Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    This is just the beginning of a national movement to target NCP's as
    both assumed criminals and irresponsible. Eventually all states will be 
    following this process. I found the tone of the article to be
    informative and somewhat balanced. Especially describing the one
    gentlemans unfair treatment by the system. It would do all NCP's a
    great service if the details of each case were published but until
    more NCP's start writing letters and getting active the truth will
    remain hidden from public concious.
    			dan d (NOM member)
    

	In reference to .1

	Frank Richards, Administrator
	Office of CHild Support Enforcement
	6 Haven Drive
	Concord, N.H. 03301

	Nancy West
	Staff Writer
	Manchester Union Leader
	100 Williams LOeb Dr.
	P.O. Box 9555
	Manchester, N.H. 03108-9555

	Amanda Ober
	Staff Reporter
	WMUR-TV
	50 Phillip Cote Street
	Manchester, N.H.  03105


	I am not usually this quick, it's just I was in the process of putting
	thoughts to paper to address the other side of the issue.  I have
	passed this off to the FREE Coordinators, to distribute to their
	groups.  

	Ken 

    
    In reference to the main topic after reading, I noticed a couple of
    items mentioned that disturbs me. Unless I read the topic incorrectly
    what bothers me is making statements and NOT checking out the facts.
    I believe I read that not only there was an ex-wife making statements
    but also the state was making statements. It further went on to mention
    that "the facts were not checked out". This sounds to me to be just
    a continuation of what is going on already, but some want to put it at
    a National level for ALL to see. 
    
    "These children are our future.. How can we teach them responsibility
    as future parents if their absent parents are allowed to be
    irresponsible".....
    
    Believe me, paying support by the NCP is not the sole criteria for 
    developing our children into responsible parents. I know... I pay
    my outrageous support every week, faithfully, by myself, and the
    irresponsible parent here is NOT, repeat- NOT me (NCP).
    
    Next, why shouldn't this "poster" system include women.. I thought the
    main objective to paying support was " supporting the minor child(ren)
    " ??? No kidding that the women population would turn out to be very
    small. The "system" in most/all cases awards custody and placement to
    the mother. 
    
    Last, Case of ex-wife returning to school if support was paid. 
    Tell me, Is this the main reason why this ex-wife has not returned to
    school ????? And I only thought support was for new cars, expensive
    clothes, vacations/trips , etc. etc.  I'm sorry, I'm wrong -- AGAIN...
    
    
    What will they think of next ??????????,
    
    doug
    

    
    Not to sound crass, but the worse it gets, the more likely
    that NCP's will *finally* get organized into political groups.
    (As bad as I hadt PAC's and other "Political" groups, at the
    present, this appears the only way to get relief from this 
    20th Century Witch Hunt.
    fred();

Re .4

Exactly! It takes folks calling their representatives. If the ones I've
talked to are being honest, all of them profess to be unaware of the problem.
I asked them how'd they like to be in the 70% to 80% tax bracket and their
reaction ranged from suprise to shock. I spoke to them of kids learning
responsibility and to not be spoiled so that when they come of age they
don't go from welching off the NCP to welching off the state. Find out
your rep and senator and *call* them. Tell them your personal experiences.
If enough people do that, things might start changing. If nobody does, then
they won't.

The only lobby group I've seen is "Concerned Fathers" and I haven't seen
them do anything effective in the above area. I think the women groups
are far more effectively organized because they've had to be. They've had
decades of practice to turn around the anti-women discrimination that has
existed and still exists today. I was shocked to find out
these same groups that profess to desire fairness are just as slimey
and greedy as the establishment they have been fighting for years.

These are my experiences:

I met Chet Atkins shaking hands at upper Thompson (MLO) and spoke to him.
He said it's not his problem because it's a state law. He suggested
(appropriately) that I speak to my state reps and to let him know if I
couldn't get anywhere.

I met Mike(?) Collins running for republican nomination for US representative
waving outside the closed Buick dealer in Stow. He again expressed
suprise at the magnitude of the law.

I called Pat Walrath, my rep. She sounded sympathetic, but her reputation
is that she is not sympathetic to the NCP issue. She sounded suprised at
the facts, but who knows.

I called Barbara Gray (617-722-2380) (Framingham) state rep. Her reputation is
of being strongly in favor of current or stronger anti-NCP laws. She sounded
sympathetic too when I explained the facts. I spoke to her for about 20
minutes and she was listening. Then I happened to mention that I was rather
suprised that she sounded sympathetic when her reputation is as I discribed
above especially from the group "Concerned Fathers". Her immediate response
was (this is a quote) "Thank you very much for calling. Goodbye <click>".
So much for her concern. I called back later and she wasn't in and I left
a message saying I was interested in hearing her side and wasn't impressed
at being hung up on. She called back later and left voicemail denying
that she hung up on me.

I called Lois Pines (617-722-1639) (Newton/Brookline) state senator. I've
heard that she was involved in drafting the draconian formula. So far, I've
called 3 times in over 2 weeks, each time talking to Rob Gill who promises
to get back to me and never does. In fact, when I call back, he doesn't
even remember that I called before nor what my question was. He believes that
Lois was not involved with that formula but that nobody in the office has
been there for more than a year or so, and that Lois has not contacted
her office since I called first, two weeks. Yah right.

Now is especially the time to call the reps because the election is coming
up. Even ones not up for re-election are sensitive this year with such
wide-spread anti-incumbent sentiment.

I believe that what's needed is to come up with a piece of legislation
that is closer to being fair to *both* sides and then asking reps and
senators to support it. Just calling reps up saying how draconian the law
is only helps a little bit and they can just tell you what you want to hear.
But still, I'd heartily suggest that folks complaining
here do that with their reps so the reps will have at least heard from
folks directly affected.

Furthermore, a rep can tell you anything you want to hear, but if you ask
them if they'll support a particular bill, it'll be tougher to dance around
the issue, especially if you find out they voted in contradiction to what
they told you.

So, any good word-meisters out there? What would *you* want the law to say
to be fair to both CP and NCP? Perhaps starting a new topic on this would
be a good idea.

    PAUL,
    I couldn't agree with you more. I've been trying to find a course of
    action for two years now and keep coming up short. 
    I'm glad you shared your experiences with calling our "empathetic
    political representatives". Your results are unfortunate but expected.
    
    My feeling is that a coalition of all the different NCP groups is
    needed. Once formed a focused strategy can be formulated and then
    co-ordinated. This is why I've joined N.O.M. This organization can
    offer "name recognition", letterhead and nationwide support. But we
    must act locally because these are "state laws". Access to the media is
    something sorely needed to "accurately educate" the public. Sentiment
    and perception of NCP's is presently being defined by predominantly
    feminist elements. 212-686-MALE is a good start. I'd be glad to talk
    with you off-line about all this.
    			dan d
    

    Welp... The DCYS folks cought themselves another deadbeat rastus daddy
    last night. The story goes that dad was to meet the ex and daughter
    at the Merrimack MacDonalds. And in place of the daughter
    and ex was the sheriff. He resides in Cal. They reside in Amherst.
    
    And me? I was just pulling in as the pumped him into the sheriffs car
    and the channel 9 news was there taking pictures. It is a very spookie.
    I cannot wait for the system to start in on deadbeat moms. 

    
    This "deadbeat dads" thing may be a blessing in disguise.  Many men
    are afraid of fighting for custody or for visitation because they
    are afraid of the retaliation of being behind on their "child support"
    (for whatever reason, not necessarily because of being a "deadbeat")
    or retaliation of having her ask for an increase in "child support".
    
    If they're already dragging him throught the wringer, then he will
    have nothing to loose by fighting.  If they back enough dogs into
    a corner and kick them enought times, maybe they'll get organized
    and start fighting back.
    
    fred();

	in response to .8

	The Manchester Union Leader published another article on a DEADBEAT
	MOM who was left off the original wanted poster.  Even though she owed 
	more than five of the original men on the list.  The male custodial 
	Parent is  filing discrimination charges for failing to include his 
	ex-wife on the poster.

	I will post full article when I can get to it.

	

    reply .10
    
    I think the other men on the list that owed less than this woman
    should also join the suit.
    
    fred();

    There is a man in New Hampshire who is presently in jail for non
    payment of child support. His ex was awarded the house, he pays
    maintence, and child support. He owned a garage on the same land parcle
    that the house stands on and made a living fixing cars. The ex got a
    restraining order from him entering the premise, even to make a living
    to pay maintence and child support. He tried to move the business but
    the ex was there at the town meetings and/or after to sabatage the
    plans of moving the business. Now he (Eric) is in jail for non payment
    of child support and maintence. 
    
    I would sumise that there are a number of cases similar in nature.
    Another one comes to mind is that there was a man who owned a pool
    instalation and repair business. His business was sold from under him
    to pay the ex's attorny bills. He now makes a dollar over minimum
    wadge in a junk yard. And the ex's attorney is on his case because they 
    feel that he is under employed. He is facing a jail term. Soon. And he
    has not the tools to make the money he once made.