JP Cusick and Child Support

[darin]

However imperfect the reality it means that the child's life economically should be impacted as little as possible or not at all. If they had their own bedroom before, the goal is to keep that. If they were able to participate in a sport or whatever, they'd be able to maintain that and all it means. If they were able to give birthday presents of certain amount at parties, etc., that would be maintained.

I disagree.

[Kathianne]

I disagree.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[jimnyc]

But, but, but he's a repub. Are you people willingly violating the repub 11th commandment? Never speak poorly of a fellow repub?

Unlike some drunken liberals on benders, most of us here don't look at issues based on who the person is behind them. Some of us (R) supporters can still smell shit if it comes from another (R) as well as if it came from a falling of the wagon liberal...

[JP Cusick]

the custodial parents owes not even an explanation to the non custodial parent. I've seen MANY fathers try to go that route and it always gets shut down.

There is an important message in this quote above in that here is an eye witness account of MANY (that is MANY) fathers who do pay the thieving Child Support and those father who do comply are "shut down" (that is "shut down") when they seek an explanation concerning the custody of their own children.

The laws and the Courts do this - in that they shut down and shut out the noncustodial parents, and then they play dumb as they do not know while millions of children nationwide have to grow up without their father.

Those ignorant Child Support and Custody laws violate the family unit and destroy the family and those laws are in fact evil.

The anonymous poster above is giving the testimony, and I too testify that the accounting is correct.

And why would we NOT believe or respect those "MANY" fathers? especially since those MANY fathers are the ones who actually do pay the thieving Child Support so those are the fathers who do obey the evil laws.

The morally right thing for all of us to do is to help fight and help stop those inhuman home wrecker laws from continuing.

[Abbey Marie]

JP, I don't really want to go back and read all of your posts on child support. Can you sum up for me in a paragraph or so what it is you see as the best change in support laws we could have? Thanks.

[JP Cusick]

However imperfect the reality it means that the child's life economically should be impacted as little as possible or not at all. If they had their own bedroom before, the goal is to keep that. If they were able to participate in a sport or whatever, they'd be able to maintain that and all it means. If they were able to give birthday presents of certain amount at parties, etc., that would be maintained.

I disagree.

You are correct "dmp" and she is being belligerent.

It is an inhuman and uncivil concept that the children need to be kept comfortable when their own parent(s) are not comfortable.

How could a boy or girl child grow up healthy when they are raised in a condition while their father (or their Mom) is living within an inferior condition?

If a parent is poor or downtrodden then the child's proper place is with their parent and not being superior to their own parent.

That is the twisted mentality of the performer Madonna who takes an African child away from their father because her rich American privileged self is some how better for the child then for the child to be raised by their own natural father.

The claim that the children are not to be impacted by the economic circumstances (or as little as possible) is just inhuman nonsense.

JP, I don't really want to go back and read all of your posts on child support. Can you sum up for me in a paragraph or so what it is you see as the best change in support laws we could have? Thanks.

There are some smaller improvements which could be done to improve the laws, but the "best" change would be to completely end the Child Support orders completely and get the laws and the Courts out of the parenting business.

Truly - the 2 parents (all parents worldwide) can and would do just fine without the State or laws violating their relationship or their parenting.

Of course if there is physical abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence then that is a totally different subject.

That is a direct summary.

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, as I understand it, nearly all child-support laws are state laws, and county/city laws.

Yet you are running for U.S. Senator, for a seat currently held by Steny Hoyer.

I don't recall any authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to have anything to do with Child Support and similar issues. They are reserved to the states and the people.

What effect can you have on these state and local laws, if you are in the U.S. Senate?

[LuvRPgrl]

Am I too understand that you are actually running for an elected office?

You're beyond ridiculous, the above post by you makes no sense whatsoever.

makes complete sense to me.

[Little-Acorn]

3.) When you went traveling through the many states you listed in your bio, where did that travel fall in time, relative to the court judgments?

I have no idea, and I have no desire to try and research such meaningless info.

Well, it is meaningful.

To elaborate: Once the court judgments against you were made (specifying payments based on your income and visitation for your children), did you quit your job to avoid having to make those payments, and then go travelling around the country for purposes that included (a) evading any authorities who might try to enforce the payments ordered by the court(s), and (b) without regard for the needs of your children who might have benefitted from having their father present in their lives?

I hope this helps you to understand why my initial question was not "meaningless". If it is still not clear, I can elaborate further if needed.


Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Vandalism is not "civil disobedience".

It is simply vandalism.

Of course it was civil disobedience, and it was nonviolent too.

"Civil Disobedience" is the act of deliberately violating a law one disagrees with, for the purpose of airing the disagreement publicly and/or bringing that law before a court for judgement.

You disagreed with laws regarding child support. Yet you violated a law forbidding defacement of public property, a law that had nothing to do with child support.

Your spray-painting of public buildings was not "civil disobedience". It was merely vandalism.

[ConHog]

BTW, as I understand it, nearly all child-support laws are state laws, and county/city laws.

Yet you are running for U.S. Senator, for a seat currently held by Steny Hoyer.

I don't recall any authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to have anything to do with Child Support and similar issues. They are reserved to the states and the people.

What effect can you have on these state and local laws, if you are in the U.S. Senate?

JP the jackass aside the feds are in charge of child support collection as in they set standards and help finance the individual state CSE's . So yes, Congress COULD affect that.

There are some smaller improvements which could be done to improve the laws, but the "best" change would be to completely end the Child Support orders completely and get the laws and the Courts out of the parenting business.

Truly - the 2 parents (all parents worldwide) can and would do just fine without the State or laws violating their relationship or their parenting.

Of course if there is physical abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence then that is a totally different subject.

That is a direct summary.

Failing to help support your children financially IS harmful neglect (by the way is there a neglect that isn't harmful?) you fucking idiot.

I apologize to the rest of the board for my harsh attitude towards this fucking douchebag, but I react STRONGLY to people who abdicate their responsibilities towards their children.

[JP Cusick]

BTW, as I understand it, nearly all child-support laws are state laws, and county/city laws.

I don't recall any authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to have anything to do with Child Support and similar issues. They are reserved to the states and the people.

What effect can you have on these state and local laws, if you are in the U.S. Senate?

Link #1 here = THE FEDERAL CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION ACT AND GARNISHMENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT.

Link #2 here = Code of Federal Regulations Title 45.

[JP Cusick]

"Civil Disobedience" is the act of deliberately violating a law one disagrees with, for the purpose of airing the disagreement publicly and/or bringing that law before a court for judgement.

You disagreed with laws regarding child support. Yet you violated a law forbidding defacement of public property, a law that had nothing to do with child support.

Your spray-painting of public buildings was not "civil disobedience". It was merely vandalism.

Fortunately for me that you do not get to define the "civil disobedience" for me.

And if you must cling to the old interpretation, then mine is a new improved version of the concept of civil disobedience.

Also Gandhi and MLK used non-violence but I say we Americans have the right to seek a 2nd Amendment solution when our Gov enforces such evil laws.

Plus - at that time my local Newspaper gave me the front-page-headline calling me as "the Courthouse Vandal" and I always felt proud of that title.

[ConHog]

Link #1 here = THE FEDERAL CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION ACT AND GARNISHMENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT.

Link #2 here = Code of Federal Regulations Title 45.

Irrelevant you fuck. Your children are doing without YOUR support. You shouldn't NEED to be told by ANYONE that you need to help support your kids. You worthless pile of shit.

[JP Cusick]

Irrelevant you xxxxx. Your children are doing without YOUR support. You shouldn't NEED to be told by ANYONE that you need to help support your kids. You worthless pile of xxxxxx.

So you are an immature dirty mouthed person.

I say you need to control your out of control emotions.

[ConHog]

So you are an immature dirty mouthed person.

I say you need to control your out of control emotions.

Yes so immature that I raised my son without any support from his mother AND took on the responsibility of raising another young man when both his parents flaked out oh him. You meanwhile ran out on your own children and somehow think you did the right thing.


Excuse me for becoming emotional when I hear of children who have been NEGLECTED by their so called father.