A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Child support - who needs it?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 28th 04, 01:39 AM
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Child support - who needs it?

"Krista" ) writes:
Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child.


I agree that *is* wrong.


Now, lets watch you *equivicate away* from that initial point...

I think men should have some say, after all, they
*are* just as responsible for the child being there, as is the woman.


WRONG. NO man can *make* a woman carry to term, if *she doesn't want
to*, and NO man can make a woman NOT carry to term, *if she doesn't
want to*.

But, thanks for showing us that, when it comes to *women*, you
want to have it *both ways*...

If she didn't want to have a kid, she should have protected herself
better.


So, you *haven't heard of WOMEN's post-coital choices*....

Like RU-486, abortion, legal and unilateral adopting out, and legal
and unilateral infant abandon laws...

BTW, theres *nothing* about those last two that is limited to
their use by women, only...

If he didn't, the same goes for him.


Thanks for showing that you demand that *men be responsible for women's
POST-COITAL choices...

The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.


I resent this remark.


Tough ! You're NOT " all women. " Deal with it.

I *DID NOT EVER* unilaterally decide to have ANY of my children.


Really ? What *right of veto* did they have *over your decision
making process* ?

.... Exactly.

They were all discussed with their prospective fathers, and in
the middle one's case, I even offered him the option of not being
responsible for her.


Which, *under the law*, would hold up only *as long as you wanted it
to*...

HE wanted to get married, and then HE abused me until
I couldn't take it anymore and left when our daughter was 9 months old.


shrug *You* chose him....

Because of who he is and how he is, even though I offered him reduced
child support, etc. he chose to pay the full amount, but in the meantime,
instead of being honest with me, he lies to me about getting raises and
then whines about how he never gets to see his daughter because his car
is in bad shape, he can't afford to fix it, etc, etc, etc.


Boo hoo. You chose him. And, thanks for showing us all that, your claim
of lower payments notwithstanding, when the stuff hit the fan, *your
main issue* is *his delivery of money to YOU*...

Thanks for making my point for me...

My current husband and I live on $20,000/year raising two children
(ages 3.5 and 22 months) and he can't even support himself, alone,


Why *should he* ? Can *you* ? Without the loot flowing from your
guy #1 ?

Uh huh...

on over $15,000 MORE than that without having to
whine about "poor, poor" him?


Well, you chose them both...

And those figures are AFTER taxes, AND his figure
is AFTER the money he does pay me in CS. That is net income for both
families.


Gee. You've just discovered that *two households can't live as well as
one, on the same money*.

Your Nobel Prize For Economics is in the mail...

And some of our income is even in the form of student loans,
which we eventually have to pay back, so though it's income right now, it
will be outflow later. I *COULD* take him to court and get his child
support increased. I thought about doing it for no other reason than I was
****ed that he couldn't be honest with me, but I chose not to.


But, *you could have*... YOU had that *power to decide his fate*.

When did he *ever* have a similar power to decide *your fate* ?

Uh huh...

IF he saw
her more often I would probably consider lowering his CS, or if he stopped
seeing her altogether, but he has done neither, he continues to see her
about once a month, when it's convenient for him.


shrug *You chose him*... Did you find out, *before you chose to bear
a child*, what his potential was to be a father, if HE were to choose
that status ?

Uh huh...

Even though he is supposed
to take her for all of Spring Break week and 42 days in the summer,
he has not and will not.


Ibid.

It's too difficult for him, he would have to
provide daycare and stuff, you know. Much easier to just leave her with us
until he feels like having her visit and then asking us to put our plans on
hold while he takes her for the weekend. Not to mention he shares a room
with her and she's seen and heard him and his various girlfriends having
sex. But that's a whole other story. I should NEVER hear my three and a
half year old daughter saying things like "Ooh, baby, come for me." and
"Shh, quiet, you'll wake the baby." while I'm drving her home from her
father's house.


Ibid.

Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is completely
getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just won't bear up.


LOL ! Yeah, they so " won't hold up " that you were UNABVLE even to TRY
to refute them...

laughs Go back to Baby Feminist school...

I could say that men like you are just misogynists


Misogynist (n.): A Man who is WINNING an argument with a Feminist.

who can't stand it that women have choices at all,


No, who can't stand the *bleating lies and hypocrisy of those who
have ALL of the post-coital choices*, and who CAN'T be as responsible,
IE, 100%, as they have *choices*...

but that would be just as worng (and,
incidentally, that is NOT what I think).


Ah. So, you routinely type LIES about what you think.

Got it.

Stick to the individual topics you
are responding to and away from the sweeping generalizations and see what
happens, I bet more people will listen to what you have to say instead of
getting all defensive, as I just did.


" You're right... just not in the right way. "

Well, toots, *men* will speak as we will, and if you *can't deal with
that.... tough* !

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...


Again, I agree.


Yet, its WOMEN'S groups *fighting* any choices for men...

What lobby groups have you joined, in an effort to *live your
claim* ?

Uh huh...

Men *should* be allowed to give up their rights if they so
choose, just as women are. I think that any man or woman who has sex
(protected or otherwise, because no BC is 100% effective except abstinence)
is taking a risk, if the woman turns up pregnant, they should mutually
decide what course of action to take, if they cannot agree the parent who
wants the child to live should supercede, whether it's the man or the
woman.


No problem ! Let her *also pay for her choices and their consequences*,
in PRECISELY the same ratio as she had available the choice.

IOW, 100% to *both*...

If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, he should be allowed to
have sole custody with no child support from the woman.


That would be... equal rights.

So, why does every major women's group OPPOSE this ?

Uh huh...

She chose to take the risk,
if she gets saddled with nine months of misery having to carry and
birth the child, well, she should have thought of that before she had sex.


Still haven't heard of abortion, RU-486, et al...

Got it.

Similarly, if the woman wants the child, she should be allowed sole custody
with no support from the man after the birth of the child. The only reason
he should be partially financially responsible during the pregnancy is
because there has to be some kind of consequence,


Ah ! Here we go, the bleat of the Festering Femmeroid, claiming that
*men must pay women for sex* !

How does your Junior Anti-Sex League sash fit on you ?

otherwise men would just
go around impregnating women and leaving them if they didn't want the
babies.


Oh ? You see women as *non-sentient* creatures, *unable* to detect
a man in the process of " impregnating her " ?

laughs

He chose to take the risk, if he gets saddled with that nine month
burden, well, he should have thought about that before he had sex.


So, *men should be responsible for women, since women CAN'T be
responsible for themselves*...

You really have a *low opinion* of... women...

Either
gender should be able to not be responsible for a child they don't want.


So, unless a woman can *show proof* of pre-cital acceptance of the
status of father from the guy, she then has zero claim ?

Good.

However, there should be some way for women and men who agree, but then one
changes their mind later, for one not to be solely responsible for a child
they might not have had if they'd known it was going to be them on their
own.


Translation: " When women change their minds, men should still pay
them "...

Women as whelping whores. Interesting view of women *you show*,
there...

My ex husband bandied about terminating his parental rights so he
would have to pay child support.


I presume you mean " *wouldn't* habe to pay... "...

Luckily, in the state we're in he couldn't
unless I agreed, and I wouldn't have.


Translation: " All power to *choose to the woman*... "

Got it.

Though I didn't sign up to be a single
parent to our daughter, HE wanted to marry ME, I was ready to be a single
parent at that time, but once we'd agreed to be a unit in raising our
child, I wasn't about to let him back out of the agreement and leave me in
the lurch, either.


IOW, he's *your insurance policy, and his own*.

So, when push came to shove, you never *had to stand on your own*.
Only *he did*...

Got it.

There's got to be some compromise where both genders have
equal rights when it comes to kids.


Not in *your life*, though...

I'm sure all the raging feminazis are going to get me over
that one, but what the heck, I have a thick skin, I can take it.


LOL ! Imagine, a widdle supported woman, claiming to have to
stand up to feminazis.

She's never met Warren Farrell, I'd bet...

Irony Meter: [...../] laughs

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
  #22  
Old February 28th 04, 01:42 AM
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Child support - who needs it?

"The DaveŠ" ) writes:
Krista wrote:
Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is
completely getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just
won't bear up. I could say that men like you are just misogynists
who can't stand it that women have choices at all, but that would be
just as worng (and, incidentally, that is NOT what I think). Stick
to the individual topics you are responding to and away from the
sweeping generalizations and see what happens, I bet more people will
listen to what you have to say instead of getting all defensive, as I
just did.


Excellent response. Presentation is equally as important as substance.


In *politics*, where liars roost.

Got it. Style uber substance. To Hell with... honesty.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
  #23  
Old February 28th 04, 01:42 AM
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Child support - who needs it?

"The DaveŠ" ) writes:
Krista wrote:
Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is
completely getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just
won't bear up. I could say that men like you are just misogynists
who can't stand it that women have choices at all, but that would be
just as worng (and, incidentally, that is NOT what I think). Stick
to the individual topics you are responding to and away from the
sweeping generalizations and see what happens, I bet more people will
listen to what you have to say instead of getting all defensive, as I
just did.


Excellent response. Presentation is equally as important as substance.


In *politics*, where liars roost.

Got it. Style uber substance. To Hell with... honesty.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
  #24  
Old February 28th 04, 01:50 AM
Ronni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Child support - who needs it?


"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
Well, it's like whatever is best for the kids.

However, I do have a question... Why would a NCP NOT provide some
type of child support? I mean, aren't the kids theirs also?


So ? In the case of children either not of marriages, or the hundreds
of thousands of men being garnished from, who are *not* the bio-
fathers of the children


Not to start an argument but when taken for child support (at least here in
PA)
the father (or person being said to be the father) has the option to request
blood or DNA tests before a support order is established. So if said Dad has
doubts or just wants to make sure, then he should request blood tests to
prove either way (if proven the father he pays $5 extra a week to pay for
the tests (sent in with the support), if not the father, she pays for the
tests--again here in PA anyway...If 'mom' has nothing to worry about then
she won't get upset about it ;-)


they're being stolen from to pay some lying
woman, there was NO express prior agreement to become a parent
offered the guy.

Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child.

" Her body, her choice... HER RESPONSIBILITY. "

What part of women being *as responsible for their own choices as
their choices are*, is unclear to you ?

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:20:17 -0600, Anti-Sheila J
smcneillAToddpostDOTcom wrote:

If the court would award me custody of my two daughters (ages 8 and
5), I would be willing to waive child support AND make certain I
exceeded all visitation requirements for their mother. I would make
this deal without any hesitation or reservation, whatsoever.

I was wondering if anyone here feels the same.


The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.



  #25  
Old February 28th 04, 01:50 AM
Ronni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Child support - who needs it?


"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
Well, it's like whatever is best for the kids.

However, I do have a question... Why would a NCP NOT provide some
type of child support? I mean, aren't the kids theirs also?


So ? In the case of children either not of marriages, or the hundreds
of thousands of men being garnished from, who are *not* the bio-
fathers of the children


Not to start an argument but when taken for child support (at least here in
PA)
the father (or person being said to be the father) has the option to request
blood or DNA tests before a support order is established. So if said Dad has
doubts or just wants to make sure, then he should request blood tests to
prove either way (if proven the father he pays $5 extra a week to pay for
the tests (sent in with the support), if not the father, she pays for the
tests--again here in PA anyway...If 'mom' has nothing to worry about then
she won't get upset about it ;-)


they're being stolen from to pay some lying
woman, there was NO express prior agreement to become a parent
offered the guy.

Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child.

" Her body, her choice... HER RESPONSIBILITY. "

What part of women being *as responsible for their own choices as
their choices are*, is unclear to you ?

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:20:17 -0600, Anti-Sheila J
smcneillAToddpostDOTcom wrote:

If the court would award me custody of my two daughters (ages 8 and
5), I would be willing to waive child support AND make certain I
exceeded all visitation requirements for their mother. I would make
this deal without any hesitation or reservation, whatsoever.

I was wondering if anyone here feels the same.


The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.



  #26  
Old February 28th 04, 03:22 AM
Rambler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Child support - who needs it?


"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"The DaveŠ" ) writes:
Krista wrote:
Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is
completely getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just
won't bear up. I could say that men like you are just misogynists
who can't stand it that women have choices at all, but that would be
just as worng (and, incidentally, that is NOT what I think). Stick
to the individual topics you are responding to and away from the
sweeping generalizations and see what happens, I bet more people will
listen to what you have to say instead of getting all defensive, as I
just did.


Excellent response. Presentation is equally as important as substance.


In *politics*, where liars roost.

Got it. Style uber substance. To Hell with... honesty.


Andre, you sound like my ex. You are so focused on your own hell that you
can't hear crap about anything.

It is apparent that you are stuck, and unable to grow, because one grows by
listening and learning, not necessarily by agreeing. Without growth, we're
dead. When was your funeral ... never mind, I know already.

Rambler


  #27  
Old February 28th 04, 03:22 AM
Rambler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Child support - who needs it?


"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"The DaveŠ" ) writes:
Krista wrote:
Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is
completely getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just
won't bear up. I could say that men like you are just misogynists
who can't stand it that women have choices at all, but that would be
just as worng (and, incidentally, that is NOT what I think). Stick
to the individual topics you are responding to and away from the
sweeping generalizations and see what happens, I bet more people will
listen to what you have to say instead of getting all defensive, as I
just did.


Excellent response. Presentation is equally as important as substance.


In *politics*, where liars roost.

Got it. Style uber substance. To Hell with... honesty.


Andre, you sound like my ex. You are so focused on your own hell that you
can't hear crap about anything.

It is apparent that you are stuck, and unable to grow, because one grows by
listening and learning, not necessarily by agreeing. Without growth, we're
dead. When was your funeral ... never mind, I know already.

Rambler


  #28  
Old February 28th 04, 03:30 AM
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Child support - who needs it?

"Ronni" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
Well, it's like whatever is best for the kids.

However, I do have a question... Why would a NCP NOT provide some
type of child support? I mean, aren't the kids theirs also?


So ? In the case of children either not of marriages, or the hundreds
of thousands of men being garnished from, who are *not* the bio-
fathers of the children


Not to start an argument but when taken for child support (at least here
in PA) the father (or person being said to be the father) has the option
to request blood or DNA tests before a support order is established.


Thats a good thiing. But, it raises another question: What are the
requirements placed upon the state/claimant as to notification of
the man, *before* a default kourt judgement can be entered against
him ?

So if said Dad has
doubts or just wants to make sure, then he should request blood tests to
prove either way (if proven the father he pays $5 extra a week to pay for
the tests (sent in with the support), if not the father, she pays for the
tests--again here in PA anyway...If 'mom' has nothing to worry about then
she won't get upset about it ;-)


Indeed. It would work best if *all* newborns were tested. Then, there
would be no avenue for doubt to be created, in the first place.

they're being stolen from to pay some lying
woman, there was NO express prior agreement to become a parent
offered the guy.

Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child.

" Her body, her choice... HER RESPONSIBILITY. "

What part of women being *as responsible for their own choices as
their choices are*, is unclear to you ?

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:20:17 -0600, Anti-Sheila J
smcneillAToddpostDOTcom wrote:

If the court would award me custody of my two daughters (ages 8 and
5), I would be willing to waive child support AND make certain I
exceeded all visitation requirements for their mother. I would make
this deal without any hesitation or reservation, whatsoever.

I was wondering if anyone here feels the same.


The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...


Indeed.

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
  #29  
Old February 28th 04, 03:30 AM
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Child support - who needs it?

"Ronni" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
Well, it's like whatever is best for the kids.

However, I do have a question... Why would a NCP NOT provide some
type of child support? I mean, aren't the kids theirs also?


So ? In the case of children either not of marriages, or the hundreds
of thousands of men being garnished from, who are *not* the bio-
fathers of the children


Not to start an argument but when taken for child support (at least here
in PA) the father (or person being said to be the father) has the option
to request blood or DNA tests before a support order is established.


Thats a good thiing. But, it raises another question: What are the
requirements placed upon the state/claimant as to notification of
the man, *before* a default kourt judgement can be entered against
him ?

So if said Dad has
doubts or just wants to make sure, then he should request blood tests to
prove either way (if proven the father he pays $5 extra a week to pay for
the tests (sent in with the support), if not the father, she pays for the
tests--again here in PA anyway...If 'mom' has nothing to worry about then
she won't get upset about it ;-)


Indeed. It would work best if *all* newborns were tested. Then, there
would be no avenue for doubt to be created, in the first place.

they're being stolen from to pay some lying
woman, there was NO express prior agreement to become a parent
offered the guy.

Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child.

" Her body, her choice... HER RESPONSIBILITY. "

What part of women being *as responsible for their own choices as
their choices are*, is unclear to you ?

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:20:17 -0600, Anti-Sheila J
smcneillAToddpostDOTcom wrote:

If the court would award me custody of my two daughters (ages 8 and
5), I would be willing to waive child support AND make certain I
exceeded all visitation requirements for their mother. I would make
this deal without any hesitation or reservation, whatsoever.

I was wondering if anyone here feels the same.


The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few
women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going
to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally
chose to whelp*.

If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a
woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out,
and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ),
then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*...


Indeed.

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
  #30  
Old February 28th 04, 04:25 AM
Rambler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Child support - who needs it?


"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
From my perspective, the NCP should pay more that 50% of the cost
associated with the upbringing of the child/children. Why? Because
it takes a hell of a lot more energy than $$$'s to raise the kids.


No problem. If the " energy " is *too much* for you, then hand
over the kids to Dad, and pay *him* 70% of the " costs "...

Again, here we have a wonderful example of a woman who demands that
men *be responsible for her sole choices*...


Kahlooless ... I believe MOD is male.

Yes, I know that feminist male rant that follows to cover-up your
ineptitude.

Rambler


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 63 November 17th 03 11:12 PM
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA Fighting for kids Child Support 21 November 17th 03 02:35 AM
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed Kane Foster Parents 10 September 16th 03 11:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.