MI: Cracking down on child support payments 2
Question:
While I am a firm believer in two-parent homes, when it comes to divorce, though, I say the Father is the one person to be the default parent. Not the Mother. And I’ll debate anyone who says otherwise. There is just far too much EMPIRICAL DATA that proves that Mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with. Hell, to leave ANY child with.
Your confusing the way most women are in this country with mothers. A child can get by just fine with a real mother or a real father. Unfortunately (and its usually the woman) what you get though is a person that cares more for themselves and resents the other person. Children pick up on this negativity. Its interesting some of the statistics I just found. Of divorces where the two parties get along, 90.2% of child support is paid. But the number drops to about 37% for the cases where the woman is basically trying to keep the man out of her life. I agree. It is supposed to be child support. I believe the child responsibility should be split 50/50. What it is not is MOM support. If I was involved with a women like that I would directly purchase items that only the child could use. There is no way in hell that she would get a cent. Another thing that is intersting is that 66% of the people that do not pay, do so because they do not have the money. Eric
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – < snip for length While I am a firm believer in two-parent homes, when it comes to divorce, though, I say the Father is the one person to be the default parent. Not the Mother. And I’ll debate anyone who says otherwise. There is just far too much EMPIRICAL DATA that proves that Mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with. Hell, to leave ANY child with. I’d debate you on that, Dusty. I think the default should be 50/50custody, so the children have both parents in their lives. I have seen data showing what happens to many children who are raised in single-mother households. However, I have seen no data showing what happens to children raised in single-father households–and the reason is probably because there is not a large enough sampling to make the data valid! Pushing the default from one extreme to the other deprives the children of one of their parents–and children need input from both parents. Probably why Mother Nature designed things so it takes one of each to create a child. Oh, and I doubt that your data says that mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with–although there are some humdinger cases out there that might make it seem otherwise. While I agree with your stance on 50/50 custody, Dusty is right about mothers being proven to be dangerous to children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm99/table3b.htm In 1999, mothers only were responsible for abuse & neglect in 44.7% of cases while fathers only = 15.9%. (Whether this is due to the fact that far more mothers have access to children or not doesn’t really matter. It still indicates a serious problem in our recently redesigned and forcefully engineered society) And this is probably the truth. If men and women had equal access to their children, we would probably see the figures change. And the biggest change would probably take place because one parent didn’t have the full responsibility, and parenting was shared, as it was meant to be. In questioning the reason as to why there is little information about how children turn out from sole father-headed households, it almost sounds like you’re saying it’s better to leave kids in a situation that is known to be harmful than to chance it being worse. I think you probably know that I do not feel that way, Phil. My comment about there being no real studies available on single fathering was just that: a comment. It would be difficult to do a study where there was so little information available. My brother is a single father, an excellent one. I have no problem with single fathers. It’s just that I think children need both parents. I don’t think either fathers of mothers should be the presumptive parent for custody. It could be, sure, but on the other hand, we have an indication from 40-50 years ago when almost all children had two parents, kids didn’t "drive-by", shooting up houses and often innocent children, metal detectors weren’t needed at schools, drugs were much less prevalent among children, teenage pregnancy was far less common, and a long list of other items. Personally, I think the credit for the growth of youthful crime should be blamed directly on the recent growth of not having a father directly involved in their children’s lives. That is not to say that mothers aren’t important; it’s just that they are unprepared to be, or act as mothers AND fathers. Undoubtedly, if the custody situation were reversed, something else would be missing since, as you say, both parents are important. Each adds something the other simply cannot to the child’s life. Exactly what I am saying. Children need both parents. There are a lot of things that happen today that didn’t happen 50 years ago. I was just thinking today that, when I was in school, it was unheard of for a child to talk back to a teacher, and expect his parent to come down to the school and defend his right to do so. It’s easier to tell off the principal than it is to insist that your child behave, It’s all very sad. So what is it that these parents DO defend the children to the teachers, thus taking any respect away from the authority figure in the childs eyes? These are not just single parents that do that so that can’t be an issue. I have plenty of married friends who are always defending their children when they break rules. Granted, I may not approve of all the rules at my daughters school but I tell her they are the rules. When she got ISS for pushing a child, although she claims she didn’t, that her friend did it and the friend even said the same thing, I told her that she has to take the punishment, deal with it and rethink the situations she finds herself in. My friends all said they would have raised hell at the school. Just babbling. If my post sounded like I thought only single parents were backing their children against school officials, I apologize as that was neither my intent nor my belief. My point was that we have become a nation that worships children to the point that we try too hard to protect their feelings when having their feelings hurt occasionally may be the best thing for them to teach them humility and empathy. I can’t believe how brash and rude people are, including and especially children. Phil #3
no… I didn’t think that….. I also post to a single parent ng…. must have been in that mind set. T
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – < snip for length While I am a firm believer in two-parent homes, when it comes to divorce, though, I say the Father is the one person to be the default parent. Not the Mother. And I’ll debate anyone who says otherwise. There is just far too much EMPIRICAL DATA that proves that Mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with. Hell, to leave ANY child with. I’d debate you on that, Dusty. I think the default should be 50/50custody, so the children have both parents in their lives. I have seen data showing what happens to many children who are raised in single-mother households. However, I have seen no data showing what happens to children raised in single-father households–and the reason is probably because there is not a large enough sampling to make the data valid! Pushing the default from one extreme to the other deprives the children of one of their parents–and children need input from both parents. Probably why Mother Nature designed things so it takes one of each to create a child. Oh, and I doubt that your data says that mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with–although there are some humdinger cases out there that might make it seem otherwise. While I agree with your stance on 50/50 custody, Dusty is right about mothers being proven to be dangerous to children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm99/table3b.htm In 1999, mothers only were responsible for abuse & neglect in 44.7% of cases while fathers only = 15.9%. (Whether this is due to the fact that far more mothers have access to children or not doesn’t really matter. It still indicates a serious problem in our recently redesigned and forcefully engineered society) And this is probably the truth. If men and women had equal access to their children, we would probably see the figures change. And the biggest change would probably take place because one parent didn’t have the full responsibility, and parenting was shared, as it was meant to be. In questioning the reason as to why there is little information about how children turn out from sole father-headed households, it almost sounds like you’re saying it’s better to leave kids in a situation that is known to be harmful than to chance it being worse. I think you probably know that I do not feel that way, Phil. My comment about there being no real studies available on single fathering was just that: a comment. It would be difficult to do a study where there was so little information available. My brother is a single father, an excellent one. I have no problem with single fathers. It’s just that I think children need both parents. I don’t think either fathers of mothers should be the presumptive parent for custody. It could be, sure, but on the other hand, we have an indication from 40-50 years ago when almost all children had two parents, kids didn’t "drive-by", shooting up houses and often innocent children, metal detectors weren’t needed at schools, drugs were much less prevalent among children, teenage pregnancy was far less common, and a long list of other items. Personally, I think the credit for the growth of youthful crime should be blamed directly on the recent growth of not having a father directly involved in their children’s lives. That is not to say that mothers aren’t important; it’s just that they are unprepared to be, or act as mothers AND fathers. Undoubtedly, if the custody situation were reversed, something else would be missing since, as you say, both parents are important. Each adds something the other simply cannot to the child’s life. Exactly what I am saying. Children need both parents. There are a lot of things that happen today that didn’t happen 50 years ago. I was just thinking today that, when I was in school, it was unheard of for a child to talk back to a teacher, and expect his parent to come down to the school and defend his right to do so. It’s easier to tell off the principal than it is to insist that your child behave, It’s all very sad. So what is it that these parents DO defend the children to the teachers, thus taking any respect away from the authority figure in the childs eyes? These are not just single parents that do that so that can’t be an issue. I have plenty of married friends who are always defending their children when they break rules. Granted, I may not approve of all the rules at my daughters school but I tell her they are the rules. When she got ISS for pushing a child, although she claims she didn’t, that her friend did it and the friend even said the same thing, I told her that she has to take the punishment, deal with it and rethink the situations she finds herself in. My friends all said they would have raised hell at the school. Just babbling.
If my post sounded like I thought only single parents were backing their children against school officials, I apologize as that was neither my intent nor my belief. My point was that we have become a nation that worships children to the point that we try too hard to protect their feelings when having their feelings hurt occasionally may be the best thing for them to teach them humility and empathy. I can’t believe how brash and rude people are, including and especially children. Phil #3
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – < snip for length While I am a firm believer in two-parent homes, when it comes to divorce, though, I say the Father is the one person to be the default parent. Not the Mother. And I’ll debate anyone who says otherwise. There is just far too much EMPIRICAL DATA that proves that Mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with. Hell, to leave ANY child with. I’d debate you on that, Dusty. I think the default should be 50/50custody, so the children have both parents in their lives. I have seen data showing what happens to many children who are raised in single-mother households. However, I have seen no data showing what happens to children raised in single-father households–and the reason is probably because there is not a large enough sampling to make the data valid! Pushing the default from one extreme to the other deprives the children of one of their parents–and children need input from both parents. Probably why Mother Nature designed things so it takes one of each to create a child. Oh, and I doubt that your data says that mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with–although there are some humdinger cases out there that might make it seem otherwise. While I agree with your stance on 50/50 custody, Dusty is right about mothers being proven to be dangerous to children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm99/table3b.htm In 1999, mothers only were responsible for abuse & neglect in 44.7% of cases while fathers only = 15.9%. (Whether this is due to the fact that far more mothers have access to children or not doesn’t really matter. It still indicates a serious problem in our recently redesigned and forcefully engineered society) And this is probably the truth. If men and women had equal access to their children, we would probably see the figures change. And the biggest change would probably take place because one parent didn’t have the full responsibility, and parenting was shared, as it was meant to be. In questioning the reason as to why there is little information about how children turn out from sole father-headed households, it almost sounds like you’re saying it’s better to leave kids in a situation that is known to be harmful than to chance it being worse. I think you probably know that I do not feel that way, Phil. My comment about there being no real studies available on single fathering was just that: a comment. It would be difficult to do a study where there was so little information available. My brother is a single father, an excellent one. I have no problem with single fathers. It’s just that I think children need both parents. I don’t think either fathers of mothers should be the presumptive parent for custody. It could be, sure, but on the other hand, we have an indication from 40-50 years ago when almost all children had two parents, kids didn’t "drive-by", shooting up houses and often innocent children, metal detectors weren’t needed at schools, drugs were much less prevalent among children, teenage pregnancy was far less common, and a long list of other items. Personally, I think the credit for the growth of youthful crime should be blamed directly on the recent growth of not having a father directly involved in their children’s lives. That is not to say that mothers aren’t important; it’s just that they are unprepared to be, or act as mothers AND fathers. Undoubtedly, if the custody situation were reversed, something else would be missing since, as you say, both parents are important. Each adds something the other simply cannot to the child’s life. Exactly what I am saying. Children need both parents. There are a lot of things that happen today that didn’t happen 50 years ago. I was just thinking today that, when I was in school, it was unheard of for a child to talk back to a teacher, and expect his parent to come down to the school and defend his right to do so. It’s easier to tell off the principal than it is to insist that your child behave, It’s all very sad.
So what is it that these parents DO defend the children to the teachers, thus taking any respect away from the authority figure in the childs eyes? These are not just single parents that do that so that can’t be an issue. I have plenty of married friends who are always defending their children when they break rules. Granted, I may not approve of all the rules at my daughters school but I tell her they are the rules. When she got ISS for pushing a child, although she claims she didn’t, that her friend did it and the friend even said the same thing, I told her that she has to take the punishment, deal with it and rethink the situations she finds herself in. My friends all said they would have raised hell at the school. Just babbling.
Response:
[snip] Exactly what I am saying. Children need both parents. There are a lot of things that happen today that didn’t happen 50 years ago. I was just thinking today that, when I was in school, it was unheard of for a child to talk back to a teacher, and expect his parent to come down to the school and defend his right to do so. It’s easier to tell off the principal than it is to insist that your child behave, It’s all very sad.
When I was young and even when I was not-so-young, being a child meant learning how to behave in decent company and how to treat others. It almost seems as if it’s prohibited to correct children. Perhaps it is just my cynical viewpoint but the whole nation has become rude and self-centered to the extreme, especially children. We respected our teachers and treated them as an extension of our parents who, if we got in trouble at school, would deal out more misery for our bad choices when we got home in addition to that meted out at school. You are correct, there *is* a lot more happening and not much of it is good, IMO. Phil #3
Response:
< snip for length – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – While I am a firm believer in two-parent homes, when it comes to divorce, though, I say the Father is the one person to be the default parent. Not the Mother. And I’ll debate anyone who says otherwise. There is just far too much EMPIRICAL DATA that proves that Mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with. Hell, to leave ANY child with. I’d debate you on that, Dusty. I think the default should be 50/50custody, so the children have both parents in their lives. I have seen data showing what happens to many children who are raised in single-mother households. However, I have seen no data showing what happens to children raised in single-father households–and the reason is probably because there is not a large enough sampling to make the data valid! Pushing the default from one extreme to the other deprives the children of one of their parents–and children need input from both parents. Probably why Mother Nature designed things so it takes one of each to create a child. Oh, and I doubt that your data says that mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with–although there are some humdinger cases out there that might make it seem otherwise. While I agree with your stance on 50/50 custody, Dusty is right about mothers being proven to be dangerous to children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm99/table3b.htm In 1999, mothers only were responsible for abuse & neglect in 44.7% of cases while fathers only = 15.9%. (Whether this is due to the fact that far more mothers have access to children or not doesn’t really matter. It still indicates a serious problem in our recently redesigned and forcefully engineered society)
And this is probably the truth. If men and women had equal access to their children, we would probably see the figures change. And the biggest change would probably take place because one parent didn’t have the full responsibility, and parenting was shared, as it was meant to be. In questioning the reason as to why there is little information about how children turn out from sole father-headed households, it almost sounds like you’re saying it’s better to leave kids in a situation that is known to be harmful than to chance it being worse.
I think you probably know that I do not feel that way, Phil. My comment about there being no real studies available on single fathering was just that: a comment. It would be difficult to do a study where there was so little information available. My brother is a single father, an excellent one. I have no problem with single fathers. It’s just that I think children need both parents. I don’t think either fathers of mothers should be the presumptive parent for custody. It could be, sure, but on the other hand, we have an indication from 40-50 years ago when almost all children had two parents, kids didn’t "drive-by", shooting up houses and often innocent children, metal detectors weren’t needed at schools, drugs were much less prevalent among children, teenage pregnancy was far less common, and a long list of other items. Personally, I think the credit for the growth of youthful crime should be blamed directly on the recent growth of not having a father directly involved in their children’s lives. That is not to say that mothers aren’t important; it’s just that they are unprepared to be, or act as mothers AND fathers. Undoubtedly, if the custody situation were reversed, something else would be missing since, as you say, both parents are important. Each adds something the other simply cannot to the child’s life.
Exactly what I am saying. Children need both parents. There are a lot of things that happen today that didn’t happen 50 years ago. I was just thinking today that, when I was in school, it was unheard of for a child to talk back to a teacher, and expect his parent to come down to the school and defend his right to do so. It’s easier to tell off the principal than it is to insist that your child behave, It’s all very sad.
Response:
And don’t forget….
[snip] Thank you Phil, I was about to respond with that very same information. And I also agree that children should have both parents involved in their lives. Joint custody, or 50/50 Custody should be the norm, but alas, it is not and we are living with the results of feminist driven custody laws. I predict it will only get worse should more draconian laws and measures against the myth of the so-called "deadbeat" Dad prevail.
Of course you are correct. For the past 40 or so years it has steadily gotten worse and each year sees a new batch of methods to collect what’s already being collected. Things took a big jump for the worse in 1989-90. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just look at the latest steps that MI is taking – if you owe $10k you’re going to jail for several years for a "crime" that the US Constitution clearly says cannot exist in this country – Debtors Prisons. But that’s what we’re getting with these kinds of "shoot first, ask later", knee-jerk reactions to "crimes" that only a marginal amount of parents are guilty for. Our prisons are already over crowded as it stands now. To start tossing dead-broke, unemployed, under-employed, destitute parents and even the border-line surviving parents that can’t or are barely making ends meet into jail for ridiculous sums of money (especially when the state is known to screw up it’s figures) into a jail cell for the "crime" of not coughing up that last dime is absurd. Of course, taking away their drivers licenses, professional licenses, personal property (car, house, and other property) is insane as well. You have to ask the question, if these people have no way to perform their jobs, much less have a way to get to them – where’s the money going to come from anyway??? And don’t get me started on the way the states figure out how they come up with these amounts for owed CS.. The interest, penalties and fines that are levied against these dead-broke parents is incredible! In some cases the amount of interest is more then credit card companies charge! And in a short time, the amount owed becomes an astronomical figure with little hope of ever being paid.
True, it’s a gold mine for the states. They get a portion, let’s call it profit, off of other’s misfortunes and actually don’t have to do anything since most NCPs pay their child support anyway. It’s nice to be able to run everyone through garnishment to help insure the states get it and can hide it for a while to collect interest from it before finally giving to the CP to do with as they see fit. Of course, the states have arranged for the "added expense" of withholding to be added onto the garnishment as if this was the only withholding on the paycheck. Then the states get even more than collected from Uncle Sugar to prompt the states to keep "collections" high. It’s a freakin’ circus and the NCPs are the unwilling clowns. Phil #3 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If these judicial prudes ever thought to give real crime this much attention, the streets would be cleared up in no time at all. But no, they have the greatest scapegoat of all time to beat on – Fathers.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – While I agree with your stance on 50/50 custody, Dusty is right about mothers being proven to be dangerous to children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm99/table3b.htm In 1999, mothers only were responsible for abuse & neglect in 44.7% of cases while fathers only = 15.9%. (Whether this is due to the fact that far more mothers have access to children or not doesn’t really matter. It still indicates a serious problem in our recently redesigned and forcefully engineered society) In questioning the reason as to why there is little information about how children turn out from sole father-headed households, it almost sounds like you’re saying it’s better to leave kids in a situation that is known to be harmful than to chance it being worse. It could be, sure, but on the other hand, we have an indication from 40-50 years ago when almost all children had two parents, kids didn’t "drive-by", shooting up houses and often innocent children, metal detectors weren’t needed at schools, drugs were much less prevalent among children, teenage pregnancy was far less common, and a long list of other items. Personally, I think the credit for the growth of youthful crime should be blamed directly on the recent growth of not having a father directly involved in their children’s lives. That is not to say that mothers aren’t important; it’s just that they are unprepared to be, or act as mothers AND fathers. Undoubtedly, if the custody situation were reversed, something else would be missing since, as you say, both parents are important. Each adds something the other simply cannot to the child’s life. Phil #3
Thank you Phil, I was about to respond with that very same information. And I also agree that children should have both parents involved in their lives. Joint custody, or 50/50 Custody should be the norm, but alas, it is not and we are living with the results of feminist driven custody laws. I predict it will only get worse should more draconian laws and measures against the myth of the so-called "deadbeat" Dad prevail. Just look at the latest steps that MI is taking – if you owe $10k you’re going to jail for several years for a "crime" that the US Constitution clearly says cannot exist in this country – Debtors Prisons. But that’s what we’re getting with these kinds of "shoot first, ask later", knee-jerk reactions to "crimes" that only a marginal amount of parents are guilty for. Our prisons are already over crowded as it stands now. To start tossing dead-broke, unemployed, under-employed, destitute parents and even the border-line surviving parents that can’t or are barely making ends meet into jail for ridiculous sums of money (especially when the state is known to screw up it’s figures) into a jail cell for the "crime" of not coughing up that last dime is absurd. Of course, taking away their drivers licenses, professional licenses, personal property (car, house, and other property) is insane as well. You have to ask the question, if these people have no way to perform their jobs, much less have a way to get to them – where’s the money going to come from anyway??? And don’t get me started on the way the states figure out how they come up with these amounts for owed CS.. The interest, penalties and fines that are levied against these dead-broke parents is incredible! In some cases the amount of interest is more then credit card companies charge! And in a short time, the amount owed becomes an astronomical figure with little hope of ever being paid. If these judicial prudes ever thought to give real crime this much attention, the streets would be cleared up in no time at all. But no, they have the greatest scapegoat of all time to beat on – Fathers.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As I first started to read this article in the paper, I had a smirk on my face because of the way this article starts out. The "Honorable Gentleman" that wrote this obviously hasn’t read the facts, just the feminazi, political hype surrounding this mess. His "solution" is to throw money at the problem, as is the case with almost every politician. And he doesn’t care where that money comes from, so long as there is enough cash thrown around to confuse and confound the masses. Mr. Robertson shows us how ignorant he is in his opening paragraph when he starts off with: "There is an epidemic in Michigan that affects more than 650,000 children. Symptoms include quitting school, poor grade point averages and an increase in behavioral problems. Fortunately, we don’t need to find a medical miracle for the antidote; we can just provide tougher criminal penalties and better collection methods." The real answer to this problem is not throwing people in jail. The real answer to this "problem" is letting families be families and allowing fathers to be just that – Dads. There is no other factor more important in the life of a child then that of the child’s father. And it’s also a proven fact that Fathers can do a hell of a lot more to keep things like drugs, alcohol, teen pregnancy, dropping out of school and a whole host of other things from happening in their children’s lives – just by being Dad. And no, I do NOT mean Uncle Daddy, the walking ATM that Mommie-Dearest berates and belittles at every chance she gets. I mean the real thing. Dad. The guy that, as a child, you know in your heart of hearts can solve damned near every problem, has answers to nearly everything, plays house better then your friends, knows exactly how to fix your bike, makes a killer dinner, helps with your homework and isn’t afraid to wash your mouth out with soap when you lie or swear, and is the first person to hug you and say you did good. And as an adult, the one person in all the world that you can pour your heart and soul out to and never get "I told you so" for an answer. That Dad. While I am a firm believer in two-parent homes, when it comes to divorce, though, I say the Father is the one person to be the default parent. Not the Mother. And I’ll debate anyone who says otherwise. There is just far too much EMPIRICAL DATA that proves that Mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with. Hell, to leave ANY child with. I’d debate you on that, Dusty. I think the default should be 50/50custody, so the children have both parents in their lives. I have seen data showing what happens to many children who are raised in single-mother households. However, I have seen no data showing what happens to children raised in single-father households–and the reason is probably because there is not a large enough sampling to make the data valid! Pushing the default from one extreme to the other deprives the children of one of their parents–and children need input from both parents. Probably why Mother Nature designed things so it takes one of each to create a child. Oh, and I doubt that your data says that mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with–although there are some humdinger cases out there that might make it seem otherwise.
While I agree with your stance on 50/50 custody, Dusty is right about mothers being proven to be dangerous to children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm99/table3b.htm In 1999, mothers only were responsible for abuse & neglect in 44.7% of cases while fathers only = 15.9%. (Whether this is due to the fact that far more mothers have access to children or not doesn’t really matter. It still indicates a serious problem in our recently redesigned and forcefully engineered society) In questioning the reason as to why there is little information about how children turn out from sole father-headed households, it almost sounds like you’re saying it’s better to leave kids in a situation that is known to be harmful than to chance it being worse. It could be, sure, but on the other hand, we have an indication from 40-50 years ago when almost all children had two parents, kids didn’t "drive-by", shooting up houses and often innocent children, metal detectors weren’t needed at schools, drugs were much less prevalent among children, teenage pregnancy was far less common, and a long list of other items. Personally, I think the credit for the growth of youthful crime should be blamed directly on the recent growth of not having a father directly involved in their children’s lives. That is not to say that mothers aren’t important; it’s just that they are unprepared to be, or act as mothers AND fathers. Undoubtedly, if the custody situation were reversed, something else would be missing since, as you say, both parents are important. Each adds something the other simply cannot to the child’s life. Phil #3
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As I first started to read this article in the paper, I had a smirk on my face because of the way this article starts out. The "Honorable Gentleman" that wrote this obviously hasn’t read the facts, just the feminazi, political hype surrounding this mess. His "solution" is to throw money at the problem, as is the case with almost every politician. And he doesn’t care where that money comes from, so long as there is enough cash thrown around to confuse and confound the masses. Mr. Robertson shows us how ignorant he is in his opening paragraph when he starts off with: "There is an epidemic in Michigan that affects more than 650,000 children. Symptoms include quitting school, poor grade point averages and an increase in behavioral problems. Fortunately, we don’t need to find a medical miracle for the antidote; we can just provide tougher criminal penalties and better collection methods." The real answer to this problem is not throwing people in jail. The real answer to this "problem" is letting families be families and allowing fathers to be just that – Dads. There is no other factor more important in the life of a child then that of the child’s father. And it’s also a proven fact that Fathers can do a hell of a lot more to keep things like drugs, alcohol, teen pregnancy, dropping out of school and a whole host of other things from happening in their children’s lives – just by being Dad. And no, I do NOT mean Uncle Daddy, the walking ATM that Mommie-Dearest berates and belittles at every chance she gets. I mean the real thing. Dad. The guy that, as a child, you know in your heart of hearts can solve damned near every problem, has answers to nearly everything, plays house better then your friends, knows exactly how to fix your bike, makes a killer dinner, helps with your homework and isn’t afraid to wash your mouth out with soap when you lie or swear, and is the first person to hug you and say you did good. And as an adult, the one person in all the world that you can pour your heart and soul out to and never get "I told you so" for an answer. That Dad. While I am a firm believer in two-parent homes, when it comes to divorce, though, I say the Father is the one person to be the default parent. Not the Mother. And I’ll debate anyone who says otherwise. There is just far too much EMPIRICAL DATA that proves that Mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with. Hell, to leave ANY child with.
I’d debate you on that, Dusty. I think the default should be 50/50custody, so the children have both parents in their lives. I have seen data showing what happens to many children who are raised in single-mother households. However, I have seen no data showing what happens to children raised in single-father households–and the reason is probably because there is not a large enough sampling to make the data valid! Pushing the default from one extreme to the other deprives the children of one of their parents–and children need input from both parents. Probably why Mother Nature designed things so it takes one of each to create a child. Oh, and I doubt that your data says that mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with–although there are some humdinger cases out there that might make it seem otherwise.
Response:
As I first started to read this article in the paper, I had a smirk on my face because of the way this article starts out. The "Honorable Gentleman" that wrote this obviously hasn’t read the facts, just the feminazi, political hype surrounding this mess. His "solution" is to throw money at the problem, as is the case with almost every politician. And he doesn’t care where that money comes from, so long as there is enough cash thrown around to confuse and confound the masses. Mr. Robertson shows us how ignorant he is in his opening paragraph when he starts off with: "There is an epidemic in Michigan that affects more than 650,000 children. Symptoms include quitting school, poor grade point averages and an increase in behavioral problems. Fortunately, we don’t need to find a medical miracle for the antidote; we can just provide tougher criminal penalties and better collection methods." The real answer to this problem is not throwing people in jail. The real answer to this "problem" is letting families be families and allowing fathers to be just that – Dads. There is no other factor more important in the life of a child then that of the child’s father. And it’s also a proven fact that Fathers can do a hell of a lot more to keep things like drugs, alcohol, teen pregnancy, dropping out of school and a whole host of other things from happening in their children’s lives – just by being Dad. And no, I do NOT mean Uncle Daddy, the walking ATM that Mommie-Dearest berates and belittles at every chance she gets. I mean the real thing. Dad. The guy that, as a child, you know in your heart of hearts can solve damned near every problem, has answers to nearly everything, plays house better then your friends, knows exactly how to fix your bike, makes a killer dinner, helps with your homework and isn’t afraid to wash your mouth out with soap when you lie or swear, and is the first person to hug you and say you did good. And as an adult, the one person in all the world that you can pour your heart and soul out to and never get "I told you so" for an answer. That Dad. While I am a firm believer in two-parent homes, when it comes to divorce, though, I say the Father is the one person to be the default parent. Not the Mother. And I’ll debate anyone who says otherwise. There is just far too much EMPIRICAL DATA that proves that Mothers are the worst person to leave a small child with. Hell, to leave ANY child with. Jailing people because you’ve thrown an impossible bill at them and use threats, coercion, lies and physical harm (at least one man was killed by guards while jailed in NH for "failure to pay") to get them to pay is not going to solve a damned thing. It’s just going to make the matter worse. Sunday, March 28, 2004 Cracking down on child support payments State needs to improve abysmal collection record Children suffer when deadbeat parents fail to pay By Rep. Dave Robertson / Special to The Detroit News There is an epidemic in Michigan that affects more than 650,000 children. Symptoms include quitting school, poor grade point averages and an increase in behavioral problems. Fortunately, we don’t need to find a medical miracle for the antidote; we can just provide tougher criminal penalties and better collection methods. This widespread epidemic is nonpayment of child support. Parents throughout our state are refusing to take financial responsibility for their children. These young people not only risk less income, but studies show that nonpayment of child support can affect their cognitive skills and ultimately lead to behavioral problems. Michigan ranks an abysmal third worst in the nation for child support collection. It’s time for us to defend these children and demand reforms in current law. With the steadfast support of Attorney General Mike Cox, House lawmakers have introduced legislation to strengthen Michigan’s child support payment system and better prosecute parents who have the means to support their children, but choose not to. It is not our intention to prosecute parents who are having a hard time paying. We understand there can be times when it is difficult to make ends meet, especially when our economy is struggling and we are losing manufacturing jobs. But when Michigan parents owe more than $7 billion to their children and the state, change is overdue. My bill in the package creates a tiered penalty structure based on the amount of child support a person owes, whether it is a first or subsequent offense, and the length of time since the person last made a support payment. Current law provides no incentive for delinquent parents to pay. If a person violates a court order of child support now, the individual can be found guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than four years or by a fine of not more than $2,000. It doesn’t matter if individuals owe $500 or $500,000, they still receive the same punishment. Right now in Michigan, there are more than 17,000 cases outstanding in which more than $50,000 is owed by a delinquent parent. With early prosecutions, we can prevent the numbers of parents who stop paying or who incur huge child support debts. With the possibility of spending up to 10 years in prison for amounts of $20,000 or more or failure to pay for more than five years, there will be a strong incentive to make the payments. My bill is fair. The punishment fits the crime. If you incur additional child support debt, you’re going to get more prison time. The longer you wait to pay, the more time you’ll spend in prison. We are proposing a multi-pronged approach to encourage child support payment. The package also places a limit on incarceration credit; increases bond for felony nonsupport cases; and creates a public "most wanted list" for the most egregious child support violators. To provide more effective collection methods, our initiative places liens on lawsuit or arbitration awards, insurance proceeds, workers’ compensation awards and inheritance involving delinquent parents. Certainly, our child support package is not a cure-all. Children need noncustodial parents to spend more time with them, but the Legislature can’t force that. We can reform our laws to encourage these fathers and mothers to take financial responsibility and give their children a chance at a brighter future. Many of these children who should be receiving child support payments come from single-parent households, and there is no denying that kids living with single moms and dads face daunting challenges. That’s why they deserve our help. The terrible legacy of nonpayment of child support is that it affects kids who are already at risk. If we continually allow delinquent parents to slip through the cracks in our legal system, they may invariably take their children along with them. Rep. Dave Robertson, R-Grand Blanc Township, represents the Michigan House’s 51st District. Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. —- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle —
Response:
Categories: Asthma Children Symptoms | 
No Comments »
