Family, Society

How Many of These Ridiculous “Disorders” Do YOU Suffer From

by  •  • 1 Comment

By Christopher Kent, D.C., J.D.

Normal Human Experience Now Masqueraded as “Disorders”

Do you have difficulty sleeping after drinking coffee? The problem isn’t a product of your poor judgment in guzzling java immediately before retiring. You are a victim of 292.89 — Caffeine-Induced Sleep Disorder F15.8. If you reflect on your shyness while tossing and turning, the problem could be the epidemic of 300.23 — Social Phobia F40.1. Don’t worry. Drug treatment is available.

Unfortunately, if you’re thinking about your place in the cosmos or spiritual issues, you’ve got V62.89 — Religious or Spiritual Problem Z71.8, and I couldn’t locate a drug for that.

Bad parenting is about to become a thing of the past. It’s not your fault, or your child’s fault. Besides the ubiquitous pandemic of ADHD, there are other disorders you may not be aware of.

Your ill-behaving child may be suffering from 313.81 — Oppositional Defiant Disorder F91.3. If your child often argues with adults, loses their temper, deliberately annoys people, etc., you’re dealing with ODD. Of course, this must be differentiated from 312.8 — Conduct Disorder F91.8, and 312.9 — Disruptive Behavior Disorder Not Otherwise Specified F91.9.

Should the problem be getting along with a brother or sister, the condition is V61.8 — Sibling Relational Problem F93.3. And should you argue with your spouse about whether the child should be grounded or drugged, you might be looking down the barrel of V61.1 — Partner Relational Problem Z63.0.

If math homework is a challenge, be sure to check for 315.1 — Mathematics Disorder F81.2. You must be careful not to confuse this with a V62.3 — Academic Problem Z55.8. If things are OK in the math department, but you have a teen experiencing uncertainty about life goals, career preferences, values, loyalties, etc., you’re dealing with 313.82 Identity Problem F93.8. This has been downgraded from a “disorder” in DSM-III-R, to a mere “problem” in DSM-IV. I’ll bet that makes you feel better.

Read more HERE:

Society

The Epidemic Of Male Suicide

by  •  • 1 Comment

Suicide among males is four times higher than among females and represents 79% of all U.S. suicides. More people now die of suicide than in car accidents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2010 there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and 38,364 suicides. For many years, the suicide rate has been about 4 times higher among men than among women. In 2010, men had a suicide rate of 19.9, and women had a rate of 5.2. Of those who died by suicide in 2010, 78.9% were male and 21.1% were female.

If the genders were reversed, would there be more attention paid to this epidemic or would it be pushed under the rug like most other issues affecting men?

In countries like the USA and the UK there has been a steady increase in the numbers of men who elect to end their own lives prematurely. On average in the USA one person (male and female) takes their own life every 18 minutes. Of those who attempt suicide the completion rate for men is four times higher than for women. Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death for all U.S. men according to National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Young men and older men are particularly vulnerable groups. The suicide rate peaks in men between the ages of 20-24, which if isolated from the general statistics on suicide, places suicide as the 3rd ranking cause of death. Older people suffer from the loss of loved one’s and friends and can feel isolated, ignored, valueless, or overly dependent on others. In the USA, the leading method of suicide is by firearms whereas in the UK where guns are illegal, exhaust fumes, hanging and overdoses are most commonly employed.

Why Men Choose Suicide
Not every attempt at suicide results in completion, although unsuccessful first attempts are often followed by successful second attempts. We know that young men report various pressures, that they feel unable to adapt to or cope with

Risk Factors for Suicide

The most common risk factors are:

Using drugs and/or alcohol to help cope with emotions, relationships, pressure of work etc.

Social isolation, living alone.

Not being able to form or sustain meaningful relationships.

Divorce or relationship breakdowns.

A history of physical and sexual abuse.

Imprisonment.

Being bullied at school/college/work.

unemployment.

loss of a loved one through trauma or disease.

mental illness, particularly where this is related to depression. painful and/or debilitating illnesses or conditions.

Age and Suicide
In older men suicide is most strongly associated with depression, physical pain and illness, living alone and feelings of hopelessness and guilt.

Is Suicide Preventable
Not all suicide attempts succeed and many people who set out with the clear intention of ending their own lives find that with good emotional and practical support they are able to adjust their circumstances to live a complete and fruitful life. The warning signs listed above do not inevitably lead to suicide attempts although where suicide is attempted and fails that person is much more likely to try again and be successful. People who feel suicidal often report a certain kind of tunnel vision, of being unable to see the broader picture and thinking only in terms of black and white. In such circumstances that individual may not be motivated to seek out help for themselves and it falls on others to offer support by listening, offering encouragement and sometimes even challenging the preconceptions that people hold about themselves such as their abilities and their worth to society.

Read more HERE

Child Support

Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities

by  •  • 0 Comments

Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.

A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child’s father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? (Pen. Code, ? 261.5, subd. (d).) We conclude he is liable for child support.

Read more HERE

Child Support, Family

The Secret Increase Of The Private Child Support Collection Company

by  •  • 2 Comments

By Vicki Turetsky
Center for Law and Social Policy

Over the last decade, an unregulated industry related to the alternative financial services industry has grown rapidly, primarily around the internet, to aggressively and sometimes deceptively market child support collection services to mostly low-income single mothers who cannot afford an attorney.

Some of the largest private collection agencies often fail to deliver any genuine services. Instead, they strip income from low and moderate-income families that could have been spent on housing, childcare, clothing and school expenses, or saved for their children’s education. They trap custodial parents in perpetual contracts.

They also exploit the child support indebtedness of low and moderate-income non-custodial parents through the use of predatory and abusive tactics that increase their debt levels and often destroy their credit histories and interfere with parenting relationships.

A number of private child support companies bring to the table a history of consumer complaints, bar association ethics complaints, and litigation filed against them. However, the Federal Trade Commission has determined that child support collection agencies are not covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, because they collect child support debt, not consumer debt. While not all states will share data with or redirect payments to private collection agencies, industry pressure routinely exerted on state legislators and administrators to “play ball” with the companies is enormous…..

Custodial parents sign a contract with these companies, frequently agreeing to pay a third or more of collected support until all debt is paid off–essentially a perpetual contract. Rather than undertaking collection activities, however, private collection companies often take their exorbitant fees from ongoing monthly support coming to the parent before signing the contract or from support collected through the efforts of a state child support agency. Often, custodial parents have no idea that the company is operating a scam.

In other cases, companies use abusive and coercive collection practices against low and moderate-income non-custodial parents and their relatives. Like the custodial parents who sign up for services, the non-custodial parents targeted by the companies appear to be of modest means. They have low-level jobs and have limited educations. Often, they have a second family.

The companies interfere with the parents’ employment relationships, make unauthorized foreclosure threats, harass mortgage companies, and repeatedly pull down credit records. They sometimes call the grandparents and threaten them with jail unless the grandparents pay up. These companies often inflate child support debts by charging unauthorized interest on decades-old debts and extort payments that the companies know that parents do not owe. They undermine regular payments being made by the parents and sabotage these parents’ often tenuous toe-hold in the mainstream economy….

These complaints reflect a growing national problem with the business practices sometimes used by private child support collection companies. The industry is dominated by companies that sometimes exploit the financial vulnerability and personal frustrations of parents, often leaving both parents worse off. Their practices are divisive and profoundly anti-family. These practices can financially and emotionally devastate mothers and fathers, worsen already fragile family relationships, increase the risk of domestic violence, strip away income and financial good standing, subject non-custodial parents to fraudulent collection efforts, and undermine the credibility of legitimate child support enforcement efforts. These practices are not permitted to be used by state child support programs or private attorneys, and would be illegal if used by consumer debt collection companies.

According to a March 2002 U.S. General Accounting Office report, there are 38 private collection companies in 16 states that collect child support under a direct contract with custodial parents. Almost a third of the companies are located in Texas. Other states with several companies include Arkansas, California, Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio. Most companies told the GAO that they handled cases in every state in the country. On average, the private companies charge custodial parents 29 percent of collected support, while some of the largest companies charge 34 percent. About half of the companies impose additional fees and charges in addition to the percentage fee.

The GAO found that the private companies have not demonstrated that they do any better on collecting support than state child support agencies. As a result of significant state improvements over the last few years, states have a higher collection rate than the private collection companies nationwide. The GAO found that the main edge held by private companies in enforcing support is that the companies pressure relatives to pay the support owed by non-custodial parents, and use collection tactics that are prohibited to state child support agencies, private attorneys, and private collection agencies that pursue consumer debt.

Although there may be an appropriate role for private child support collection companies that are committed to customer service, use legitimate collection practices, and help parents obtain overdue child support that they might not otherwise receive, the industry currently operates without regulatory controls or accountability. The growth of this unregulated industry undercuts basic social policies promoted by the public child support program, and threatens to unravel major reforms underway within the program–including improving performance and interstate coordination, reorienting the program from welfare cost recovery to family support, implementing realistic strategies to deal with debt, helping parents participate in the formal economy, and helping parents stay connected to their children.

Several media stories have highlighted the abusive and deceptive practices used by some of the private collection companies over the years, including Time Magazine, Smart Money Magazine, Children’s Voice, New York Times, New York Daily News, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Gannett News Service, CNN, Fox News, Minnesota Public Radio’s Marketplace, and CBS Market Watch.

Read more HERE

20130817-152008.jpg

Family

Moynihan of the Moynihan Report

by  •  • 0 Comments

This was written in 1966. What has changed since? Have things improved in the black community with the government’s assistance?

Moreover, the Moynihan Report noted that first-graders without fathers in the home have I.Q.’s 7.5 per cent lower than those with fathers and that, in central Harlem, where a majority of the children are fatherless, the median I.Q. of sixth-graders is only 86.3. A sub-average I.Q. Moynihan suggests, almost inevitably leads to a bad performance in school and, more often than not, to an early dropout. And, Moynihan further suggests, in America’s increasingly technological and automated society, the uneducated, especially the Negro uneducated, are the unemployed. In fact, the rate of Negro unemployment is today nearly double the national rate.

All in all, then, Moynihan sees the predicament of the American Negro male as a vicious circle. He is born either illegitimate or into a home where his mother has been deserted or divorced by his father; he later, in consequence, does poorly in school and ultimately drops out; and when he reaches young manhood he then joins the vast army of Negro unemployed. And, being unemployed, he can’t afford to support a family, and thus he, too, fathers illegitimate children or, after a try at marriage, either deserts or divorces his wife, leaving behind sons to grow up as wretchedly as he grew up. As Moynihan sees it, the only way to break this circle is (a) to create new Federal, state and local government jobs for Negro males and (b) to make it financially advantageous, rather than disadvantageous, for the Negro man to remain with his family.

Ironically, in regard to (b) the Aid to Families of Dependent Children program, a New Deal welfare measure which was part of the Social Security Act, has, in Moynihan’s opinion, been a major force in the past 30 years in the breaking up of American Negro families, for the program has provided Federal welfare money to indigent families only when the father has died, is disabled–or has deserted his wife and children. Thus, since only the broken family can get A.F.D.C. help, it is often true that if an unemployed or low-paid Negro father deserts his family, its members will be economically better off than they were when he was around, a paradox that has led Moynihan to describe the A.F.D.C. program as “a form of social insanity.”

Read more HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/04/specials/moynihan-report.html?_r=1

Family

TV Star Jon Cryer Must Pay Child Support for Son in His Custody

by  •  • 0 Comments

If more people knew this could happen to them, do you really think they would get married and have kids? Child support laws are outdated and need to be updated to reflect modern life in America. Fathers do not need to “man up” or “step up and take responsibility.” We do and we naturally want to.

It is state governments in conjunction with federal government agencies that are making it more and more risky to take the role of father seriously. Many fathers give up fighting for justice once they see how much of an uphill battle it is.

This is just one of the hundreds of thousands of examples of the absurdity that goes on in family court.

I hope this doesn’t happen to you. You might just be yet another “bitter man.”

If something like this happens to you or your friends, you might be someone who finally understands how the war for marriage equality is being waged for the people who are least affected by discrimination in our family court system.

Two and a Half Men star Jon Cryer must pay child support for his son of whom he has custody. Here’s the opinion of the California appellate court.

Yes, it’s true. Jon Cryer has almost sole custody of his son with Sarah Trigger Cryer. She has 4% of the parenting time; he has the other 96%. So you’d think she’d be paying child support to him, but no. It’s the other way around. He’s paying her because a Los Angeles trial court ordered him to and the appellate court upheld the order.

As you read the appellate opinion, continually ask yourself that tried and true question “what would happen if the sexes were reversed?”

Jon and Sarah were married in 2000. Both were actors at the time. They had a son, but divorced in 2004 with Sarah getting primary custody and Jon paying child support. By 2009, Sarah’s life had gone from bad to worse. Apparently she hasn’t had an acting job since 2005. Indeed, if she’s had any job at all, it’s not reflected in the evidence before the court. For that matter, she seems entirely disinclined to look for work, for reasons which will become obvious.

Both Jon and Sarah remarried, but it took only a few years for Sarah’s second marriage to hit the skids. She had a son by that marriage too and maintained custody of both boys.

Soon though, Jon filed for a modification of custody saying that Sarah was an unfit parent who left the children unsupervised. His request was denied, but the court admonished Sarah for negligent parenting. In 2009, her child by her second husband was injured while under her care and both children were taken from her and given to their dads.

So Jon did the obvious thing; he asked the court to reduce his child support from $10,000 a month to nothing. After all, he was the custodial parent and custodial parents don’t pay child support, they receive it, right? Well, as the court admitted, that’s usually the case, but not here. Here, Jon must continue paying Sarah $8,000 a month even though she only sees the child 4% of the time.

Why? Because she’s a deadbeat, that’s why. I’m really not making this up. Sarah answered Jon’s request for a reduction of child support by saying it’s her only income, which apparently it is. That’s because she hasn’t had a job of any kind since 2005. Into the bargain, she’s not looking for one. In her last filing, she listed her monthly income (outside of child support) as zero and her monthly expenses as over $13,000.

So, according to both the trial and the appellate courts, because Sarah is too much of a deadbeat to even attempt to support herself, Jon must continue to support her with the child providing the weakest of pretexts for doing so.

How many times have fathers been told that they should stop griping about the countless injustices of the child support system because it’s all for the child? Yes it’s unfair they’re told, but just put a sock in it and pay; it’s for the child, don’t you see.

Read more HERE

20130817-132233.jpg