Positive Solutions. a) Child Maintenance.

-Percy

http://antimisandry.com/positive-solutions/positive-solutions-child-maintenance-40837.html

Sir Percy

We moan and criticise with good cause about a range of issues. But rarely are positive solutions proposed.

I would like to make such a proposal. I have done it before in various responses, but here I want to put it as an ‘Opener’ for POSITIVE, constructive discussion.

The concept of Child Maintenance is operationalised in various western countries, through Government agencies which purport to act as a ‘middle- thing’ between separated or divorced parents.

In practice it turns into a huge beaurocratic machine driven by an anti-male agenda which takes monies from men and gives it to women. The benefit to the children is not even considered.

Fathers are ‘blamed’ for desertion even when they are driven away. Real deserters are hidden in a crowd of innocents; selfish, demanding mothers are praised for being stoic self-sacrificers. Men are jailed; women get a taxpayer stipend and a huge range of ‘benefits’.

The practice replaces the father, stripping him of all responsibility apart from money and often forcing him into penury.

I do not include ‘Alimony’ in the C$A issue as this impost has all but disappeared except for in America or for the wealthy.

So, what should the situation be like?

How can we make a system that is fair to both the mother and the father and to the benefit of the child? How can we ensure that the State or a random bunch of clerks and Department Heads of various hat size do not take over to the detriment of parental rights?

I propose several quite clear and explicit positions to take that ought to underpin any solution. The fine detail of enforcement or Institutionalised facilitation we can bring into discussion.

First: it needs to be established that BOTH parents are Totally, Wholly, Individually, Jointly & Severally, Responsible and Accountable for the complete Financial, Mental, Emotional, Physical, Spiritual, Health, Education and Wellbeing of the children they produce together.

This means that Each is wholly Responsible; niether can prevent the other from the necessary participation and obligation. The failure or impediment of one puts the onus on the other. Neither can ‘withdraw’ or force the other away from the child.

It can be a matter of social ‘organisation’ or ‘law’, to determine the mechanisms of Accountability, but that accountability is to the Child, via a third-Party social instrumentality which is to ‘aid’ the child rather than dispossess the child of its own interests. In event of separation / divorce, BOTH parties MUST draw up a Plan to fulfill their obligations. Both must contribute, particulalry financially, which underpins most other provisions.

Secondly: it needs to be established that Interference with the obligations and rights of either or both Parents in relation to the Child is to be punishable , by Law’. This includes interference by one parent in the rights and obligations of the other parent.

Just what might constitute ‘interference’ might be determined in discussion but ought not encompass the normal day to day distinctive views of men and women, fathers and mothers in jointly deciding matters.

It would encompass outside individuals or ‘agencies’ who are currently geared toward busy-body, judgemental and often arbitrary punitive actions. For example there was a case last year of a child taken from her parents because a police ‘raid’ initiated by some animal welfare’ snoopers acting on a complaint against them having a commercial Kennel business, accidently let the dogs out and used that as an excuse for the child being in danger. Such arbitrary action should carry a criminal charge.

Thirdly: Either or both of the parents may seek aid and assistance in fulfilling their obligations toward the child. This aid should have the agreement and approval of the other parent, where possible. Such ‘aid’ provided by State or non-State agencies must NOT subvert the rights and obligations of the parents. Such aid may be ‘contingent’ on specified factors and may carry contingencies in provision.

It must be sought. A third party might suggest it. No one can impose it without say, a Court Order. Aid provision may be limited so as not to ‘replace’ the parental obligation. It may carry an obligation to ‘repay’ in part, in some way. It may be ‘time’ limited. It would NOT reduce the obligation on a capable parent.

OK, some points to start with.

Any discussion? Addition? See roadblocks? – if so, suggest how to circumvent.

Be positive.

‘Custody’ is a weasel-word. The parents are Responsible for everything about their children. ‘Custody’ is not a ‘grant’ or a ‘privilege’ given by the State, to be taken away at whim.

NO-ONE should interfere with parents and their children unless some criminal act has occurred.

Bloody busy-bodies !

Percy’s Rules……….

First: it needs to be established that BOTH parents are Totally, Wholly, Individually, Jointly & Severally, Responsible and Accountable for the complete Financial, Mental, Emotional, Physical, Spiritual, Health, Education and Wellbeing of the children they produce together.

This means that Each is wholly Responsible; niether can prevent the other from the necessary participation and obligation. The failure or impediment of one puts the onus on the other. Neither can ‘withdraw’ or force the other away from the child.

It can be a matter of social ‘organisation’ or ‘law’, to determine the mechanisms of Accountability, but that accountability is to the Child, via a third-Party social instrumentality which is to ‘aid’ the child rather than dispossess the child of its own interests. In event of separation / divorce, BOTH parties MUST draw up a Plan to fulfill their obligations. Both must contribute, particulalry financially, which underpins most other provisions.

Secondly: it needs to be established that Interference with the obligations and rights of either or both Parents in relation to the Child is to be punishable , by Law’. This includes interference by one parent in the rights and obligations of the other parent.

Just what might constitute ‘interference’ might be determined in discussion but ought not encompass the normal day to day distinctive views of men and women, fathers and mothers in jointly deciding matters.

It would encompass outside individuals or ‘agencies’ who are currently geared toward busy-body, judgemental and often arbitrary punitive actions. For example there was a case last year of a child taken from her parents because a police ‘raid’ initiated by some animal welfare’ snoopers acting on a complaint against them having a commercial Kennel business, accidently let the dogs out and used that as an excuse for the child being in danger. Such arbitrary action should carry a criminal charge.

Thirdly: Either or both of the parents may seek aid and assistance in fulfilling their obligations toward the child. This aid should have the agreement and approval of the other parent, where possible. Such ‘aid’ provided by State or non-State agencies must NOT subvert the rights and obligations of the parents. Such aid may be ‘contingent’ on specified factors and may carry contingencies in provision.

It must be sought. A third party might suggest it. No one can impose it without say, a Court Order. Aid provision may be limited so as not to ‘replace’ the parental obligation. It may carry an obligation to ‘repay’ in part, in some way. It may be ‘time’ limited. It would NOT reduce the obligation on a capable parent.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s