviction [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Like hell there shouldn't. An unmarried person should be financially penalized for moving no more so than a married person should be. Last I checked, America was spelled with a "C"..... not a "K". > Taking off with your kids, without court > approval; without allowing the children's other parent to remain a > significant part of their lives; to uproot them, to tear them away from > their family and friends by a self-serving parent - the penalty for such an > offence should be death by firing squad, no blindfold, no possible reprieve, > no last wish. I see. So all of the above is fine so long as it has the blessings of the Kourt. > > > > Joint physical custody should be presumed. It's in the best interest > of [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > I see. So all of the above is fine so long as it has the blessings of the > Kourt. No, you don't see. You've missed my point entirely, and that was that it's -NOT- OK for anyone to run away with the kids. Or do I need to use larger letters? > > > > > Joint physical custody should be presumed. It's in the best > interest [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > it's -NOT- OK for anyone to run away with the kids. Or do I need to use > larger letters? What did you mean by "without court approval"? > Joint physical custody should be presumed. It's in the best interest of > the children, unless there is proven abuse (documented by a conviction in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wishes to move from the area, that's fine, but he or she has to give up > joint custody and has to pay child support to the other parent. Oh, I got one!! But it's in three parts and not all the kinks are worked out yet.. How about this.. 1. Parents that CAN pay their C$, but REFUSE to, for whatever reason, will have all their worldly belongings confiscated, sold at auction (save for family heirlooms, those become the property of the original owners, if possible - if not, then your kids get it all) and the proceeds will go into a special bank account (with state spending oversight in place - if it ain't for the kiddies, CP must repay the amount in full within 15 days or forfeit custody to the state until the money is returned) that will be used to benefit your kids (not the CP). Also, all REFUSING-TO-PAY parents will be placed in work camps, sleep in military style dorms and forfeit ALL their take home pay until such time as their "debt" is paid in full. Transportation to and from their place of employment will be provided so they may keep they job and not be able to say that GovCo caused their loss of work. Also, if the employer is uncomfortable with this arrangement - they can talk with the IRS. 2. Parents that CANNOT pay their C$ because of economic problems, activist judges, over zealous CSE agents, etc.. These parents will be given head-of-the-line privileges to apply for any and all FEDERAL, STATE and LOCAL government jobs. These parents will also be given preferential treatment for jobs in the private sector (employers will receive tax breaks as a "Thank you" for keeping these parents employed - provided they can actually do the job they where hired for). If retraining in a new field is required, for any reason, the cost for this retraining will be covered by the state (with federal assistance if need be). If these parents require housing, food, transportation, counseling, etc.. then this too will be born by the federal and state governments. 3. Any person that interferes with the God given RIGHT for a parent to the care, custody and companionship of their children shall be given over to summary execution immediately. Dusty I have to say you impressed me. You should run for office on this platform. I would vote for you. very nicely done with only two things missing. Insurance must be maintaned at all times for the child and education of child threw college is a must. > Dusty I have to say you impressed me. You should run for office on this > platform. I would vote for you. > very nicely done with only two things missing. Insurance must be > maintaned at all times for the child and education of child threw > college is a must. Insurance, yes - but at special, reduced rates so a kids stay in the hospital won't bankrupt their parents.. Cover college?? Nope, not a chance. A secondary education is a choice and should be covered by the parents -only- if they can afford it (and junior had damned well better get off his/her Xbox and get a job to help them out). Let me put it to you like this.. Are married and non-married (co-habitating) parents required to pay for their kids college? No, they most certainly are not required to do so. Yet, in a great number of states, NCP parents ARE required to pay for junior's frat house fun trip. If you're gonna force one group of people to pay, then EVERYONE pays. To do otherwise is illegal, immoral and definitely unconstitutional. > > Dusty I have to say you impressed me. You should run for office on this > > platform. I would vote for you. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If you're gonna force one group of people to pay, then EVERYONE pays. To do > otherwise is illegal, immoral and definitely unconstitutional. Yup, starting with the payment of "child support". > > > Dusty I have to say you impressed me. You should run for office on this > > > platform. I would vote for you. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Yup, starting with the payment of "child support". If only more people would realize that too... > Dusty I have to say you impressed me. You should run for office on this > platform. I would vote for you. > very nicely done with only two things missing. Insurance must be > maintaned at all times for the child and education of child threw > college is a must. Education through college? Are you nuts? Since when has a college education become an entitlement. A large number of people receiving degrees have no business being in college, and are simply wasting time and money. Insurance? That is a private matter for individuals to decide based on their own risks. > > Dusty I have to say you impressed me. You should run for office on this > > platform. I would vote for you. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > degrees have no business being in college, and are simply wasting time and > money. I see nothing wrong with a CP making education decisions for children in their custody. I believe a CP should have the option to divert pre-18 care and maintenance CS received into a college fund or education IRA. That practice would be consistent with how married parents handle pre-college financial planning. Where the CS system gets wacky is when the CP's are not encouraged to save for a child's college education using pre-18 CS, and then double dip by having the NCP's subsidize their lack of college financial planning with post-18 CS payments. Married parents don't get a second bite at the apple for failing to pre-plan for college. > Insurance? That is a private matter for individuals to decide based on > their own risks. Medical insurance is one of the major injustices in the CS system. Coverage for children only is not possible. NCP's are forced to pay to insure themselves first before they can insure their children. The CS system only recognizes the add-on the parental coverage in award calculations. The cost of insuring the adult is totally ignored but is a very real expense for any NCP proving medical coverage. >>>Dusty I have to say you impressed me. You should run for office on this >>>platform. I would vote for you. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > of insuring the adult is totally ignored but is a very real expense for any > NCP proving medical coverage. But they want to ensure the NCP is healthy... So he can keep on working... > > Joint physical custody should be presumed. It's in the best interest of > > the children, unless there is proven abuse (documented by a conviction in [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > care, custody and companionship of their children shall be given over to > summary execution immediately. That would be anybody who causes number one or two above. [snip] > That would be anybody who causes number one or two above. Psst, Chris.. come here... 1 and 2 where -SARCASM- !!! ....#3 was not. But I know you knew that. I also know that you know I knew that you knew I knew that. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.