|
|
Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.
|
Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.
-- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Shadow39" wrote in message ... http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman? Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect back support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of "double" happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free money from TWO men), and DOUBLE standards! The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: ".... the only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used only to unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the question: If a child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one has to pay the woman money? Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged with child support". Am I wrong? |
Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Shadow39" wrote in message ... http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman? Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect back support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of "double" happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free money from TWO men), and DOUBLE standards! The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: ".... the only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used only to unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the question: If a child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one has to pay the woman money? A good question, Chris. Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these women who then proclaim they are "independent". Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged with child support". Am I wrong? Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial relationship to force a man to pay a woman. Phil #3 |
Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.
-- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Phil" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Shadow39" wrote in message ... http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman? Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect back support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of "double" happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free money from TWO men), and DOUBLE standards! The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: ".... the only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used only to unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the question: If a child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one has to pay the woman money? A good question, Chris. Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these women who then proclaim they are "independent". Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged with child support". Am I wrong? Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial relationship to force a man to pay a woman. Phil #3 Which leads to the NEXT question: If DNA is NOT the determinant factor in whether or not a man has to pay the woman money, then why do they still use it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that double standards is the answer; if DNA convicts him, we use it, if it exonerates him, we DON'T use it. How could I be so dumb! |
Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Phil" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Shadow39" wrote in message ... http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman? Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect back support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of "double" happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free money from TWO men), and DOUBLE standards! The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: ".... the only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used only to unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the question: If a child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one has to pay the woman money? A good question, Chris. Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these women who then proclaim they are "independent". Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged with child support". Am I wrong? Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial relationship to force a man to pay a woman. Phil #3 Which leads to the NEXT question: If DNA is NOT the determinant factor in whether or not a man has to pay the woman money, then why do they still use it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that double standards is the answer; if DNA convicts him, we use it, if it exonerates him, we DON'T use it. How could I be so dumb! The real argument is about women and their lack of sexual fidelity in a martial relationship. As long as family courts are willing to reward a woman's infidelity by requiring a former husband to pay her money for her promiscuity the CS system will be screwed up. |
Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Phil" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Shadow39" wrote in message ... http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman? Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect back support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of "double" happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free money from TWO men), and DOUBLE standards! The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: ".... the only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used only to unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the question: If a child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one has to pay the woman money? A good question, Chris. Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these women who then proclaim they are "independent". Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged with child support". Am I wrong? Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial relationship to force a man to pay a woman. Phil #3 Which leads to the NEXT question: If DNA is NOT the determinant factor in whether or not a man has to pay the woman money, then why do they still use it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that double standards is the answer; if DNA convicts him, we use it, if it exonerates him, we DON'T use it. How could I be so dumb! Now you got it. DNA is important and used only if it supports the desired outcome. This is true in criminal court at times and civil court all the time. Phil #3 |
Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.
-- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Phil" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Shadow39" wrote in message ... http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman? Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect back support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of "double" happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free money from TWO men), and DOUBLE standards! The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: ".... the only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used only to unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the question: If a child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one has to pay the woman money? A good question, Chris. Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these women who then proclaim they are "independent". Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged with child support". Am I wrong? Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial relationship to force a man to pay a woman. Phil #3 Which leads to the NEXT question: If DNA is NOT the determinant factor in whether or not a man has to pay the woman money, then why do they still use it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that double standards is the answer; if DNA convicts him, we use it, if it exonerates him, we DON'T use it. How could I be so dumb! The real argument is about women and their lack of sexual fidelity in a martial relationship. As long as family courts are willing to reward a woman's infidelity by requiring a former husband to pay her money for her promiscuity the CS system will be screwed up. The "child support" system by its very nature is screwed up. |
Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Phil" wrote in message m... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Shadow39" wrote in message ... http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman? Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect back support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of "double" happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free money from TWO men), and DOUBLE standards! The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: ".... the only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used only to unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the question: If a child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one has to pay the woman money? A good question, Chris. Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these women who then proclaim they are "independent". Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged with child support". Am I wrong? Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial relationship to force a man to pay a woman. Phil #3 Which leads to the NEXT question: If DNA is NOT the determinant factor in whether or not a man has to pay the woman money, then why do they still use it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that double standards is the answer; if DNA convicts him, we use it, if it exonerates him, we DON'T use it. How could I be so dumb! To go one step farther, many men in prison, some on death row want DNA evidence tested that may prove their innocence but prosecutors and judges do all they can to deny it. Many samples have been "lost" and then there are several cases like former head-chemist Joyce Gilchrist of Oklahoma City who falsified results to obtain guilty verdicts against innocent men many times over some of which were involved in capital cases. The law is not just blind, it's stupid to boot. It relies on hypocrisy to exist. Phil #3 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com