|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they have the balls say it, they should have the balls to put their name on it.
Although I am not defending the practice, I should point out that a majority of newspapers sign no names to their main editorials. We don't, no matter which of the staff writes it. The practice is quite old.
Personally, I've never agreed with that policy. Gives the impression that it's the opinion of the whole newspaper staff. I disagree with about 75 percent of the editorial opinions printed by my own employer.
As for bombarding this newspaper with e-mail, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Done...in the usual warbelesk fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Your editorial on child support payment enforcement shows how easy it is for a state to help someone force another person into parenthood. This, of course, only applies to men. Women have a choice in whether or not to become a parent. Abortion, adoption, and even legal abandonment give women plenty of choices in whether or not they want to be a parent. Men have a choice of celibacy or faulty birth control methods. However, not even this protects them from forced parenthood. The law stands that even if a man had absolutely no say in whether or not to have sex, he is still obligated to support the child of his rapist.
"Parents must assume responsibility for their children, whether or not they're eager to do so. Whatever the perceived failings of a custodial parent, punishing innocent children is intolerable."
This idea that the only people who do not want to pay child support are irresponsible or harbor hatred towards their former partner is amazingly uninformed. Is the same said of women seeking an abortion? Or giving up their children for adoption? Does the law tell women that even if they aren't "eager," if they refuse to raise the child still developing in their womb that their driver's license, tax returns, and parts of their paycheck will be seized? If they cannot miss a day of work to appear in court and be told they should put up and shut up that they do not deserve to have money stolen out of their accounts? No. We do not tell women these things because we have deemed mothers seeking child support as the poor, suffering victims of men who get them pregnant and then abandon them to raise their offspring. Of course these types of people should be obligated to support their children. But having sex, consensual or not, does not automatically make a woman a parent. Under current law, however, it can make a man. The choice for women is whether or not they should become a parent based on their personal wants. The choice for men is submitting to becoming a parent regardless of their personal wants or trying to live on as little money as a court deems he should have."
Not my best, not my worst either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your home address and phone number, I had my letter sent back earlier today. You don't have to if you just want to yell at the editors, but publication would probably be more beneficial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is my "story" in a nutshell... I am sure that many of you have been through something similar:
Regarding your article, http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/todays_editorial/arti cle/0,1426,MCA_537_1006432,00.html.
I found the writer naive about the real child support system and "deadbeat dads". To make a long story short, my ex and I came to a court supervised custody and payment agreement between the two of us. We had worked everything out with one lawyer to save us time and money on our divorce. We were both satisfied with the outcome. Everything was fine until my ex-spouse signed up for some kind of public assistance when she was ill, several years after our divorce. She had to tell who the father of her child was and what "court imposed" support was being paid. Since there was no court imposed support, by their definition. I was immediately several tens of thousands dollars in arrears and had my wages garnished. I didn't get a paycheck for 2 months. The child support office had never heard of a "settlement" for child support and custody before and did not know how to handle it. So they immediately garnished wages and placed me in arrears. It took two attorneys and several weeks before I was able to get my paycheck back to normal. By the way, the garnished money never got to her nor was returned to me. It is still "in the system". The child support office didn't even want to see my proof that I was paying support ABOVE what they wanted me to pay. To quote some idiot at that office..."You just gave your ex-wife a multi-thousand dollar gift. Because we don't recognize your payment." Before their office was finished with me, I had lost about $4000.00 in wages and another $800 in attourney fees to get it straightened out. And since my kid wasn't getting any of the money that was garnished, I paid my child support to my ex on top of the garnishment. I didn't want to see him go without, during this whole debacle. You had better check out who the states are calling deadbeat dads before shooting your mouth off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I took the time and liberty to assign your story to an email as follows:
The following is a true story about the so-called legal system to "raid" the accounts of fathers:
I found the writer naive about the real child support system and "deadbeat dads". To make a long story short, my ex and I came to a court supervised custody and payment agreement between the two of us. We had worked everything out with one lawyer to save us time and money on our divorce. We were both satisfied with the outcome. Everything was fine until my ex-spouse signed up for some kind of public assistance when she was ill, several years after our divorce. She had to tell who the father of her child was and what "court imposed" support was being paid. Since there was no court imposed support, by their definition. I was immediately several tens of thousands dollars in arrears and had my wages garnished. I didn't get a paycheck for 2 months. The child support office had never heard of a "settlement" for child support and custody before and did not know how to handle it. So they immediately garnished wages and placed me in arrears. It took two attorneys and several weeks before I was able to get my paycheck back to normal. By the way, the garnished money never got to her nor was returned to me. It is still "in the system". The child support office didn't even want to see my proof that I was paying support ABOVE what they wanted me to pay. To quote some idiot at that office..."You just gave your ex-wife a multi-thousand dollar gift. Because we don't recognize your payment." Before their office was finished with me, I had lost about $4000.00 in wages and another $800 in attourney fees to get it straightened out. And since my kid wasn't getting any of the money that was garnished, I paid my child support to my ex on top of the garnishment. I didn't want to see him go without, during this whole debacle. You had better check out who the states are calling deadbeat dads before shooting your mouth off.
It was posted at and the author is readily available for verification. You also demand, and I quote your contact page,
The writer's name
Signature by hand
Daytime and evening telephone numbers for verification
Full home address for verification
for Letters to the Editor. However, your article fails at any of the above for your editorial "Editorial: Pursuing child support collection to the limit" and it is abysmally ignorant of the facts. Is this "journalism" of the highest caliber? I think it not only is not, but also reflects the disresponsibility of your company.
Edmond Clay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that certain safeguards need to be developed to protect so-called "deadbeat" parents who may be behind in child-support but who are genuinely trying to care for their kids and provide for them.
But I do hope there is a very special place in hell for parents who have kids and then abandon them to the other parent, or to a grandparent or relative, or to the foster care system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I do hope there is a very special place in hell for parents who have kids and then abandon them to the other parent, or to a grandparent or relative, or to the foster care system.
The circle in Hell for those parents who deny their child the presence of their other parent in their lives needs to be at least 3 circles lower, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I never could stand for those parents who pit the kids against the other parent either. Unfortunately my desire not to be "that" kind of parent has put me in the position of enabling my ex-husband to be the other kind.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
