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

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 28th 06, 03:04 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Avenger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Meldon Fens wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

.....

Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.


Wrong Hyderstench. WOMEN get the money. Order of priority for funds for
training and employment is, women, youth, minorities, handicapped. You're
so
full of crap I can smell you from here. Your previous points are hardly
worth discussing. Anyone can see how painfully skewed they are but keep
up
the good work. So far the big bag of lies is working fine.


Ignore these internet freaks and poofters living in grandpappy's cellar on
welfare. Ignore the law and if you're pushed too far just leave the country.



  #22  
Old August 28th 06, 03:10 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Avenger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

Meldon Fens wrote:

In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into
poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their
kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very
least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding
and
for employment.


[Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. And
govt. funding tends
to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ]

Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic
oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month
per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in
most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to
but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.


[A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even
get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work.
Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.]

Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of
domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into
abject
poverty.


[Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.]


Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and
to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these
low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with
few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their
fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.


Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.


Heck, Hy, *everyone* gets money before fathers do. Illegal aliens and
foreign interests get money before fathers do!


Illegal aliens, their kids and as many relatives that they can get into the
country. The kids get free schooling at $10k per year per head, medicaid and
a hundred other benefits. You owe no loyalty to this government or it's
kangaroo courts because they are not operating in YOUR interest.








  #23  
Old August 28th 06, 03:41 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
ABarlow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


Hyerdahl wrote:
Meldon Fens wrote:

Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.


Sometimes it is not in the child's best interest to see their mothers
either, but despite the fact that women are at least as likely to abuse
children as men (women are actually considerably higher in terms of
negligence and physical abuse, IIRC), women still seem to end up
winning ~95% of custody cases. To the best of my knowledge, I have yet
to hear any authority explain why this is the case.

A.

  #24  
Old August 28th 06, 04:16 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Col. Tuttle USAF NI
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Meldon Fens" wrote in message
...

"Col. Tuttle USAF NI" Col. Tuttle USAF
ash.us wrote in message
news:molIg.20972$tP4.15290@clgrps12...

....

People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these

issues.....their
scum!


Hyderpork is a guy?


who cares: the fact is government terrorism and slavery is a crime






  #25  
Old August 28th 06, 04:16 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Col. Tuttle USAF NI
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Avenger" wrote in message
news:t8sIg.36430$NF3.7510@trnddc05...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Werebat wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:

Meldon Fens wrote:


In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into
poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their
kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very
least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government

funding
and
for employment.


[Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children.


In response to this according to the BC Supreme court of Appeals, fathers
have no rights to their children, let alone have rights within the courts,
but as three judges said dads are obligated to support their children. This
to me sound like slavery and just another extortion ring used by government
criminals to justify raping freedoms and rights, for their sick pleasure of
molesting dads..


..



Not if they didn't give the female permission IN WRITING to get pregnant.


And
govt. funding tends to go TO children who are not being supported by
fathers. ]


Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic
oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month
per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in
most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up

to
but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent
of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.

[A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care.


Working is not free time although females view work as an opportunity to

get
out of the house, have fun and socialise to find men. To a female work

must
be fun or they don't like it haha


Such a father could even
get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work.


Easier solution. Disappear before you're made into a slave supporting your
former wife, her kids and her boyfriend lol Plan well ahead and take all
assets you can get your hands on )




Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.]


Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must
show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support

is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to
court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact,

any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of
domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into
abject
poverty.


[Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess

both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.]


Ditch the bitch and take off. Don't permit yourself to be dictated to.




Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support

and
to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for

these
low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all
with few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their
fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.


Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by

case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers.


As I said ditch them all. Don't play by arbitrary rules because you'll end
up old,grey and penniless and the kids will still hate you lol



Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.

Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience?


Why would that be pertinent to my OPINION based on the FACTS as
mentioned above? Do you _really_ think you must have litigation or
judicial experience in family court to debate these issues?


Absolutely.


Or are you
just self-aggrandizing, here? I have no need to tell you my
experience in order to tell you the facts that I have placed above.
Facts are facts whether a judge gives them or even a humble pizza
delivery person. :-)


You're not even that but a miscreant living free in grandpappy's cellar

and
collecting welfare. Right poofy?



I believe I have told you mine and you never comment on it; I
suspect you'd like to
sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the carpet,
at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."


Again, I don't recall what experience you say you have, but those
things that I have mentioned above are FACTS about family law and not
mere stories about some fathers.
I prefer fact to fiction.


We men will proceed as WE see fit )





- Ron ^*^






  #26  
Old August 28th 06, 06:31 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Meldon Fens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"pandora" wrote in message
news:17SdnQd9hKhllG_ZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Meldon Fens" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02...


..
Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? I believe I
have told you mine and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd like

to
sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the

carpet,
at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."

- Ron ^*^


Just see how effective that argument is for a father driven into

poverty.
The best he can hope for is a bunch of grunts followed by a bunch of
laughter. We're all catching on though. That laughter is strained at

best
and is a thinly veiled disguise for a fear that the truth will be

uncovered
and all that funding dries up. What will the fat, gold-digging whores do
then?

They'll stop marrying your asses and spewing out your brats.

Marg




It appears you've acknowledged the true relationship between government
funding and procreation.


  #27  
Old August 28th 06, 06:32 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Hyerdahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


teachrmama wrote:

(edit)


Heck, Hy, *everyone* gets money before fathers do. Illegal aliens and
foreign interests get money before fathers do!


Well, I'm all for the kind of immigration system they have in
Australia....but first you have to convince your 'governators, and
congress critters', and they're all in bed with the Republicans, no?

  #28  
Old August 28th 06, 06:33 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Hyerdahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


Gini wrote:
"Werebat" wrote
Hyerdahl wrote:

....................
I prefer fact to fiction.


But you have to look at the WHOLE truth, Hyerdahl.

==
Hyerdahl has mistaken common knowledge for fact--Kinda like Columbus
discovered
America. It happens to those who prefer not to engage in independent
inquiry. College freshmen
are like that. They come in with all manner of misconception. The first
thing they should be taught
is to forget everything they learned in high school.


And the second thing is to forget everything they learn from men's
rights groups. :-)

  #29  
Old August 28th 06, 06:44 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Meldon Fens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

The other side of the coin is to persevere if possible. It can have its'
rewards.

The combination of a loving and sincere relationship with one's kids can
"bring them home" so to speak. I wonder how many children have gladly
changed residence at an age where child support flowing in the other
direction brings at least some equity to what is for all intent and purpose,
gender based discrimination.

To everything, there is a season and a time for every purpose.


"Avenger" wrote in message
news:yXrIg.2036$pX3.106@trnddc07...
Stop trying to reason with the unreasonable fascists. Any man who finds
himself in the situation you describe should just change his identity or
leave the country and be done with it.You can't be extridited or even
arrested outside US jurisdiction for these sort of petty civil contempt
charges. And English teachers are in great demand among the wealthy (and

not
so wealthy) in many countries so you would have easy employment teaching
their kids. Cash, no taxes and about $50 an hour. Knowledge of the local
language is not required and in fact you earn more if you don't speak it
because the person you're teaching is forced to speak English only and

will
learn faster.Parents like their kids to be taught this way especially in
Russia, Taiwan etc I was just giving an example because men usually have
many money making skills even outside their field of expertise. Easy
choice,no?




"Meldon Fens" wrote in message
...
In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into
poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their

kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very
least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding
and
for employment.

Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic

oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month

per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in

most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to
but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.

Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of

domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into

abject
poverty.

Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and

to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these

low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with
few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their

fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.

How long can this continue?






  #30  
Old August 28th 06, 06:53 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Hyerdahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


Werebat wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:
Werebat wrote:

Hyerdahl wrote:


Meldon Fens wrote:


In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding and
for employment.


[Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. And
govt. funding tends to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ]



Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.

[A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even
get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work.
Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.]


Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into abject
poverty.


[Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.]



Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.


Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.

Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience?



Why would that be pertinent to my OPINION based on the FACTS as
mentioned above?


So, you aren't going to answer my question?


No. I don't consider it any of your business. My facts are true,
regardless, or you would have been able to rufute them regardless of
your self aggrandizement.


Do you _really_ think you must have litigation or
judicial experience in family court to debate these issues?


No, of course not, but IME the vast majority of people who choose to
comment on the present family court situation have had some experience
with it, or a group connected to it in some way.


If you don't find my comments worthy of debate you are free to address
them or not. It's up to you, but I have no intention of listing a
resume here. :-)

Or are you just self-aggrandizing, here?


You've made it clear that that's what you think.


No, not really. I simply don't find it reasonable to debate based on
your alleged title.
I prefer debate on the facts or some kind of provable opinons.

I have no need to tell you my experience in order to tell you the facts that I have placed above.


Let's examine those fact, shall we?

You claim:

1. Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children.

No problem with this one as stated, but the devil is in the details.
First, this statement -- like the federal forms that need to be signed
when a child is born out of wedlock in order to get the father's name on
the birth certificate -- makes no mention of the *mother's* obligation
to support her children. Do you think that mothers should also be
obligated to support their children?


Actually, both parents are equally obligated to support their children.
Mothers often take over the primary care because they have done so
prior to divorce, and judges like to maintain what the couple
themselves put into action. If a mother is already providing support,
in terms of her primary care, that leaves the other parent to do some
of the child support.

Also, the Devil's detail is the definition of "support" and the extent
of "support" that a father and mother is obligated to provide for their
child.


Well, if both the father and mother work outside the home, the judge
can certainly take that into consideration.

I think almost everyone on these forums would agree that parents should
support their children. I agree with that broad statement. That
doesn't mean that I think the current family court and CS system isn't
horribly flawed.


I don't think it is flawed from what I have observed. It appears to
me that judges like to support what the parents have put into action
wherever possible. Courts assume that parents intend to do right by
their kids, unless there are issues of abuse or neglect.


Another fact you claim:

2. Govt. funding tends to go TO children who are not being supported by
fathers.

OK. I have no reason to argue about this.


Indeed, and it would seem that there's not even enough of that funding
to meet obligations.

Your third claimed fact:

3. A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care.

A father who works full-time and then cares for the kids 30% of the
time, which is the standard for NCP awards, may well have less free time
than a mother who doesn't work and has the kids 70% of the time. He
also won't often have free time on the weekends like she will.


You're assuming things. First, most fathers who are not paying child
support at all, also don't spend much (if any) time with their kids.
Many fathers abandon kids and don't see them at all. I guess those
fathers have lots more free time. Secondly, many mothers also work, at
least part time, so when you couple that with child rearing, it doesn't
leave much time. And let's not forget that if you have little ones at
home, that isn't a 9-5 job. It's 24-7.
Some fathers ONLY take the kids on weekends. Other fathers only take
the kids every other weekend.

If you mean a father who never sees his kids, well, sure. That doesn't
mean that the family courts are just or treat anyone in a fair way, though.


Life is not always fair, and adults tend to understand that. In the
case of best interests of kids, courts seem to try to do what's best
for them whether or not it works well for the parents.

Your fourth claimed fact:

4. Such a father could even get a part time job or educate himself to
get better paid work. Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not
the answer here.

I didn't see anyone trying to blame arrearages on the children. Where
did this come from? Looks like your playing a weasel-word game here.


Well, who ARE you blaming then? Whose fault is it when daddy gets
behind? How do the kids eat when dad doesn't do his part, and why
shouldn't he pay for it?

Your fifth claimed fact:

5. Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.

It is indeed the court's responsbility to assess income and hardships,
and indeed that isn't likely to change. That doesn't mean that the
court is doing its job adequately, however, now does it?

You have offered NOTHING to make us think otherwise tho...you have
provided no evidence or support for any of your claims here, just
bellyaching.

Your sixth claimed fact:

6. Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by
case basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category.

Yep. I agree with you. But when the courts abuse their power and
remove men who have NOT been abusive or negligent from the lives of
their kids, the courts are harming both fathers and children.


Can you name a father who should not have been denied? Do you have a
case we can review, because you have failed to offer any substantive
evidence for your position.

You are making statements that are impossible for rational people to
disagree with, but the statements don't really contradict anything that
the OP says.


My statements rely on FACT, yours only on emotion. I prefer logic to
emotion every time.

Facts are facts whether a judge gives them or even a humble pizza
delivery person. :-)

I believe I have told you mine and you never comment on it; I
suspect you'd like to


Again, I don't remember who you say you are, but I do recall a poster
named Steve Imparl who had no logical fact or debate who used to like
to tell me he was a barrister.

sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the carpet,
at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."


Again, I don't recall what experience you say you have, but those
things that I have mentioned above are FACTS about family law and not
mere stories about some fathers.


Facts that don't actually have much to do with the very real complaints
that many fathers have about their treatment in the family courts.

I prefer fact to fiction.


But you have to look at the WHOLE truth, Hyerdahl.


You haven't me given any provable "truth" to look at, tho. Jesus, if
what you offered here was a meal, I'd be a starving person.


- Ron ^*^


 




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
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! Dusty Child Support 4 March 8th 06 07:45 AM
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 01:49 AM
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! S Myers Child Support 115 September 12th 05 12:37 AM
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children Dusty Child Support 0 May 13th 04 12:46 AM
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA Fighting for kids Child Support 21 November 17th 03 02:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:28 AM.


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.