Deadbeat Dad--record lien on home

"Tippy" wrote in message
news:1FL6d.2994$gm.2031@okepread07...


--
Tippy
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Tippy" wrote in message
news:yc56d.1630$TY2.1310@lakeread04...

can
they expect to support children.

But you seem to support a system that does not do that, Tippy. The
system
believes that money can replace a parent. What a horrible mistake
that
is!
That is the biggest problem with the system we have now. The system
does
not agree with you that a father who cannot support himself cannot
support
a
child. The system believes that if you punish him stringently enough,
he
will find a way to support his child. The system does not care if the
NCP
is hosed. Or if the NCP's current family is hosed. The system only
cares
about the money. If the children never get to see their father again,
the
system does not care, so long as the $$$ is paid. The system does not
even
care if the $$$$ is spent on the children to give them the lifestyle
it
is
supposed. The system ONLY cares about the transfer of that money.
I'm
not
trying to convince you of anything, Tippy. I'm trying to get you to
see
that system you support does not have the ideals you support. Huge
changes
are needed if the system is ever truly to be a system that is in the
best
interests of the children. And even huger changes are needed before
every
child involved is valued the same way.


T'rama, I would support changes, but still heavily into ensuring that
the
child is supported. Also, the State needs to be reimbursed eventually
for
its costs-- with some reservations. I would like to see a model(s)
that
would work for each situation that is encountered. I would prefer
criteria
so strict that judges would have no leeway. Judgments that are
challenged
would be adjudicated by a partially elected panel who would ensure,
fair
or
not, that the burden on the parents jointly or separately are not so
great
as to decrease their incentive to work to better their own individual
lives
and their children. (naipotu?)

The criteria and financial responsibility would probably be a major
bone
of
contention with most.

Also, I think the federal gov't or state gov'ts should fund education
of
the
financial implications of unmarried parenthood (and irresponsible
parenthood, even if married) and the potential for losing the child to
others in early high school. I think the education should be mandatory
in
areas with high incidence of unwed parents. Hopefully, the education
would
result in a return on the investment of less costs to the government
overall.

I recognize **now** that just considering the deadbeats, however huge
a
problem, can not be isolated from the larger issues. To do so, is to
do
a
disservice to those who are beaten down by the system. That said, my
focus
remains the true deadbeats who go out of their way to avoid caring
financially in any way for the children they sired,

You really seem to have a thing about MEN being the ones who owe support,
Tippy!

Reading is Fundamental--- You seem to read something I don't write or
intend. Deadbeat is a deadbeat is a deadbeat--YOU seem to associate the
TERM deadbeat as synonomus with MEN. I don't. The fact that I mentioned
"sired" doesn't mean I limit it to men. Substitute any word/phrase you
want
in place of "sired," to mean "make children."

Quick definitions (sire) (Source: www.onelook.com)
noun: male parent of an animal especially a domestic animal such as a
horse
noun: a title of address formerly used for a man of rank and authority
noun: the founder of a family
verb: make children


What about the women who have children knowing full well that they never
intend to
support them financially? What about the women who spend years on public
assistance,
knowing full well that they will never be asked to pay back their fair
share? And please
don't give me the "But the women are caring for the children" answer.
The
child deserves
to be cared for by both parents, and caring for children is a
*privilege*--not a get-out-of-
paying-a-penny card. Women who raise their children on either public
assistance or
child support and never bother to get jobs and pay their fair share are
DEADBEATS,
as much as the fathers who run out simply to avoid paying.

knowingly or not,
wanting to know or not.

Now you are being unfair. How outrageous to expect a man to lose
everything
he has
worked for and his current family to fall into poverty simply because a
woman does
not let hm know that his sperm helped create a child! No, Tippy, the
WOMAN
and
the woman alone is responsible for every penny of expense until the
father
is notified.
She made the choice--she pays the price. That is the only fair way. Let
HER explain
to the child why she cheated him out of a father!

Unfair--!!? A child is there. It wouldn't be there if the man did what
HE
could do to stop conception. You might argue about amounts, or custody,
or
sharing or whatever-- but he is financial responsible, it couldn't have
happened without HIS participation. You can argue all you want about the
woman and her responsibility, etc---okay but I won't buy your argument
that
he doesn't bear financial responsibility just because he didn't know about
it.

Absolutely wrong, Tippy! He had no opportunity to support the child
financially. You cannot require that a man have a savings account just in
case some oops comes along, no matter how many years later. Finding himself
$50,000, $60,00 or more in debt because the woman never bothered to inform
him that he had a child is outrageous. And where would that $$$$ go? To
the dishonest child thief that kept the news from him? Absolutely NOT! The
cheating, father-denying scum is not deserving of a penny--unless, of
course, she can provide to the man all the years of fatherhood she owes him.
And if you are talking about repaying public assistance monies, you might
have a case---IF you require the mother to repay 100% of the money that was
paid out for her, and 50% of what was paid out for the one child--after all,
you are saying that financial responsibility for the child is shared, right?
WHEN mom is forced to pay back her 50% of the child's public assistance (and
100% of her own), THEN you can talk about uninformed dad, perhaps, having a
responsibility. Although I still feel that his responsibility should not
even begin until the date paternity is established. Until then, mom has
chosen to care for the child herself, and, therefore, chosen to take all of
the financial responsibility.

He had a choice, he chose not to take the safe course. And back to
deadbeats, which is what I was talking about, not an anomaly such as you
describe.

And she had a choice to inform him that he was a father. As for the dads
that do know they are dads, the same thing applies--MOM must be required to
provide 50%--or forced to repay 50% of public assistance money. It's
absolutely unfair to dump all financial responsibility to repay on dad, and
let mom slide.



The amounts such deadbeats are responsible for
moves back into the larger issues area, which I don't pretend to have
answers that fit all cases and I have not seen answers that fit all
cases.
The job of determining specific criteria for each potential instance
would
be daunting but necessary if judges were to be held to that criteria.

The best answer is to let adults be adults. The vast majority can work
things out on their own. If a system is necessary, it is for the
minority.
It sounds as if a goodly percentage of that minority might be gathered
in your area. But it is not the norm everywhere. MOST parents can
and do act like adults.

I don't share your utopian view of adults and parents who break up.
Without
intervention, the one with financial control has the power to dictate
terms
and often does.

I think that most parents are adult enough to look out for the best
interests of their children. But, then, maybe I know a better class of
people than you do, Tippy. chuckle--just kidding. You do seem to have a
grim perception of the human race)

//snipped//
Ah--Back to School Night--we did that 2 weeks ago. I greeted parents in
my
classroom while Dad visited the girls' classrooms. What fun.

Just curious-- where are you located? I note that in D.C. they have a new
Superintendent for the K-12 with nearly $1 billion dollar budget with the
highest or near highest cost per student and less than desirable standard
test scores.

I'm in California.

//sniped// Unfair--!!? A child is there. It wouldn't be there if the
man did what
HE
could do to stop conception. You might argue about amounts, or custody,
or
sharing or whatever-- but he is financial responsible, it couldn't have
happened without HIS participation. You can argue all you want about
the
woman and her responsibility, etc---okay but I won't buy your argument
that
he doesn't bear financial responsibility just because he didn't know
about
it.

Absolutely wrong, Tippy! He had no opportunity to support the child
financially. You cannot require that a man have a savings account just in

I'm not saying what you think. I am not arguing what he owes. I am arguing
that he has a financial responsibility-- how much that should be and when it
should it start are debatable.

case some oops comes along, no matter how many years later. Finding
himself
$50,000, $60,00 or more in debt because the woman never bothered to inform
him that he had a child is outrageous. And where would that $$$$ go? To
the dishonest child thief that kept the news from him? Absolutely NOT!
The
cheating, father-denying scum is not deserving of a penny--unless, of
course, she can provide to the man all the years of fatherhood she owes
him.
And if you are talking about repaying public assistance monies, you might
have a case---IF you require the mother to repay 100% of the money that
was
paid out for her, and 50% of what was paid out for the one child--after
all,
you are saying that financial responsibility for the child is shared,
right?
WHEN mom is forced to pay back her 50% of the child's public assistance
(and
100% of her own), THEN you can talk about uninformed dad, perhaps, having
a
responsibility. Although I still feel that his responsibility should not
even begin until the date paternity is established. Until then, mom has
chosen to care for the child herself, and, therefore, chosen to take all
of
the financial responsibility.

We aren't that far apart--

He had a choice, he chose not to take the safe course. And back to
deadbeats, which is what I was talking about, not an anomaly such as you
describe.

And she had a choice to inform him that he was a father. As for the dads
that do know they are dads, the same thing applies--MOM must be required
to
provide 50%--or forced to repay 50% of public assistance money. It's
absolutely unfair to dump all financial responsibility to repay on dad,
and
let mom slide.

Agree. But he doesn't get off the hook, and I suspect you agree that he has
some responsibility.




The amounts such deadbeats are responsible for
moves back into the larger issues area, which I don't pretend to have
answers that fit all cases and I have not seen answers that fit all
cases.
The job of determining specific criteria for each potential instance
would
be daunting but necessary if judges were to be held to that criteria.

The best answer is to let adults be adults. The vast majority can work
things out on their own. If a system is necessary, it is for the
minority.
It sounds as if a goodly percentage of that minority might be gathered
in your area. But it is not the norm everywhere. MOST parents can
and do act like adults.

I don't share your utopian view of adults and parents who break up.
Without
intervention, the one with financial control has the power to dictate
terms
and often does.

I think that most parents are adult enough to look out for the best
interests of their children. But, then, maybe I know a better class of
people than you do, Tippy. chuckle--just kidding. You do seem to have a
grim perception of the human race)

I enjoyed your chuckle, but perhaps, your chuckle was closer to the truth.
I was much more idealistic for most of my life until I became exposed to the
terrible things happening to children in "families" and in gov't care or
gov't oversight. The magnitude of the problem is truly outrageous.
Children die in various care and no autopsies occur, children disappear from
state custody, and no one even knows it for years. Florida and MD both had
heavily publicized instances. Recent Government Accountabily Office reports
and DC reports are also highly critical. Not just children, families and
gov'ts are also cavalier in their concern for those in elderly care, group
homes for the mentally retarded, the homeless, and other vulnerable
populations.


//snipped//
Ah--Back to School Night--we did that 2 weeks ago. I greeted parents
in
my
classroom while Dad visited the girls' classrooms. What fun.

Just curious-- where are you located? I note that in D.C. they have a
new
Superintendent for the K-12 with nearly $1 billion dollar budget with
the
highest or near highest cost per student and less than desirable
standard
test scores.

I'm in California.

I suspect certain areas of California are not all that rosy. I lived out
west for many years-- very different than older eastern cities.

"Tippy" wrote in message
news:aTb7d.2747$TY2.2061@lakeread04...

//sniped// Unfair--!!? A child is there. It wouldn't be there if the
man did what
HE
could do to stop conception. You might argue about amounts, or
custody,
or
sharing or whatever-- but he is financial responsible, it couldn't have
happened without HIS participation. You can argue all you want about
the
woman and her responsibility, etc---okay but I won't buy your argument
that
he doesn't bear financial responsibility just because he didn't know
about
it.

Absolutely wrong, Tippy! He had no opportunity to support the child
financially. You cannot require that a man have a savings account just
in

I'm not saying what you think. I am not arguing what he owes. I am
arguing
that he has a financial responsibility-- how much that should be and when
it
should it start are debatable.

case some oops comes along, no matter how many years later. Finding
himself
$50,000, $60,00 or more in debt because the woman never bothered to
inform
him that he had a child is outrageous. And where would that $$$$ go? To
the dishonest child thief that kept the news from him? Absolutely NOT!
The
cheating, father-denying scum is not deserving of a penny--unless, of
course, she can provide to the man all the years of fatherhood she owes
him.
And if you are talking about repaying public assistance monies, you might
have a case---IF you require the mother to repay 100% of the money that
was
paid out for her, and 50% of what was paid out for the one child--after
all,
you are saying that financial responsibility for the child is shared,
right?
WHEN mom is forced to pay back her 50% of the child's public assistance
(and
100% of her own), THEN you can talk about uninformed dad, perhaps, having
a
responsibility. Although I still feel that his responsibility should not
even begin until the date paternity is established. Until then, mom has
chosen to care for the child herself, and, therefore, chosen to take all
of
the financial responsibility.

We aren't that far apart--

He had a choice, he chose not to take the safe course. And back to
deadbeats, which is what I was talking about, not an anomaly such as
you
describe.

And she had a choice to inform him that he was a father. As for the dads
that do know they are dads, the same thing applies--MOM must be required
to
provide 50%--or forced to repay 50% of public assistance money. It's
absolutely unfair to dump all financial responsibility to repay on dad,
and
let mom slide.

Agree. But he doesn't get off the hook, and I suspect you agree that he
has
some responsibility.




The amounts such deadbeats are responsible for
moves back into the larger issues area, which I don't pretend to
have
answers that fit all cases and I have not seen answers that fit all
cases.
The job of determining specific criteria for each potential instance
would
be daunting but necessary if judges were to be held to that
criteria.

The best answer is to let adults be adults. The vast majority can
work
things out on their own. If a system is necessary, it is for the
minority.
It sounds as if a goodly percentage of that minority might be gathered
in your area. But it is not the norm everywhere. MOST parents can
and do act like adults.

I don't share your utopian view of adults and parents who break up.
Without
intervention, the one with financial control has the power to dictate
terms
and often does.

I think that most parents are adult enough to look out for the best
interests of their children. But, then, maybe I know a better class of
people than you do, Tippy. chuckle--just kidding. You do seem to have a
grim perception of the human race)

I enjoyed your chuckle, but perhaps, your chuckle was closer to the truth.
I was much more idealistic for most of my life until I became exposed to
the
terrible things happening to children in "families" and in gov't care or
gov't oversight. The magnitude of the problem is truly outrageous.
Children die in various care and no autopsies occur, children disappear
from
state custody, and no one even knows it for years. Florida and MD both
had
heavily publicized instances. Recent Government Accountabily Office
reports
and DC reports are also highly critical. Not just children, families and
gov'ts are also cavalier in their concern for those in elderly care, group
homes for the mentally retarded, the homeless, and other vulnerable
populations.


//snipped//
Ah--Back to School Night--we did that 2 weeks ago. I greeted parents
in
my
classroom while Dad visited the girls' classrooms. What fun.

Just curious-- where are you located? I note that in D.C. they have a
new
Superintendent for the K-12 with nearly $1 billion dollar budget with
the
highest or near highest cost per student and less than desirable
standard
test scores.

I'm in California.

I suspect certain areas of California are not all that rosy. I lived out
west for many years-- very different than older eastern cities.

I think the attitude you present here, Tippy, is one of the reasons that the
system as it is does not work. The idea that a man owes a women money
because he provided the sperm for a child--and that the woman agrees that
she is owed!--has led us to where we are today! The idea that a woman's
reproductive rights are sacrosanct, but she really doesn't have any
responsibilities, because that's what a man is for is outrageous! I have
worked in 2 high poverty areas during my teaching career, and a moderate
poverty area today. I've met some wonderful, hard-working people determined
to lift their families out of poverty. And I've met some of the most
disgusting schemers on the face of this earth. Like the woman who had 8
children by age 25. She was on public assistance and could not give the
name of the father of a single one of her children! She would go from
charity to charity getting on gift lists at Christmas, Thanksgving, etc, and
would get gifts for all of her children. Then she'd take them out and sell
them and spend the money on herself. Her children were dressed in rags,
and came to school lice infested and filthy. Nobody stepped in to stop her.
And nobody looked for the dads because they were probably not working
either. I actually heard, on a number of occassions, women discussing
getting pregnant again, and who they should choose as the father, because
they wanted more money coming in. No kidding. It was mind boggling. I
could go on for pages with these experiences--and the point is that the
system is making no headway in keeping these children out of poverty--and
the women are choosing to have children that they have no intention of
supporting--because it is either the man's or the gubmint's responsibility
to do that.

And I don't excuse the men. Men should certainly be taking precaustions to
see that their little swimmers do not meet up with an egg. My step nephew
had fathered 5 children last I heard--each by a welfare mama. The system
does not go after him for $$$ because he does not work. He lives with one
woman or another all the time and has his needs met by her public assistance
money. I find that disgusting. WE, the taxpayers, are paying for his
immoral lifestyle, and for the children he and the various women produce.
HE is not labeled as a deadbeat. HE is not held up to ridicule. He is
under no threat of losing his driver's license. How is the system fixing
the problem when they do nothing about men like my stepnephew, and the women
who bring children into lives of poverty with no thought of their own
responsibilities?

I had a little girl in my kindergarten class a few years ago. She lived
with mom and step-dad, who both worked, and new baby sister. Her bio dad
had lost his job due to downsizing, and had been forced to move back in with
his parents because no jobs were available. He could not pay the full child
support he owed, but would get short term work and pay what he could when he
could. Mom and stepdad informed me that the child would be gone for a week
because they were going on vacation. The child talked excitedly about going
to Disneyland. When she got back, I asked her how Disneyland was. She said
"We couldn't go because my dad doesn't pay enough money for me." This poor
guy is going out and working in fields, hauling other people's garbage to
the dump--and searching endlessly for a job where no jobs are available--and
the message that daughter is given is that dad isn't good enough because he
doesn't have enough money to send her to Disneyland.
Dad = $$$$$. A young girl growing up with the idea that fathers are for
money--and aren't good enough unless they provide it. THAT, unfortunately,
is what the present system says. And that is why I am so against it.

When my husband was sued in court for child support for a child he didn't
know existed, all they wanted was money. They didn't give a rat's tush if
the child--who is supposed to be their main concern--had a father. They
just wanted $$$$. They didn't even care if he WAS the father! They didn't
say "Come in and take a paternity test so we can find out if you're the
father." They said "Come in so we can tell you how much to pay." He had to
demand a paternity test. Now, Tippy, why do you think they don't offer the
opportunity for a paternity test just as a matter of procedure? Wouldn't it
be more fair to the men to make sure that the man is really the father? The
system is not set up for fairness, though--it is set up for $$$$, and that
is all that it really cares about. And until the system is set up for equal
rights and responsibilities and rights for both parents, it will continue to
do nothing to solve the real problems, while, at the same time, broadcasting
the message that women have rights and men have responsibilities. And that
little girl from my class will look to the man she marries as $$$$$, instead
of as the daddy of their children.

--

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

//snipped//
I'm in California.

I suspect certain areas of California are not all that rosy. I lived
out
west for many years-- very different than older eastern cities.

I think the attitude you present here, Tippy, is one of the reasons that
the
system as it is does not work. The idea that a man owes a women money
because he provided the sperm for a child--and that the woman agrees that

You have it wrong-- he doesn't owe the woman money--- he owes the child
financial support as a very minimum. The fairness after that should be
managed better-- but HE didn't "blouse his boots." It has nothing to do
with women's concerns. Women aren't off the hook. My point has been,
continues to be-- THE MAN is not off the hook. Why you continue to hammer
something I don't agree with is beyond me. A female parent is responsible
AND so is the male parent. He doesn't get off the hook just because he was
cavalier and chose not to act responsibly---so she chooses to act
irresponsibly, too. The point is the child-- you are concerned with the
woman as the CP. Your whole agenda is the "other woman" because she is
getting the money and probably misuses it. Some of it must be getting to
the child or there would be allegations of child abuse. I am not arguing
that the system is fair-- I never said it was fair-- at best I think I said
it was equitable.


she is owed!--has led us to where we are today! The idea that a woman's
reproductive rights are sacrosanct, but she really doesn't have any
responsibilities, because that's what a man is for is outrageous! I have
worked in 2 high poverty areas during my teaching career, and a moderate
poverty area today. I've met some wonderful, hard-working people
determined
to lift their families out of poverty. And I've met some of the most
disgusting schemers on the face of this earth. Like the woman who had 8

children by age 25. She was on public assistance and could not give the
name of the father of a single one of her children! She would go from
charity to charity getting on gift lists at Christmas, Thanksgving, etc,
and
would get gifts for all of her children. Then she'd take them out and
sell

Sounds like you are beginning to come down from the mountain and see what I
see. There is a lot of abuse of the support moneys just as there are a lot
of NCPs avoiding paternity tests and avoiding any attempt at supporting
their children.

them and spend the money on herself. Her children were dressed in rags,
and came to school lice infested and filthy. Nobody stepped in to stop
her.
And nobody looked for the dads because they were probably not working
either. I actually heard, on a number of occassions, women discussing
getting pregnant again, and who they should choose as the father, because
they wanted more money coming in. No kidding. It was mind boggling. I
could go on for pages with these experiences--and the point is that the
system is making no headway in keeping these children out of poverty--and
the women are choosing to have children that they have no intention of
supporting--because it is either the man's or the gubmint's responsibility
to do that.

I'd have to read that census report (other post) more thoroughly before I
would agree that the overall welfare system is not helping to keep children
out of poverty or at least out of harm's way. I also can go on about the
kids in group homes and foster homes who don't fair so well.

And I don't excuse the men. Men should certainly be taking precaustions
to
see that their little swimmers do not meet up with an egg. My step nephew
had fathered 5 children last I heard--each by a welfare mama. The system
does not go after him for $$$ because he does not work. He lives with one
woman or another all the time and has his needs met by her public
assistance
money. I find that disgusting. WE, the taxpayers, are paying for his
immoral lifestyle, and for the children he and the various women produce.
HE is not labeled as a deadbeat. HE is not held up to ridicule. He is
under no threat of losing his driver's license. How is the system fixing
the problem when they do nothing about men like my stepnephew, and the
women
who bring children into lives of poverty with no thought of their own
responsibilities?

Hmmm! you are supporting most of my contentions with your remarks this
post--maybe you don't associate with the hoity toity so much after all.
chuckle.



I had a little girl in my kindergarten class a few years ago. She lived
with mom and step-dad, who both worked, and new baby sister. Her bio dad
had lost his job due to downsizing, and had been forced to move back in
with
his parents because no jobs were available. He could not pay the full
child
support he owed, but would get short term work and pay what he could when
he
could. Mom and stepdad informed me that the child would be gone for a
week
because they were going on vacation. The child talked excitedly about
going
to Disneyland. When she got back, I asked her how Disneyland was. She
said
"We couldn't go because my dad doesn't pay enough money for me." This
poor
guy is going out and working in fields, hauling other people's garbage to
the dump--and searching endlessly for a job where no jobs are
available--and
the message that daughter is given is that dad isn't good enough because
he
doesn't have enough money to send her to Disneyland.
Dad = $$$$$. A young girl growing up with the idea that fathers are for
money--and aren't good enough unless they provide it. THAT,
unfortunately,
is what the present system says. And that is why I am so against it.

None of my kids have a clue that their parents should be paying in or that
they are getting TANF.


When my husband was sued in court for child support for a child he didn't
know existed, all they wanted was money. They didn't give a rat's tush if
the child--who is supposed to be their main concern--had a father. They
just wanted $$$$. They didn't even care if he WAS the father! They
didn't
say "Come in and take a paternity test so we can find out if you're the
father." They said "Come in so we can tell you how much to pay." He had
to
demand a paternity test. Now, Tippy, why do you think they don't offer
the
opportunity for a paternity test just as a matter of procedure? Wouldn't
it

To my knowledge, anyone who protests is entitled to a paternity test, pretty
much a formality. And, I believe the woman must pay for it if she is wrong.

I seem to recall some years back where a man was forced to pay support for a
child that was not his simply because he had been married to the mother.
Unless an urban myth, that was truly outrageous.

Nothing is perfect. I am aware of a situation where either the chain of
custody of the samples was poor or a subsitute for the real father was
allowed to give the sample. The woman said it was impossible. In any case,
after years of litigation, the real father was required to give another
sample under more controlled conditions where he was proven to be the
father.

be more fair to the men to make sure that the man is really the father?
The
system is not set up for fairness, though--it is set up for $$$$, and that
is all that it really cares about. And until the system is set up for
equal
rights and responsibilities and rights for both parents, it will continue
to
do nothing to solve the real problems, while, at the same time,
broadcasting
the message that women have rights and men have responsibilities. And
that
little girl from my class will look to the man she marries as $$$$$,
instead
of as the daddy of their children.

In article rgK7d.11802$pN6.5586@fed1read06, Tippy says...
.......................

I seem to recall some years back where a man was forced to pay support for a
child that was not his simply because he had been married to the mother.
Unless an urban myth, that was truly outrageous.
====
It isn't simply a case "some years back." It happens every day. It's the law.
====

--
Tippy
"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article rgK7d.11802$pN6.5586@fed1read06, Tippy says...
......................

I seem to recall some years back where a man was forced to pay support
for a
child that was not his simply because he had been married to the mother.
Unless an urban myth, that was truly outrageous.
====
It isn't simply a case "some years back." It happens every day. It's the
law.
====


It is the law or is it how courts interpret? I'd like to see that law(s)
and in which states.

"Tippy" wrote in message
news:5rS7d.3193$gk.2867@okepread01...


--
Tippy
"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article rgK7d.11802$pN6.5586@fed1read06, Tippy says...
......................

I seem to recall some years back where a man was forced to pay support
for a
child that was not his simply because he had been married to the
mother.
Unless an urban myth, that was truly outrageous.
====
It isn't simply a case "some years back." It happens every day. It's the
law.
====


It is the law or is it how courts interpret? I'd like to see that law(s)
and in which states.

Here is the Oregon law.

109.070 Establishing paternity. (1) The paternity of a person may be
established as follows:

(a) The child of a wife cohabiting with her husband who was not
impotent or sterile at the time of the conception of the child shall be
conclusively presumed to be the child of her husband, whether or not the
marriage of the husband and wife may be void.

(b) A child born in wedlock, there being no judgment of separation
from bed or board, shall be presumed to be the child of the mother’s
husband, whether or not the marriage of the husband and wife may be void.
This shall be a disputable presumption.

It's the same in every state. A married woman has a license to go get
pregnant by a man other than her husband. Then she can legally force her
husband to support another man's child. The worse case is a woman can have
the child, divorce her husband, go live with the child's father, and force
her former husband to pay CS for the other man's child.

"Tippy" wrote in message
news:5rS7d.3193$gk.2867@okepread01...


--
Tippy
"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article rgK7d.11802$pN6.5586@fed1read06, Tippy says...
......................

I seem to recall some years back where a man was forced to pay support
for a
child that was not his simply because he had been married to the
mother.
Unless an urban myth, that was truly outrageous.
====
It isn't simply a case "some years back." It happens every day. It's the
law.
====


It is the law or is it how courts interpret? I'd like to see that law(s)
and in which states.
-------
Arizona for one. If a man is married and the woman has a baby that child is
considered his. It happened to my parents.

AZ
(busy setting up an estate sale so haven't been able to post)

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

"Tippy" wrote in message
news:5rS7d.3193$gk.2867@okepread01...


--
Tippy
"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article rgK7d.11802$pN6.5586@fed1read06, Tippy says...
......................

I seem to recall some years back where a man was forced to pay
support
for a
child that was not his simply because he had been married to the
mother.
Unless an urban myth, that was truly outrageous.
====
It isn't simply a case "some years back." It happens every day. It's
the
law.
====


It is the law or is it how courts interpret? I'd like to see that
law(s)
and in which states.

Here is the Oregon law.

109.070 Establishing paternity. (1) The paternity of a person may be
established as follows:

(a) The child of a wife cohabiting with her husband who was not
impotent or sterile at the time of the conception of the child shall be
conclusively presumed to be the child of her husband, whether or not the
marriage of the husband and wife may be void.

(b) A child born in wedlock, there being no judgment of separation
from bed or board, shall be presumed to be the child of the mother's
husband, whether or not the marriage of the husband and wife may be void.
This shall be a disputable presumption.

It's the same in every state. A married woman has a license to go get
pregnant by a man other than her husband. Then she can legally force her
husband to support another man's child. The worse case is a woman can
have
the child, divorce her husband, go live with the child's father, and force
her former husband to pay CS for the other man's child.
----------------
Yep, I know several woman who have done this. Makes me sick.

AZ

In article 5rS7d.3193$gk.2867@okepread01, Tippy says...
--
Tippy
"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article rgK7d.11802$pN6.5586@fed1read06, Tippy says...
......................

I seem to recall some years back where a man was forced to pay support
for a
child that was not his simply because he had been married to the mother.
Unless an urban myth, that was truly outrageous.
====
It isn't simply a case "some years back." It happens every day. It's the
law.
====


It is the law or is it how courts interpret? I'd like to see that law(s)
and in which states.
===
It's the law in most, if not all states. It is still the law in Pennsylvania.
There are numerous ways for you to research this on the web yourself. A few
states are considering change but I am not aware of any actual changes. The law
is of common law origin and was to establish legitimacy of any children born
during a marriage by making them the legal child of the husband. The law is also
to protect the wife/mother's "reputation." Under the law, the husband is the
legal father and has all the responsibilities of said child and said child has
all the legal rights of a bio child. In some situations, the husband can opt out
of this responsibility. My son did when his estranged wife had a child by
another man. Because my son was still married to the mother (although
separated), he had first dibs on parental rights of the child. He received a
certified letter from the PA Bureau of Statistics asking him if he wished to
assert his legal rights/responsibilities to the child. He declined. It is more
difficult for a father in an intact marriage to opt out of the responsibility in
the event of a divorce. It requires a court order and the request is usually
declined if he has been supporting said child and/or presenting himself as the
child's father and/or the child "believes" he is the father (even in PA where my
son was able to opt out under his circumstances). In that case, he pays and the
bio faher has no legal rights/responsibilities to the child. This is not an
earth shattering revelation amongst the folks here. We've known this all along.
It has been one of the chief complaints of father's rights groups for years. As
I told you before, there are a lot of very basic things you don't know about
family law/courts. Unfortunately, you have been unwilling to even consider the
possibility that you are misinformed.
===
===