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

Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old February 11th 06, 04:45 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message

...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message

...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

[Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped]

Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it, here

are
the
facts as they've been presented to us..

1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit.
2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder.
3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of murder.
4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and
imprisonment
for 13 years), his C$ arrears mounts to astronomical levels

($38,000).
5. He attempts to have his C$ lowered, or stopped after he learns

of
it.
The state refuses to allow him to do so.
6. After 13 years of imprisonment, the guy is found innocent

(witness
came
forward) and is released.
7. The state hands him a bill for $38,000 in C$ for the time they

kept
him
in prison and could make payments (remember, the state also said

that
they
wouldn't allow him to have his C$ lowered while they kept an

innocent
man
locked up, too).

So Moon, please explain to us how being arrested for a crime he

didn't
commit, spending 13 years in jail (unable to pay $100 a week in

C$,
plus
interest, fees and penalties), being cut-off from his children,

lose
of
his
job, lose of his home, lose of his belongings and car, is all the

guys
fault?

I didn't say it was all the guy's fault.

Moon, since about day one of this thread you've done nothing but

infer
over
and over and over again that Souter is to blame for the trouble that

the
state caused him.

He's in trouble for having not taken action about his child support.

That
much is fairly indisputable.

Moon, he DID take action to stop his C$. The state REFUSED to act on

his
motion.


And you come by this information where?


http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001
/news

"In 1987, before his conviction, Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in

his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped
paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments

suspended until 1995.

How many times do you need this explained to you? Your quoted statements in
the article left out the information that he paid CS up until he went to
prison. At $100 per week he owed $5,200 per year. When he requested his CS
be suspended he would have owed 3 years times $5,200 or $15,600. If his CS
had been suspended at that point no further CS would have accrued and only
interest would have been added.


Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support.


He owed $23,000 in back support because his support was not suspended in
1995. There is no way $8,000 in interest could have accured over a two year
period on a $15,600 obligation. Note the article does not say he owed back
CS plus interest. An additional 2 years of CS added to the $15,600 would
bring the total owed up to $26,000. The difference from $23,000 owed is
based on which months he went to prison and how many months there were
between his incarceration in 1992 and when CSE cites details of his case
file in 1997. These numbers show CSE was quoting his CS owed without
interest in 1997. If interest had been added his amount due would have been
larger, not smaller, than the number of months since he went to prison.

As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed
it to $38,082.25."


This quote changes the way the CS is being characterized by CSE. For the
first time they are citing a combination of CS and interest.

Now for the kicker - Why is the state disclosing details of his CS records
to the media? Isn't that private information? what right does the state
have to disclose personal information about its citizens to the media?
Would you want the state to disclose information about your tax records and
payments to the media?



  #152  
Old February 11th 06, 05:26 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message

...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

[Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped]

Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it, here

are
the
facts as they've been presented to us..

1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit.
2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder.
3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of

murder.
4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and
imprisonment
for 13 years), his C$ arrears mounts to astronomical levels
($38,000).
5. He attempts to have his C$ lowered, or stopped after he

learns
of
it.
The state refuses to allow him to do so.
6. After 13 years of imprisonment, the guy is found innocent
(witness
came
forward) and is released.
7. The state hands him a bill for $38,000 in C$ for the time

they
kept
him
in prison and could make payments (remember, the state also said

that
they
wouldn't allow him to have his C$ lowered while they kept an

innocent
man
locked up, too).

So Moon, please explain to us how being arrested for a crime he
didn't
commit, spending 13 years in jail (unable to pay $100 a week in

C$,
plus
interest, fees and penalties), being cut-off from his children,

lose
of
his
job, lose of his home, lose of his belongings and car, is all

the
guys
fault?

I didn't say it was all the guy's fault.

Moon, since about day one of this thread you've done nothing but

infer
over
and over and over again that Souter is to blame for the trouble

that
the
state caused him.

He's in trouble for having not taken action about his child support.

That
much is fairly indisputable.

Moon, he DID take action to stop his C$. The state REFUSED to act on

his
motion.


And you come by this information where?



http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001
/news

"In 1987, before his conviction, Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week

in
his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped
paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments

suspended until 1995.

How many times do you need this explained to you? Your quoted statements

in
the article left out the information that he paid CS up until he went to
prison. At $100 per week he owed $5,200 per year. When he requested his

CS
be suspended he would have owed 3 years times $5,200 or $15,600. If his

CS
had been suspended at that point no further CS would have accrued and only
interest would have been added.


Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support.


He owed $23,000 in back support because his support was not suspended in
1995. There is no way $8,000 in interest could have accured over a two

year
period on a $15,600 obligation. Note the article does not say he owed

back
CS plus interest. An additional 2 years of CS added to the $15,600 would
bring the total owed up to $26,000. The difference from $23,000 owed is
based on which months he went to prison and how many months there were
between his incarceration in 1992 and when CSE cites details of his case
file in 1997. These numbers show CSE was quoting his CS owed without
interest in 1997. If interest had been added his amount due would have

been
larger, not smaller, than the number of months since he went to prison.

As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed
it to $38,082.25."


This quote changes the way the CS is being characterized by CSE. For the
first time they are citing a combination of CS and interest.

Now for the kicker - Why is the state disclosing details of his CS records
to the media? Isn't that private information? what right does the state
have to disclose personal information about its citizens to the media?
Would you want the state to disclose information about your tax records

and
payments to the media?


I'm sure you already know the answer, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the
question(s). As I see it, it's quite simple really - the state wants to
create as ugly a picture as possible of Souter. That way, when he does
attempt to sue the state for their illegal activities, the jury pool will be
tainted with biased jurists. If the state can succeed in Souter being
portrayed as the evil villain, then the easier it is for the state to shut
him down before he can get started in raising a court case against them.

All it is is basic military strategy. Cut off your enemies supply lines,
make the population angry with them and your opponent folds up his tent and
goes home. Which is just what CSE, courts, attorneys and the radfems do to
NCPs every single day - because it works.

Did you get all that Moonie? Or would larger letters help?


  #153  
Old February 11th 06, 05:30 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

[snip]

That it was my kids' teeth that were "that bad"

Dental insurance doesn't provide endless coverage - there are limits, per

year, and per procedure.

Sorry Moonie, but you never did answer the question.. How did you manage to
get your kids teeth so messed up in the first place??


  #154  
Old February 11th 06, 05:52 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

[snip]

That it was my kids' teeth that were "that bad"

Dental insurance doesn't provide endless coverage - there are limits, per

year, and per procedure.

Sorry Moonie, but you never did answer the question.. How did you manage
to
get your kids teeth so messed up in the first place??

===
She said it was her teeth that were so messed up because she didn't take
care of them and
went without treatment so she could have her kids teeth fixed and even
though she has insurance,
the teeth were so bad that she had to spread treatment out over different
years because she couldn't afford all the copays
and limitations on her policy because there are limits on the policy and
procedures and she went to
dentists who charged more than her policy would cover so the kids' teeth are
OK. You missed that? It was quite disjointed,
but overall, artful. Still, I only gave it a D+ due to the lack of coherency
and effort, and her incomprehensible distain for Mr.
Souter.
===
===


  #155  
Old February 11th 06, 06:00 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message

...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

[Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped]

Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it,

here
are
the
facts as they've been presented to us..

1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit.
2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder.
3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of

murder.
4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and
imprisonment
for 13 years), his C$ arrears mounts to astronomical levels
($38,000).
5. He attempts to have his C$ lowered, or stopped after he

learns
of
it.
The state refuses to allow him to do so.
6. After 13 years of imprisonment, the guy is found innocent
(witness
came
forward) and is released.
7. The state hands him a bill for $38,000 in C$ for the time

they
kept
him
in prison and could make payments (remember, the state also

said
that
they
wouldn't allow him to have his C$ lowered while they kept an

innocent
man
locked up, too).

So Moon, please explain to us how being arrested for a crime

he
didn't
commit, spending 13 years in jail (unable to pay $100 a week

in
C$,
plus
interest, fees and penalties), being cut-off from his

children,
lose
of
his
job, lose of his home, lose of his belongings and car, is all

the
guys
fault?

I didn't say it was all the guy's fault.

Moon, since about day one of this thread you've done nothing but

infer
over
and over and over again that Souter is to blame for the trouble

that
the
state caused him.

He's in trouble for having not taken action about his child

support.
That
much is fairly indisputable.

Moon, he DID take action to stop his C$. The state REFUSED to act

on
his
motion.

And you come by this information where?




http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001
/news

"In 1987, before his conviction, Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week

in
his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped
paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments

suspended until 1995.

How many times do you need this explained to you? Your quoted

statements
in
the article left out the information that he paid CS up until he went to
prison. At $100 per week he owed $5,200 per year. When he requested

his
CS
be suspended he would have owed 3 years times $5,200 or $15,600. If his

CS
had been suspended at that point no further CS would have accrued and

only
interest would have been added.


Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support.


He owed $23,000 in back support because his support was not suspended in
1995. There is no way $8,000 in interest could have accured over a two

year
period on a $15,600 obligation. Note the article does not say he owed

back
CS plus interest. An additional 2 years of CS added to the $15,600

would
bring the total owed up to $26,000. The difference from $23,000 owed is
based on which months he went to prison and how many months there were
between his incarceration in 1992 and when CSE cites details of his case
file in 1997. These numbers show CSE was quoting his CS owed without
interest in 1997. If interest had been added his amount due would have

been
larger, not smaller, than the number of months since he went to prison.

As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed
it to $38,082.25."


This quote changes the way the CS is being characterized by CSE. For

the
first time they are citing a combination of CS and interest.

Now for the kicker - Why is the state disclosing details of his CS

records
to the media? Isn't that private information? what right does the

state
have to disclose personal information about its citizens to the media?
Would you want the state to disclose information about your tax records

and
payments to the media?


I'm sure you already know the answer, otherwise you wouldn't have asked

the
question(s). As I see it, it's quite simple really - the state wants to
create as ugly a picture as possible of Souter. That way, when he does
attempt to sue the state for their illegal activities, the jury pool will

be
tainted with biased jurists. If the state can succeed in Souter being
portrayed as the evil villain, then the easier it is for the state to shut
him down before he can get started in raising a court case against them.

All it is is basic military strategy. Cut off your enemies supply lines,
make the population angry with them and your opponent folds up his tent

and
goes home. Which is just what CSE, courts, attorneys and the radfems do

to
NCPs every single day - because it works.

Did you get all that Moonie? Or would larger letters help?


So if the state can disclose details of a father's CS payment file, why
can't the state disclose details of a mother's maternity profile? Why is it
off-limits to disclose how many men a welfare mother has had children with
when a man can be chastised for having children with multiple women? Why
isn't a state as willing to disclose a mother's promiscuous parenting
behavior as much as they are willing to disclose father's CS financial
responsibility?


  #156  
Old February 11th 06, 06:11 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

"Gini" wrote in message news:L4eHf.453$qI.326@trndny03...

[snip]

===
She said it was her teeth that were so messed up because she didn't take
care of them and
went without treatment so she could have her kids teeth fixed and even
though she has insurance,
the teeth were so bad that she had to spread treatment out over different
years because she couldn't afford all the copays
and limitations on her policy because there are limits on the policy and
procedures and she went to
dentists who charged more than her policy would cover so the kids' teeth

are
OK. You missed that? It was quite disjointed,
but overall, artful. Still, I only gave it a D+ due to the lack of

coherency
and effort, and her incomprehensible distain for Mr.
Souter.
===
===


I must have. The way she wrote it was so poor that I gave her an F- (lack
of effort, poor grammar, and a coherency that stunk so bad I stopped reading
it after the 4th line). And she very nearly landed in the #1 spot on my
kilfile - even ahead of Billy B (if you can imagine that!).

If it was her teeth, then no wonder she hasn't had a date in ages...
Doesn't she know that they make TOOTHBRUSHES, FLOSS, TOOTHPICKS, MOUTH WASH,
FLUORIDE... and a whole host of things to help keep one's choppers in decent
shape between dentist visits???

I can only imagine how happy (and disgusted) she made her dentist.


  #157  
Old February 11th 06, 06:54 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

[snip]

So if the state can disclose details of a father's CS payment file, why
can't the state disclose details of a mother's maternity profile? Why is

it
off-limits to disclose how many men a welfare mother has had children with
when a man can be chastised for having children with multiple women? Why
isn't a state as willing to disclose a mother's promiscuous parenting
behavior as much as they are willing to disclose father's CS financial
responsibility?


Simple, it would make them (the state) look bad. And, eventually, it would
undermine their Federal kick backs (i.e., the Federal Matching Funds
program, Federal Welfare programs, etc..).

Remember - Woman = Good. Man = Bad. No matter what the truth really is..


  #158  
Old February 11th 06, 12:27 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"Dusty" wrote in message ...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Moon, he DID take action to stop his C$. The state REFUSED to act on

his
motion.


And you come by this information where?


http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...0317/1001/news

"In 1987, before his conviction, Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in

his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped
paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments

suspended until 1995.

Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. As of

last month, interest and penalties had pushed
it to $38,082.25."

Where do you see that the court refused to act on his motion? Certainly,

by the time he asked to have his payments
suspended, he was already 3 years in arrears, and interest generally

starts accruing once support is a full month in
arrears.


You answered your own question.


You have insisted that once he took action to have the CS stopped, the state REFUSED to act on his motion. Again,
please show where the state refused to act on his motion.

Or are you saying that they refused to wipe out the already existing arrears (which would be a different issue)?





  #159  
Old February 11th 06, 12:33 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message

...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

[Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped]

Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it, here

are
the
facts as they've been presented to us..

1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit.
2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder.
3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of murder.
4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and
imprisonment
for 13 years), his C$ arrears mounts to astronomical levels
($38,000).
5. He attempts to have his C$ lowered, or stopped after he learns

of
it.
The state refuses to allow him to do so.
6. After 13 years of imprisonment, the guy is found innocent
(witness
came
forward) and is released.
7. The state hands him a bill for $38,000 in C$ for the time they
kept
him
in prison and could make payments (remember, the state also said

that
they
wouldn't allow him to have his C$ lowered while they kept an

innocent
man
locked up, too).

So Moon, please explain to us how being arrested for a crime he
didn't
commit, spending 13 years in jail (unable to pay $100 a week in

C$,
plus
interest, fees and penalties), being cut-off from his children,

lose
of
his
job, lose of his home, lose of his belongings and car, is all the
guys
fault?

I didn't say it was all the guy's fault.

Moon, since about day one of this thread you've done nothing but

infer
over
and over and over again that Souter is to blame for the trouble that

the
state caused him.

He's in trouble for having not taken action about his child support.

That
much is fairly indisputable.

Moon, he DID take action to stop his C$. The state REFUSED to act on

his
motion.


And you come by this information where?


http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001
/news

"In 1987, before his conviction, Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in

his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped
paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments

suspended until 1995.

How many times do you need this explained to you? Your quoted statements in
the article left out the information that he paid CS up until he went to
prison. At $100 per week he owed $5,200 per year. When he requested his CS
be suspended he would have owed 3 years times $5,200 or $15,600. If his CS
had been suspended at that point no further CS would have accrued and only
interest would have been added.


Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support.


He owed $23,000 in back support because his support was not suspended in
1995. There is no way $8,000 in interest could have accured over a two year
period on a $15,600 obligation.


There's no way that only 8,000 would have been added over the couse of another 2 years of non-payment when he was
paying more than 5,000 per year.

Note the article does not say he owed back
CS plus interest. An additional 2 years of CS added to the $15,600 would
bring the total owed up to $26,000. The difference from $23,000 owed is
based on which months he went to prison and how many months there were
between his incarceration in 1992 and when CSE cites details of his case
file in 1997. These numbers show CSE was quoting his CS owed without
interest in 1997. If interest had been added his amount due would have been
larger, not smaller, than the number of months since he went to prison.

As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed
it to $38,082.25."


This quote changes the way the CS is being characterized by CSE. For the
first time they are citing a combination of CS and interest.


So what?


Now for the kicker - Why is the state disclosing details of his CS records
to the media?


Yeah, someone new to blame, Bob - perhaps it was the media's fault that the guy didn't report the change in his
circumstances? After all, trying to blame his ex-wife for doing do didn't work too well!

Isn't that private information?

Actually, at least parts of it are probably public record - you know, the kind that some people might go digging up and
blast all over the internet?

And you don't know that the state disclosed the details to the media - it's quite possible that the media got the
information through some other means............ like the guy's legal representative, wanting publicity about the false
conviction?

what right does the state
have to disclose personal information about its citizens to the media?


See above.


Would you want the state to disclose information about your tax records and
payments to the media?


See above.








  #160  
Old February 11th 06, 12:39 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"Gini" wrote in message news:B2dHf.452$qI.107@trndny03...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Gini" wrote in message news:jHcHf.137$Hn.29@trndny05...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Gini" wrote in message news:mQbHf.557$U2.370@trndny08...

"teachrmama" wrote
..........................
If they continue to live on public moneys (money I and other tax payers work hard to earn), have child after
child that they cannot support, spend money paid for the support of their children to feed their "disease" and
NEVER change their choices then, yes, they have earned my scorn, Moon. Those that make the effort to secure jobs,
but still have occasional slips, are at least trying. But those that never even apply for jobs, just sit on
their fannies with their mouths open for Big Daddy Gubmint to drop in the sweat-soaked $$ of the American
taxpayer--no sympathy from me.
==
It's more than a little curious that MS can profess compassion for a drunk but have no
tolerance for a man wrongly convicted and sent to prison but forgot to get his child
support order reduced. Very curious. Perhaps, it's a case of "When it's me, it's excusable. When it's
someone else, to hell with them." Her insensitivity to this man's plight
has pretty much erased all the benefit of the doubt I've tried to give her all these years.
No matter--I'm still waiting to hear how her kids' teeth got that bad.

It wasn't my kids' teeth. I took care of them. Then, when there wasn't enough money, I skipped on my own care.
===
But, you have dental insurance.
===

Yet another bad assumption on your part, Gini.
===
And the assumption is?


That it was my kids' teeth that were "that bad"

Dental insurance doesn't provide endless coverage - there are limits, per year, and per procedure.

===
Well, that's a pretty convoluted attempt at an explanation but, I'm guessing you gave it your best shot.


Which part didn't you understand?

It wasn't my kids' teeth that got that bad.

It was mine.

Dental insurance only covers a portion of the costs.

There are co-pays.
There are deductibles.
There is a maximum benefit per year.

When there isn't enough money, as when a non-custodial parent does't or won't contribute to the support of the children,
sometimes expenses have to be put off, or eliminated entirely. Many times, it's the custodial parent's health care,
which is precisely what I posted back on 2/5.

Get it that time?

===
===



 




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
A dentist's child abuse crime (also: Pregnant citizens: URGENT) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 1 September 7th 05 11:00 PM
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court Wizardlaw Child Support 12 June 4th 04 02:19 AM
Sample Supreme Court Petition Wizardlaw Child Support 0 January 16th 04 04:47 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Spanking 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.