 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / November 2009End Default custody to women!
http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/271953 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! > http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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=9D06E2DE163AF936A15754 C0A961958260 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. On Dec 9, 6:36 pm, "DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote: > http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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=9D06E2DE163AF936A15754 C0A961958260 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. ************** That's right, women just never get a fair shake. > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > 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. On Dec 14, 12:51 pm, leabuck...@gmail.com wrote: > > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > 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. 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. On Dec 13, 3:18 pm, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote: > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > 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"? > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > - 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. <leabuckley@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. > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. > 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? On Dec 15, 7:22 am, leabuck...@gmail.com wrote: > > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > 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 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. >of any "claims" you > have to make about the system, such as a specific case file, or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you don't have proof, don't even bother, because I'm going to call > Shenanigans on you. On Dec 14, 4:23 pm, ted.8...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 15, 7:22 am, leabuck...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > > - Show quoted text - But the burden of proof rests with you. On Dec 14, 12:46 am, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote: > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > - 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. ******************** Just visit any "family" kourt and there you will have your proof. On Dec 14, 12:46 am, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote: > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > - 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. > On Dec 14, 12:46 am, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote: >> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > 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". > 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. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > actually made. I have had court standards applied to me unilaterally > while my ex was excused from those same standards. > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] > > - 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. On Dec 14, 8:22 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > > - 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. >On Dec 14, 8:22 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: >> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 163 lines] >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." >>On Dec 14, 8:22 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: >>> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 196 lines] > 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. >>>On Dec 14, 8:22 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: >>>> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 210 lines] >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. > ><leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:c9838214-6614-47d4-a6d3-0a9835b7a520@n2g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 185 lines] > > - 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. >> ><leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:c9838214-6614-47d4-a6d3-0a9835b7a520@n2g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 192 lines] >when in the divorce proceedings, rather than who the better candidate >for CP is. 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. On Dec 21, 10:34 am, Kenneth S. <nimr...@verizon.net> wrote: > On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:29:09 -0800, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 209 lines] > > - 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.] >>On Dec 14, 8:22 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: >>> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 196 lines] > 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? >>>On Dec 14, 8:22 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: >>>> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 237 lines] > 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 On Dec 14, 8:22 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > > - 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. On Dec 9, 6:36 pm, "DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote: > http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. 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? > 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? > 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? > 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. > 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. *********************************************************************************************************************************** On Dec 9, 6:36 pm, "DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote: > http://news.aol.com/article/convicted-oregon-child-killer-is-denied/2... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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=9D06E2DE163AF936A15754 C0A961958260 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. ******************************************************** 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 > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > "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. 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. >> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - 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. 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! >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] >unwed parents. I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point. I >won't hold my breath. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > - 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? On Dec 15, 9:54 am, "Phil" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > "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. > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > - 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. > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > - 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. > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I am sorry. I must have mis-read. I thought the report was children abused by birth parents. On Dec 21, 4:31 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 140 lines] > > - 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. > On Dec 21, 4:31 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: >> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 168 lines] > 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. >> On Dec 21, 4:31 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: >>> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 172 lines] >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. >>> On Dec 21, 4:31 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: >>>> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 199 lines] > 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. > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > - 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. ********************************************************* Where did YOUR information come from? Here's mine, which says your information is wrong: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/chapter5.htm a.. Approximately 60 percent (60.4%) of perpetrators were found to have neglected children; and a.. Approximately 58 percent (57.9%) of perpetrators were women and 42 percent (42.1%) of perpetrators were men. Phil #3 On Dec 15, 9:54 am, "Phil" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > "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 > On Dec 15, 9:54 am, "Phil" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > 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. The same argument has continued since long before newsgroups or usenet existed and I suspect, will become no less contentious with the passing of many more years. Stilted assertions made by those too subjectively immersed and mired in the emotional morasses of their own making to hear one another or appreciate the parallels and difficulties each human has in navigating life. The mass media outlets (AP/UPI) have been awash with horror stories of mothers driving their children into lakes to prevent the father from associating with them. Similarly, there are equally heinous stories of fathers bludgeoning their children or setting them afire. Meanwhile all onloookers can discuss in the narrowest, most emotionaly underdeveloped fashion, using the worst caustic, abrasive manners and tones to argue AT each other as to which gender is guilty, most frequently, if not frequency in parity terms, then splitting hairs and citing "statistics" produced by this organization, that group or the other agency. An unambiguous, documented fact is that men have been betryed by women, many times and had child support obligations hung around their necks like stones to support children their wives had concieved in relations with men not their husbands. . There is no assertion here that men are nobler or higher minded or suffer from a wealth of a moral compass which doesn't occur in women who have committed such twisted acts, it's simply and immutable fact of biological truth that men are constrained by not ideals or scruples, but by the fact that men don't get pregnant nor do they bear children. If biology wefre reversed, many men would behave as badly as many women have. No one is exempt from poor judgement, prevarications or false accusations being hurled and neither gender enjoys an entirely clear conscience regarding the behaviors and actions of their brothers or sisters. If you create babies, feed them, keep the rain off of their necks and teach them, preferably a less contentious and testy means of communicationing with one another than the sad and acidic sarcasm masquerading as wit currently beine aimed at anyone who speaks. Be well and be better. |
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.