Do you think they will ever learn?

http://news.bostonherald.com/nationa...ticleid=190749


Guess what kiddies; you can't have your father back (at least, until
he's done his stint in the pen), but you can have an extra slice of
pepperoni, hold the anchovies

http://www.ncprevue.com/blog

"John Meyer" wrote in message
...
http://news.bostonherald.com/nationa...ticleid=190749


Guess what kiddies; you can't have your father back (at least, until he's
done his stint in the pen), but you can have an extra slice of pepperoni,
hold the anchovies

http://www.ncprevue.com/blog

This is just another example of one of the central realities of the
"child support" system in the U.S. Fathers, who used to be respected
("honor thy father and thy mother"), have become one of the few remaining
official scapegoat groups. Any tactics -- however unfair, prejudicial, and
damaging to the children involved-- are OK in pursuit of the objective of
making sure that fathers pay large amounts of tax-free money to the mothers
of their children.

No one ever mentions that, in the vast majority of cases, the obligation
on these men to pay the money was imposed on them by the unilateral
decisions of the women who want to get the money. Either the women
initiated divorces over the objections of their husbands, or (in the case of
illegitimate births) they were able to exercise post-conception reproductive
choices that the law systematically denies to men.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:TbBNh.4050$8l2.3287@trnddc01...

"John Meyer" wrote in message
...
http://news.bostonherald.com/nationa...ticleid=190749


Guess what kiddies; you can't have your father back (at least, until
he's
done his stint in the pen), but you can have an extra slice of
pepperoni,
hold the anchovies

http://www.ncprevue.com/blog

This is just another example of one of the central realities of the
"child support" system in the U.S. Fathers, who used to be respected
("honor thy father and thy mother"), have become one of the few remaining
official scapegoat groups. Any tactics -- however unfair, prejudicial,
and
damaging to the children involved-- are OK in pursuit of the objective of
making sure that fathers pay large amounts of tax-free money to the
mothers
of their children.

No one ever mentions that, in the vast majority of cases, the
obligation
on these men to pay the money was imposed on them by the unilateral
decisions of the women who want to get the money. Either the women
initiated divorces over the objections of their husbands, or (in the case
of
illegitimate births) they were able to exercise post-conception
reproductive
choices that the law systematically denies to men.

Well said!

Are they minimizing the child's contact with their father so that the woman
can get more free money, or are they awarding the woman more free money so
that they can minimize the child's contact with their father?