On Jul 21, 7:01 am, "Chris" wrote:
"Atalanta arctos" wrote in message

oups.com... On Jul 19, 12:53 pm, wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:25 am, "teachrmama" wrote:

"Avenger" wrote in message

news:SXBmi.4020$fj5.590@trnddc08...

teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"John Larkin" wrote in
messagenews:n9dl93hmsada667t1sf6pjgvpnqpr1t3hp@4ax .com...
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:46:06 GMT, "Avenger"



wrote:

What probably happened in this case is that he didn't have any
money 20 years ago which is why the bitch didn't go after him before,
and may have
only made or come into some recently. The sneaky bitch found out
about it and in her greed tried to get her
hands on it. But why would she need it now? The kid is grown,
so obviously they survived and had the money to survive.
Besides, what's a 40 yo bitch doing having a kid anyway and
ruining
the best years of a man's life when he should be enjoying his
youth. Well one
good thing about this is at least he won't have to pay the money
and will have plenty to spend in prison )

He wouldn't pay 200 a month to help support his own child?

Was there a DNA test? Was none 20 years ago so this Ho may be lying.
In 80% of these cases the man isn't even the father.

Maybe he didn't have it at the time. Who knows? The best I've
been able
to find out is that they were never married, and that the woman
refused
to let him have a relationship with the child. I haven't been able
to
find out when the order was issued, whether or not it was ongoing
support
from the birth of the child, or support assigned when the child was
15,
and ordered back to the birth of the child, leaving him at the
starting
gate with a staggering arrearage. The most I've found is that the
child
was born sometime in the 80s, maybe. I would certainly like to
know way
more about this story. As the wife of aman-who-
found-out-he-had-a-child-just-before-said-child-turned-13, I can
tell you
that the blow to ones financial well-being is substantial. And my
husband, due to current laws, only had to pay 2 years of instant
arrearages. It used to be that arrearages were assigned back to
the
birth of the child, including pregnancy and birth expenses--well
padded, of course.

Why would amanhave to pay birth expenses lol

Ya got me, but that is tacked nicely onto child support orders! When
the
first "you owe child support" order came in, the arrearages were
staggering,
and included pregnancy and birth expenses. He requested a paternity
test,
got the blood drawn, and she refused to bring the child in for the
test.
After more than a year of trying to force her to do so, the judge
finally
dismissed the case. Several years later, the next demand for child
support
came in (same mom, same kid, different state), he again requested
proof of
paternity and took the blood test. This time mom took the kid in for
the
test, and he was the father. (The child was almost 13 by this time)
But the
law, by this point in time, only permitted arrearages to be
assessed two
years back from proof of paternity

I don't think there should be any arrearages in that situation
whatsoever.

It's simple. As a mother, if you want child support, then find the
father. It's not that hard, especially given that the government will
use its resources to find him for you. If you choose not to, then you
don't get the support. You shouldn't get to show up 5 years later,
having completely deprived the father of any chance at a relationship
with his child, and then demand full financial support for the whole
time you were keeping the kid from him. And even the woman honestly
doesn't know who the father is, that doesn't change anything. I mean,
if you'reso irresponsible that you don't even know who the father of
your children is, and don't figure it out until 5 or 10 years later,
then tough luck.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

I feel like fathers should be able to request receipts and/or an
itemized accounting of how their money is spent to be sure that the
child really is getting the support money and the woman isn't just
using it to get herself some new shoes. Why does the mother get
government agencies to force the father to pay "in the interests of
the child" and then there is absolutely no accounting to make that
she's even serving the interests of the child at all? Seems
completely unfair to me. But I suppose that's another subject.

I agree with you about the timeliness factor.

But the first thing I would have put on my accounting list - to my X -
would have been "babysitting" and "practical nursing care" - in his
absence. Since he did not have any custody of them to speak of (he
was supposed to have then 25% of the time, but wished not to), he
needed (all along) to compensate me for their care. He wanted those
kids as much as I did - and he decided childcare wasn't his gig (at
all). Well, it's hard work. In fact, just the bills for the nursing
care spent on injuries acquired while in his custody (accidents and so
forth) - at the rates that visiting nurses provide for round-the-clock
care would have averaged out to a good chunk of change, annually.

So ? YOU chose to make a *baby*, so the bills are YOURS, too.

Sheesh.

He provided no services to the children. I'm a professional who
charges an hourly rate (so is he). Had I charged him half my hourly
rate (he's still family), he would have had to pay way more in CS than
he did.

Thats the modern misandrist me,me,me female. Its all about " Pay
me for what *I* wanted to do ! ".

Disgusting. You should not have custody of a goldfish, much less
a child.

In other words - that money isn't about stuff or shoes. It's about a
caretaker cutting down on other sources of money in order to provide
topnotch care for children - at least that's how I see it. A woman
who isn't providing care for the kids shouldn't be using the money to
buy shoes.

But, taxiing the kids to private school, tutoring them from time to
time, taking them to the doctor (the MediVan chsrges $20 one way to go
to the doctor - our daughters went for allergy treatments 2X a week
each - that's $160 per week right there, had he wanted to purchase
that service on the open market).

Or - he could have provided some of those services himself. It was
way, way cheaper to pay me to do it. One view is that he needed to
either care for them half the time - or compensate me for my time for
doing so. For example, I had to have medical treatments myself
(surgery) and had to hire childcare for the kids while I went for
MRI's and X-rays. What my X signed onto - when he married me and when
he said he wanted kids - was supporting me and helping me, the mother
of his kids.

And what did YOU sign onto when you married him?

You noticed that, eh ? This Atalanta whore is all about the MONEY for
what SHE alone choice to create.

As I said, disgusting.

Fortunately, my X was of the same mind as I was about this - he knew
his limitations in terms of actually being around the tots or caring
for them in the middle of the night - and he knew he'd have had to
hire someone to take them his 25% had he chosen to exercise his
custodial rights. Since he didn't have to pay a penny more (one way
or another) to me, regardless of how many hours I had the kids, it was
a good deal for him. It worked out to minimum wage or less (after
deducting, of course, the kids' share of the rent, utilities,
clothing, etc.) I always felt (just as the CS order stated) that we
were to share those things 50/50 -

How about sharing the CHOICE to MAKE a BABY ? That one you wanted
and kept 100% to yourself.

Well: " YOUR body, YOUR choice... YOUR *responsibility* ! "

but it was never he who went and
bought the presents at Christmas time or procured the birthday party
favors or the cake - or any of that. Merely paying half the cost of
getting that stuff is not the point.
..
Laughs No, its exactly your point. Like a whore, you want to be paid
for having a vagina that YOU chose to use.

Disgusting.

Andre