Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Bob Whiteside wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ups.com... Chris wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ups.com... Chris wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ups.com... (edit) You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before the child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he WAS a father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume that MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of abuse or neglect. The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father, Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of children. In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and the father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring FOR that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the same page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no legal obligation to let you know you're a father. Secondly, if she pursues child support for her child, she can go to court to get support from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to continue that....in the best interests of the child. If the newly named father can show why the child's interests would be better served a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him. Of course! The burden ALWAYS rests with the father. But remember, no matter how hard you try, you can NOT make the horse drink...... Not so, Chris....here a mother is also responsible for identifying herself as the mother; the difference is that that mother does so, by giving birth. The hospital has a ready record of her delivery, and can easily identify her as the mother. A father is either named on the BC as the father, or must prove he is the father. After all, the mother has proven herself as the mother, no? There are flaws in the public money and CS system that you are ignoring. Here are a few that have nothing to do with giving birth: 1. A woman can buy a fraudulent birth certificate for a non-existent child and use it to get money. 2. The system does not require a mother to physically produce the child to secure money or benefits. 3. Fathers named on birth certificates are not always the biological father of the child. 4. Mothers can hide the fact a child is deceased to continue getting CS money. 5. Mothers can collect money for children they give to another person to raise. People break the law all the time; that doesn't mean the laws are bad; it means the people are misusing them are crooks. :-) I have no objection at all to making sure there is a child to support. Did you really think I would? :-) How do your allegations make any difference at all to women proving they are mothers, by giving birth? Yes. I offered the list to show mothers are not required to show proof they are mothers as you claimed. If that proof was required the fraudulent activities I listed above would not ever occur. Your assumption mothers always tell the truth is widely held, but never seems to play out in family law matters. But they ARE required to show proof at the hospital, Chris. I have no axe to grind here with mothers telling the truth. Birth trumps someones word. :-) If a mother presents a phony BC, she can be prosecuted just like anyone else. In reality, mothers statements are accepted as factual and no proof is necessary to back up their claims. On the flip side fathers are expected to submit to DNA testing, disclose details of their financial situations, and produce documentation for anything they claim. Mothers are as well, Chris. If a mother says she is the mother, and there is no valid record of birth, she would, likewise have to undergo DNA testing. |
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ps.com... teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: snip We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice, and cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example, what if the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets out, he wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru that every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do you think that someone should be the mother only? Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she alone bears *all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent also, then the father would bear part of the costs. But until the father is identified by the mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel. I don't agree. But that's ok...we need not agree. The courts will decide. The courts in many states now have laws on the books limiting arrearage awards to only a short time before the finding of paternity. Some states even say that child support begins the day paternity is established. So you're right. The courts will decide. No courts that I know of have such laws. So if you can prove up your assertions be my guest. How, pray tell, is that in the best interests of the child? Seems to me it is only in the best interests of the woman who has made sure that both the child and the man's money belong only to her. Again, it's not a woman's job to alert a man as to the status of his sperm. A bright man would make sure his sperm is only used in a way that satisfies his legal needs. His children shouldn't have to pay for his negligence, and the mother shouldn't have to support the child alone. If the mother chooses to be the child's only paernt, then, yes, she *should* support the child alone. If she wanted the other parent involved, she should have let him know he was a parent. Again I don't agree with you and the courts also do not. Well, actually, many courts do agree with me. she can go to court to get support from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to continue that....in the best interests of the child. Do you really think it is in the best interests of a child to be raised by a mother who is so selfish that she robbed her own child of its father? I think moral issues are best left to individuals and their dieties. Some children do better to know their other parent; others, not so much. Until the mother can return to the father all the years of the child's life that she kept from him, he should not have to return to her a plugged nickel of what she clains to have spent on the child. And you are entitled to your opinion on that, and so are judges. :-) Yes--fortunately, they have begun to recognize the scam women pull leaving men on the hook for $$$$$ when they don't even know they are fathers. If the newly named father can show why the child's interests would be better served a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him. Courts don't assume; they simply look at existing facts. Some of the existing facts--obviously not all. Like what? Like the fact that he is a hardworking, taxpaying citizen who is an excellent father to his other children. Like the fact that he was prevented by the mother from developing a relationship with his child, thus robbing the child of a father's love. None of those things are considered. Nor should they be. After all, children still need to be supported, whether or not you had the presence of mind to know what happened to your own sperm. Fortunately, the courts are disagreeing with you more and more, Hy. =c) |
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message ps.com... teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ps.com... teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: snip We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice, and cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example, what if the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets out, he wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru that every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do you think that someone should be the mother only? Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she alone bears *all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent also, then the father would bear part of the costs. But until the father is identified by the mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel. I don't agree. But that's ok...we need not agree. The courts will decide. The courts in many states now have laws on the books limiting arrearage awards to only a short time before the finding of paternity. Some states even say that child support begins the day paternity is established. So you're right. The courts will decide. No courts that I know of have such laws. So if you can prove up your assertions be my guest. The state I live in now assigns no arrearages, but begins cs at proof of paternity. Even when my husband was assessed cs several years ago upon finding that he had an almost-13-year-old daughter, they could legally only go back 2 years with the arrearages. Does it bother you that women are losing the ability to use men as savings accounts while raising their children alone? |
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Bob Whiteside wrote: (edit) People break the law all the time; that doesn't mean the laws are bad; it means the people are misusing them are crooks. :-) I have no objection at all to making sure there is a child to support. Did you really think I would? :-) How do your allegations make any difference at all to women proving they are mothers, by giving birth? Yes. I offered the list to show mothers are not required to show proof they are mothers as you claimed. But they are ....at the hospital when they fill out the BC. Forging a BC is about criminal actions and not about parental identification. If that proof was required the fraudulent activities I listed above would not ever occur. Again, we don't run our world based on criminal actions per se; we run our world based on the laws that are least invasive to our privacy. Certainly if a child needs to be seen to prove up his or her existence, that is acceptable. Your assumption mothers always tell the truth is widely held, but never seems to play out in family law matters. This isn't about criminals; it's about the laws regulating childbirths. The mother goes into the hospital, and gives birth. There is a BC. They know she's the mother because she has just given birth. A criminal who forges a BC will be treated as a criminal, but there's no need to treat all mothers as criminals just because some few have broken the law. In reality, mothers statements are accepted as factual and no proof is necessary to back up their claims. On the flip side fathers are expected to submit to DNA testing, disclose details of their financial situations, and produce documentation for anything they claim. If there is some problem with mother identification, DNA testing is always available. |
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
teachrmama wrote: Fortunately, the courts are disagreeing with you more and more, Hy. =c) In that case you need to present caselaw that shows all that. Where's your cite? |
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ps.com... teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ps.com... teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: snip We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice, and cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example, what if the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets out, he wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru that every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do you think that someone should be the mother only? Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she alone bears *all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent also, then the father would bear part of the costs. But until the father is identified by the mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel. I don't agree. But that's ok...we need not agree. The courts will decide. The courts in many states now have laws on the books limiting arrearage awards to only a short time before the finding of paternity. Some states even say that child support begins the day paternity is established. So you're right. The courts will decide. No courts that I know of have such laws. So if you can prove up your assertions be my guest. The state I live in now assigns no arrearages, but begins cs at proof of paternity. Even when my husband was assessed cs several years ago upon finding that he had an almost-13-year-old daughter, they could legally only go back 2 years with the arrearages. Does it bother you that women are losing the ability to use men as savings accounts while raising their children alone? When did you stop beating your wife? :-) Name the state law hon. I'll read it. Until then you're just a poofter. |
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ps.com... teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ps.com... teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: snip We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice, and cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example, what if the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets out, he wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru that every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do you think that someone should be the mother only? Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she alone bears *all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent also, then the father would bear part of the costs. But until the father is identified by the mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel. I don't agree. But that's ok...we need not agree. The courts will decide. The courts in many states now have laws on the books limiting arrearage awards to only a short time before the finding of paternity. Some states even say that child support begins the day paternity is established. So you're right. The courts will decide. No courts that I know of have such laws. So if you can prove up your assertions be my guest. The state I live in now assigns no arrearages, but begins cs at proof of paternity. Even when my husband was assessed cs several years ago upon finding that he had an almost-13-year-old daughter, they could legally only go back 2 years with the arrearages. Does it bother you that women are losing the ability to use men as savings accounts while raising their children alone? When did you stop beating your wife? :-) Name the state law hon. I'll read it. Until then you're just a poofter. Well, Dearie, I was there. I KNOW he was only assigned 2 years arrearages. I will see if I can find the law for you--but you can't trump my experience with you rather biased opinion no matter how much you may want to. |
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message ups.com... teachrmama wrote: Fortunately, the courts are disagreeing with you more and more, Hy. =c) In that case you need to present caselaw that shows all that. Where's your cite? Where is yours? Check it out--and prove it your way. |
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message ups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: (edit) People break the law all the time; that doesn't mean the laws are bad; it means the people are misusing them are crooks. :-) I have no objection at all to making sure there is a child to support. Did you really think I would? :-) How do your allegations make any difference at all to women proving they are mothers, by giving birth? Yes. I offered the list to show mothers are not required to show proof they are mothers as you claimed. But they are ....at the hospital when they fill out the BC. Forging a BC is about criminal actions and not about parental identification. If that proof was required the fraudulent activities I listed above would not ever occur. Again, we don't run our world based on criminal actions per se; we run our world based on the laws that are least invasive to our privacy. Certainly if a child needs to be seen to prove up his or her existence, that is acceptable. Your assumption mothers always tell the truth is widely held, but never seems to play out in family law matters. This isn't about criminals; it's about the laws regulating childbirths. The mother goes into the hospital, and gives birth. There is a BC. They know she's the mother because she has just given birth. A criminal who forges a BC will be treated as a criminal, but there's no need to treat all mothers as criminals just because some few have broken the law. I dunno, Hy. Seems like all fathers are treated as criminals and have their wages garnished rather than trusting them to pay their child support. In reality, mothers statements are accepted as factual and no proof is necessary to back up their claims. On the flip side fathers are expected to submit to DNA testing, disclose details of their financial situations, and produce documentation for anything they claim. If there is some problem with mother identification, DNA testing is always available. |
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ups.com... Chris wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ups.com... Chris wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ups.com... (edit) You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before the child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he WAS a father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume that MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of abuse or neglect. The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father, Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of children. In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and the father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring FOR that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the same page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no legal obligation to let you know you're a father. Secondly, if she pursues child support for her child, she can go to court to get support from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to continue that....in the best interests of the child. If the newly named father can show why the child's interests would be better served a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him. Of course! The burden ALWAYS rests with the father. But remember, no matter how hard you try, you can NOT make the horse drink...... Not so, Chris....here a mother is also responsible for identifying herself as the mother; the difference is that that mother does so, by giving birth. The hospital has a ready record of her delivery, and can easily identify her as the mother. A father is either named on the BC as the father, or must prove he is the father. After all, the mother has proven herself as the mother, no? There are flaws in the public money and CS system that you are ignoring. Here are a few that have nothing to do with giving birth: 1. A woman can buy a fraudulent birth certificate for a non-existent child and use it to get money. 2. The system does not require a mother to physically produce the child to secure money or benefits. 3. Fathers named on birth certificates are not always the biological father of the child. 4. Mothers can hide the fact a child is deceased to continue getting CS money. 5. Mothers can collect money for children they give to another person to raise. People break the law all the time; that doesn't mean the laws are bad; it means the people are misusing them are crooks. :-) I have no objection at all to making sure there is a child to support. Did you really think I would? :-) How do your allegations make any difference at all to women proving they are mothers, by giving birth? Yes. I offered the list to show mothers are not required to show proof they are mothers as you claimed. If that proof was required the fraudulent activities I listed above would not ever occur. Your assumption mothers always tell the truth is widely held, but never seems to play out in family law matters. In reality, mothers statements are accepted as factual and no proof is necessary to back up their claims. On the flip side fathers are expected to submit to DNA testing, disclose details of their financial situations, and produce documentation for anything they claim. Apparently, this woman has not spent time observing the circus better known as "family court". I think a field trip would be in line. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com