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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message news "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "John Larkin" wrote in message ... On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:56:31 -0700, "teachrmama" wrote: "John Larkin" jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechno logyPART.com wrote in message news:k58r9314s5d0bpnn6tgndii8k5 ... On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:38:32 -0700, "teachrmama" wrote: John, think about it. How would you feel in a situation like that. (And please don't go all preachy on me and tell me how you would *never* behave in such a way as to create such a problem) I have no idea. I wouldn't get into a situation like that. How did I know that you were going to say that. So, John, I would like a bit of clarification from you. Do you feel that it is ok for a woman to conceal from a man the fact that he is a father until 12 years have passed, then demand current child support plus 12 years of back support? Do you feel that she is doing right by the child to deny that child a father for 12 years so she can build herself a nice nest egg? I'd prefer she didn't, but then if she has fed, housed, and cared for his kid for 12 years, don't you think he owes her something? Even if she collects $84K, that amounts to $7000 a year, about 80 cents an hour, not to mention expenses like food and clothing and medical. I would say that when the woman can give the man HIS SHARE of the hugs and kisses, the first steps and first sords, the firts day of schools, the "let's paly ball, Dad's" and wrestling matches and dancing-on-Daddy's-feets, and all the other wonderful growing up memories that dad's and kids share, then and only then should he pay her "child support" for all the years she stole from him and his child. If SHE made the unilateral decision to be a single parent for 12 years (while keeping all the wonders of the child's growing and development for herself), she should be not only willing, but obligated, to pay the price herself. If you gave your friend a lawnmower, and he mowed your lawn for you for 5 years, but only did it while you were at work, and never told you he was doing it, would you be willing to fork over several thousand dollars when he demanded it at the end of 5 years? Sorry, but I see too many men who abuse their children or spouses to totally agree with you. To make my point, if you gave your friend a lawnmower and he broke it while doing your lawn.... should YOU have to pay for it? Oh, I see. Because some men abuse their children, all men should be handed the sh*tty end of the stick? ** I'm not saying that. You were making a genaralization and so was I. Each case is different. That doesn't even begin to make sense, April. Are you attempting to say that a woman who has a child without informing the man that she is pregnant, then demands 12 years of back child support plus ongoing support has the RIGHT to do that. because some men have been abusive? **Nope, wasn't attempting. No proof necessary that this particular man might become abusive--just the woman's unilateral decision? I've known some mothers who have abused their children--does that mean that it is ok with you that a father could take his child and run off with the child, and 12 years later demand 12 years of back child support? ** My Mother left my father with me when I was 2, After 30 years, I finally found my father. My mother told me lies all my life. I WAS an abused child. Mentally, Physically and Emotionally by her. My mother doesn't deserve anything. It was her choice to keep me away from my father all those years and deprive me of having him in my formative years. ( doesn't matter, come to find out I was always like him even when he wasn't around lol) I'm just saying you were generalizing in your post so I retorted doing the same. I don't totally disagree with you but I don't totally agree either. There are exceptions. But, unfortunately, the current CS law does not recognize that. It's "victim mommy" deserves the money becuase she raised the child alone. I do not think that a mother who purposely keeps a child from the father deserves a flipping penny whe she finally proves paternity. IF she is doing because of abuse, she needs to PROVE it!! But the system doesn't care about anything except the almighty dollar. To heck with a child's need to have 2 parents--only money matters. ** Isn't that the way the world is with EVERYTHING? Sad I know, but it's the truth. Money is the most important thing to most ppl anymore. Not values.. and certainly not morals. So let's get this down to your personal opinion--not that it is any more important than mine or any other individual's when it comes to the child support system. Do you, personally, think that a woman should be able to have a child without informing the father, raise that child for 12 years, then demand 12 years of back child support and ongoing support? (Barring any sort of abuse, of course) Do you think this is right? **No I don't. As I said it was her choice to keep the father away from the child not his. Whay should he have to pay for her choice? Now, if the mother is prepared to allow the father visitation and allow him to get to know his child. I think from that point on out he should pay child support. Hard to pay for something you didn't even know you had. Yes, that's my take on it also. Some places, however, still charge a man back to the birth of the child, no matter what. Other places have recognized the unfairness of using a man as a savings account without his knowledge, and limit the amount of time they charge for. Some have refused to charge any arrearages at all in such situations. From your experience growing up without your father, I can see that you realize first hand how important it is for a child to have his/ father in his/her life. I wish more people understood that money will never replace a father. Nor can the hole in the father's heart be healed by telling him "but you get to pay for all the time you missed." ** Well, I had to leave my son's father. He was very abusive to me and was starting on our son. I could handle it, but you don't beat on a 1 1/2 year old because he won't stop crying because he doesn't want a nap. He had anxiety issues and was being medicated for about a month. Then he quit. He promised month after month to go back but it never happened. AFter 3 months State troppers knock on my door because my husband was caught on surveillance cameras stealing over 1200.00 for his job.( he worked retail). I couldn't handle anymore. I gave him an easy choice. He could forego paying support by just signing him totally over to me. He refused. He paid child support. He couldn't keep a job,and was constantly behind on his payments. In over 4 years, he never once tried to see his son yet would tell me that the name is what's important ( mind you the child knows nothing about the family name since his father never saw him) and that he still loves him. I never will understand my ex-husbands philosophy on all of this. But Alas, I have remarried and Next month we all go downtown to swear in front of the judge that my husband is adopting my son. his father finally.. (after 7 years) realizes that our son is better off having a father who does things with him and takes care of him. So I guess my story DOES have a happy ending I'm very glad to hear that a man who had no wish to be a father stepped aside so that the man who wants to be the father is free to raise your child with you. It's too bad it took the bio dad so long to let go. If any child support arrearages have accrued, will you be signing a letter of satisfaction saying that they are paid in full? I wish you and your family the very best, April. It sounds like things are working out well for all of you. ** to tell you the truth, he paid up all his back arrears and is also paying ofor the adoption. Lawyer's idea and I agree... on one hand he could be paying the next 9 years of child support or the $1200.00 for the adoption.. He opted for the latter. Wait a second. You have a legal CS obligation too. How much have you been required to pay all along? Why are you so willing to sell out your own CS obligation? Do you really think accepting $1200 lets you off the hook to support your child? I don't quite understand what you are asking, Bob. April said her child's bio father never wanted anything to do with the child, but refused to sign away his rights. This last year, he said he would sign away his rights and let April's husband, who has been raising the child along with April, adopt him. He has agreed to pay the $1200 adoption fee. Then he doesn't have to pay child support for 9 more years for a child he has never even attempted to have a relationship with. April has been doing her part to support her son all along. Well she has had a pretty sweet deal. She gets CS from the child's father (he paid all arrears, right?), has a current husband helping to support her kid, and she doesn't even acknowledge she had any CS obligation of her own. Her comments have indicated three adults have been paying to support this kid, but I suspect the people supporting the kid are the two men. I'm asking her how much she was ordered to pay and if she paid it. If she claims to have been providing her portion of support too then she has one really well taken care of kid. And the adoption will reduce the amount of support from three adults to two adults and make the kid worse off. I suspect this is just another case where the CP mom is shuffling dollars around and claiming she has been paying her share of CS with the money she has been getting from two different men. Well, Bob, it at least sounds as if everyone is ending up satisfied--the man who never wanted the child (just wanted the child to have his name for a while) does not have to pay anything any more. The child has a father who wants him enough to adopt him. And mom, dad, and kid are a family unit. It's better than most of these cases work out. I don't know when April married the new husband, or if she worked outside the home. Does this mean you are backing off on your prior conclusion that "April has been doing her part to support her son all along"? I hope so. :-) You know my point - When the money from CS received, support from subsequent men in the mom's life, and whatever the mom actually contributes gets mixed into a household budget there is no way to follow the money. And the lack of accountability for how the CS dollars are spent on the children is maddening when you know darn well it is being used in ways far different than the nice, neat way the CS guidelines are constructed and used to calculate required support. Well, Bob, I know darn well you know how I feel about how CS is spent. You know that the mother of my husband's oldest daughter uses the CS money as household money, and the lot of the child has not been bettered at all. But, in reading April's posts, I did not get the impression that she went from abusive ex to new husband. And she did try to give her ex an out, so he would not have to pay child support at all. Nonsense. She need not give him ANY out, as so-called "child support" is an artificial debt in the first place. I do think you may be misreading her. Actually, with all due respect, it is YOU who is misreading her. The truth, you will find, is between the lines. |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "April" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "John Larkin" wrote in message ... On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:56:31 -0700, "teachrmama" wrote: "John Larkin" wrote in message news:k58r9314s5d0bpnn6tgndii8k5tmpc ... On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:38:32 -0700, "teachrmama" wrote: John, think about it. How would you feel in a situation like that. (And please don't go all preachy on me and tell me how you would *never* behave in such a way as to create such a problem) I have no idea. I wouldn't get into a situation like that. How did I know that you were going to say that. So, John, I would like a bit of clarification from you. Do you feel that it is ok for a woman to conceal from a man the fact that he is a father until 12 years have passed, then demand current child support plus 12 years of back support? Do you feel that she is doing right by the child to deny that child a father for 12 years so she can build herself a nice nest egg? I'd prefer she didn't, but then if she has fed, housed, and cared for his kid for 12 years, don't you think he owes her something? Even if she collects $84K, that amounts to $7000 a year, about 80 cents an hour, not to mention expenses like food and clothing and medical. I would say that when the woman can give the man HIS SHARE of the hugs and kisses, the first steps and first sords, the firts day of schools, the "let's paly ball, Dad's" and wrestling matches and dancing-on-Daddy's-feets, and all the other wonderful growing up memories that dad's and kids share, then and only then should he pay her "child support" for all the years she stole from him and his child. If SHE made the unilateral decision to be a single parent for 12 years (while keeping all the wonders of the child's growing and development for herself), she should be not only willing, but obligated, to pay the price herself. If you gave your friend a lawnmower, and he mowed your lawn for you for 5 years, but only did it while you were at work, and never told you he was doing it, would you be willing to fork over several thousand dollars when he demanded it at the end of 5 years? Sorry, but I see too many men who abuse their children or spouses to totally agree with you. To make my point, if you gave your friend a lawnmower and he broke it while doing your lawn.... should YOU have to pay for it? Oh, I see. Because some men abuse their children, all men should be handed the sh*tty end of the stick? ** I'm not saying that. You were making a genaralization and so was I. Each case is different. That doesn't even begin to make sense, April. Are you attempting to say that a woman who has a child without informing the man that she is pregnant, then demands 12 years of back child support plus ongoing support has the RIGHT to do that. because some men have been abusive? **Nope, wasn't attempting. No proof necessary that this particular man might become abusive--just the woman's unilateral decision? I've known some mothers who have abused their children--does that mean that it is ok with you that a father could take his child and run off with the child, and 12 years later demand 12 years of back child support? ** My Mother left my father with me when I was 2, After 30 years, I finally found my father. My mother told me lies all my life. I WAS an abused child. Mentally, Physically and Emotionally by her. My mother doesn't deserve anything. It was her choice to keep me away from my father all those years and deprive me of having him in my formative years. ( doesn't matter, come to find out I was always like him even when he wasn't around lol) I'm just saying you were generalizing in your post so I retorted doing the same. I don't totally disagree with you but I don't totally agree either. There are exceptions. But, unfortunately, the current CS law does not recognize that. It's "victim mommy" deserves the money becuase she raised the child alone. I do not think that a mother who purposely keeps a child from the father deserves a flipping penny whe she finally proves paternity. IF she is doing because of abuse, she needs to PROVE it!! But the system doesn't care about anything except the almighty dollar. To heck with a child's need to have 2 parents--only money matters. ** Isn't that the way the world is with EVERYTHING? Sad I know, but it's the truth. Money is the most important thing to most ppl anymore. Not values.. and certainly not morals. So let's get this down to your personal opinion--not that it is any more important than mine or any other individual's when it comes to the child support system. Do you, personally, think that a woman should be able to have a child without informing the father, raise that child for 12 years, then demand 12 years of back child support and ongoing support? (Barring any sort of abuse, of course) Do you think this is right? **No I don't. As I said it was her choice to keep the father away from the child not his. Whay should he have to pay for her choice? Now, if the mother is prepared to allow the father visitation and allow him to get to know his child. I think from that point on out he should pay child support. Hard to pay for something you didn't even know you had. Yes, that's my take on it also. Some places, however, still charge a man back to the birth of the child, no matter what. Other places have recognized the unfairness of using a man as a savings account without his knowledge, and limit the amount of time they charge for. Some have refused to charge any arrearages at all in such situations. From your experience growing up without your father, I can see that you realize first hand how important it is for a child to have his/ father in his/her life. I wish more people understood that money will never replace a father. Nor can the hole in the father's heart be healed by telling him "but you get to pay for all the time you missed." ** Well, I had to leave my son's father. He was very abusive to me and was starting on our son. I could handle it, but you don't beat on a 1 1/2 year old because he won't stop crying because he doesn't want a nap. He had anxiety issues and was being medicated for about a month. Then he quit. He promised month after month to go back but it never happened. AFter 3 months State troppers knock on my door because my husband was caught on surveillance cameras stealing over 1200.00 for his job.( he worked retail). I couldn't handle anymore. I gave him an easy choice. He could forego paying support by just signing him totally over to me. He refused. He paid child support. He couldn't keep a job,and was constantly behind on his payments. In over 4 years, he never once tried to see his son yet would tell me that the name is what's important ( mind you the child knows nothing about the family name since his father never saw him) and that he still loves him. I never will understand my ex-husbands philosophy on all of this. But Alas, I have remarried and Next month we all go downtown to swear in front of the judge that my husband is adopting my son. his father finally.. (after 7 years) realizes that our son is better off having a father who does things with him and takes care of him. So I guess my story DOES have a happy ending I'm very glad to hear that a man who had no wish to be a father stepped aside so that the man who wants to be the father is free to raise your child with you. It's too bad it took the bio dad so long to let go. If any child support arrearages have accrued, will you be signing a letter of satisfaction saying that they are paid in full? I wish you and your family the very best, April. It sounds like things are working out well for all of you. ** to tell you the truth, he paid up all his back arrears and is also paying ofor the adoption. Lawyer's idea and I agree... on one hand he could be paying the next 9 years of child support or the $1200.00 for the adoption.. He opted for the latter. Wait a second. You have a legal CS obligation too. How much have you been required to pay all along? Why are you so willing to sell out your own CS obligation? Do you really think accepting $1200 lets you off the hook to support your child? I don't quite understand what you are asking, Bob. April said her child's bio father never wanted anything to do with the child, but refused to sign away his rights. Just curious: what exactly are these "rights"? The right to be legally identified as the boy's father. Translation: The right to have his money extorted from him. It was HIS choice, Chris. We're talking two different kinds of rights here; court appointed rights and REAL rights. In his case it is the former, thus NOT his choice. chuckle |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 19, 9:45 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Well, Bob, it at least sounds as if everyone is ending up satisfied--the man who never wanted the child (just wanted the child to have his name for a while) does not have to pay anything any more. The child has a father who wants him enough to adopt him. And mom, dad, and kid are a family unit. Change your opinion yet? She's a nutcase Women's Studies whacko who hates men and obviously drove her ex away from their son. Once she got her sob story challenged by a man she went into verbal abuse mode. Pretty much, yes. If she were really a happy women who had done the same degree of her duties as she *kept to herself with her choices*, well, she'd have been able to say " I made my choices, and I'm covering their consequences and I didn't demand any Free Money from anyone who *I gave AbZero choice in the matter to*. " But, she didn't say that, because she... CAN'T. She just expects that her view that women get 100% of the choice and can then demand 50% of the $$$ from the man who had 0% of the choice is the " reasonable " one, and she is shocked into namecalling ( Yes, she does fight like a girl... ) when that sexist viewpoint is even questioned, never mind challenged. Fair-minded folks fight for men's HALF of the pie, whereas feminazis fight for the ENTIRE pie. No wonder the ball is always far to one side of the field. Imagine the outcome of a football game where one team is pushing for a goal while the opponent is attempting just to get to the 50 yard line. Feh. Andre |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Andre Lieven" wrote in message ps.com... On Jul 20, 7:52 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: "Andre Lieven" wrote in message snip for length As for your scenario, well, the odds that you will run off with Danny Dick are just a hair higher than your hubby will run off with Bertha Big- Boobs ( Once again, CF Braver ). How about a word for the millions of *men* disenfranchised from their families over that reason ? It's wrong, wrong, wrong. I cannot imagine what my life sould have been like without my father. I cannot imagine how much poorer my girls lives would be without their Daddy--and I don't mean financially. Consider that you answered my question about empathy for such MEN by talking about your life, and what it cost YOU. Now, try that again, and place those men *first*... Children DESERVE to have BOTH parents in their lives--not just a mommy and a checkbook. Absolutely. But think about the present system of forcing men to become liable for cash parents with NO choice in either aspect of their life status. That *positively encourages* MORE OF what you just decried. One cannot get some Good by subsidizing Bad. That subsidy WILL and HAS created a LOT of Bad. Like April... Who Just Doesn't Get It. I can't do any more than say that I agree with you that the system has created unfais inewuities, abased fathers to the point that they are not more than wallets, and harmed children by denying them a father who gets to BE a father. I'm with you on default 50/50 custody, no money changing hands except if a person WANTS to provide money. It should not be required. (Although I do have to say that I feel that in cases of long term marriages where both parties agreed that one would be a stay-at-home parent, and the other would be the breadwinner--if the breadwinner decides to leave, there needs to be some financial help getting the stay-at-home parent established. If the SAH decides to leave, they are on their own) CHILDREN deserve both parents. But the "family" court people say differently. Hence, the reason why they are doing their level best to eliminate fathers from children's lives. And their batting average is approaching a perfect score. Both parents deserve to be PARENTS!! |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support
"April" wrote in message ... ** Well, I had to leave my son's father. He was very abusive to me and was starting on our son. I could handle it, but you don't beat on a 1 1/2 year old because he won't stop crying because he doesn't want a nap. He had anxiety issues and was being medicated for about a month. Then he quit. He promised month after month to go back but it never happened. AFter 3 months State troppers knock on my door because my husband was caught on surveillance cameras stealing over 1200.00 for his job.( he worked retail). I couldn't handle anymore. I gave him an easy choice. He could forego paying support by just signing him totally over to me. He refused. He paid child support. He couldn't keep a job,and was constantly behind on his payments. In over 4 years, he never once tried to see his son yet would tell me that the name is what's important ( mind you the child knows nothing about the family name since his father never saw him) and that he still loves him. I never will understand my ex-husbands philosophy on all of this. But Alas, I have remarried and Next month we all go downtown to swear in front of the judge that my husband is adopting my son. his father finally.. (after 7 years) realizes that our son is better off having a father who does things with him and takes care of him. So I guess my story DOES have a happy ending I'm very glad to hear that a man who had no wish to be a father stepped aside so that the man who wants to be the father is free to raise your child with you. It's too bad it took the bio dad so long to let go. If any child support arrearages have accrued, will you be signing a letter of satisfaction saying that they are paid in full? I wish you and your family the very best, April. It sounds like things are working out well for all of you. ** to tell you the truth, he paid up all his back arrears and is also paying ofor the adoption. Lawyer's idea and I agree... on one hand he could be paying the next 9 years of child support or the $1200.00 for the adoption.. He opted for the latter. Wait a second. You have a legal CS obligation too. How much have you been required to pay all along? Why are you so willing to sell out your own CS obligation? Do you really think accepting $1200 lets you off the hook to support your child? I don't quite understand what you are asking, Bob. April said her child's bio father never wanted anything to do with the child, but refused to sign away his rights. This last year, he said he would sign away his rights and let April's husband, who has been raising the child along with April, adopt him. He has agreed to pay the $1200 adoption fee. Then he doesn't have to pay child support for 9 more years for a child he has never even attempted to have a relationship with. April has been doing her part to support her son all along. Well she has had a pretty sweet deal. She gets CS from the child's father (he paid all arrears, right?), has a current husband helping to support her kid, and she doesn't even acknowledge she had any CS obligation of her own. Her comments have indicated three adults have been paying to support this kid, but I suspect the people supporting the kid are the two men. I'm asking her how much she was ordered to pay and if she paid it. If she claims to have been providing her portion of support too then she has one really well taken care of kid. And the adoption will reduce the amount of support from three adults to two adults and make the kid worse off. I suspect this is just another case where the CP mom is shuffling dollars around and claiming she has been paying her share of CS with the money she has been getting from two different men. ** for your information, All of the money I have gotten from the bio-father has gone into a savings acct for him. The money was for him and it will remain so. I have worked upwards of 3 jobs at one time to take care of my son on my own. I have paid ALL medical bills, ALL food bills, ALL clothing. 70.00 a week doesn't cover **** when you have a chilld. hence why it all went into a bank acct. Perhaps , you sir, should get your ****in facts straight before you go off in directions you have NO comapss for. Here are the facts. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the mean CS award for all custodial mothers is currently $5176 per year. The average custodial mother has 1.6 children. That means the average CS award per child is $3235 per year, or $270 per month. Your award of $70 per week is equal to $303 per month. This money is tax free. You have a slightly above average CS award. You acknowledge receiving 100% of what was owed. In addition, you are eligible to receive the Income Tax Exemption, the Earned Income Credit, any Education Tax Credits, and use at a minimum Head of Household filing status. These tax savings further subsidize your costs to raise your child. Making it sound like you don't receive enough money to support your son is not believable. ** I NEVER once said that I had a hard time supporting my son.. Not once. My ex-husband WANTED to pay the CS. I NEVER kept him from seeing his son, he , obviously, didn't care to. Are you telling me that because I had NO problems taking care of my son, that I shouldn't have taken his father for CS?!?! And BTW: I never did get EIC on my tax returns.. I made too much. Based on your most recent posts showing the extreme anger and hostility you feel toward men, and your foul language and aggressive attitude toward men, I find it normal for your ex-husband to not want to have any contact with you or your son. No wonder he is willing to take your deal to get out of the abuse cycle. If you are willing to talk the way you have when addressing a total stranger, it is not a far stretch to assume you put your ex-husband through some significant verbal abuse. Why would he want to come around you and your son to take the abuse? Your son will figure it out in the long term. ** you take my hostility as a sign to all men? lmao. that's funny. I take offense to someone oblivious and close minded. That fact right there is the decline of our civilization, thank you for being the subject and showing your true colors. I grow tired of you and your mindless banter... go .. away with you.. I desire no more mind numbing ramblings. With all due respect, your mind was "numb" before your first posting. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support
On Jul 21, 4:23 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message ps.com... On Jul 20, 7:52 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: "Andre Lieven" wrote in message snip for length As for your scenario, well, the odds that you will run off with Danny Dick are just a hair higher than your hubby will run off with Bertha Big- Boobs ( Once again, CF Braver ). How about a word for the millions of *men* disenfranchised from their families over that reason ? It's wrong, wrong, wrong. I cannot imagine what my life sould have been like without my father. I cannot imagine how much poorer my girls lives would be without their Daddy--and I don't mean financially. Consider that you answered my question about empathy for such MEN by talking about your life, and what it cost YOU. Now, try that again, and place those men *first*... Children DESERVE to have BOTH parents in their lives--not just a mommy and a checkbook. Absolutely. But think about the present system of forcing men to become liable for cash parents with NO choice in either aspect of their life status. That *positively encourages* MORE OF what you just decried. One cannot get some Good by subsidizing Bad. That subsidy WILL and HAS created a LOT of Bad. Like April... Who Just Doesn't Get It. I can't do any more than say that I agree with you that the system has created unfais inewuities, I'll presume that that was " unfair inequalities "... Which is, of course, true. abased fathers to the point that they are not more than wallets, and harmed children by denying them a father who gets to BE a father. I'm with you on default 50/50 custody, no money changing hands except if a person WANTS to provide money. It should not be required. (Although I do have to say that I feel that in cases of long term marriages where both parties agreed that one would be a stay-at-home parent, and the other would be the breadwinner--if the breadwinner decides to leave, there needs to be some financial help getting the stay-at-home parent established. Why ? If one party to a contract gets the stay at home vacation part of the gig, that does't maan that there is any justification for The Gravy Train Just For Being to live one second longer than the marriage. Hell, the party who was supported all that time morally should recompense the person who worked to support THEM for as long as they did. Especially when the likelyhood of the one who decides to destroy the marriage is more than 70% of the time the SAH wife... No where else does one get a cash *reward* for ending a contractual relationship with NO cause... If the SAH decides to leave, they are on their own) CHILDREN deserve both parents. Both parents deserve to be PARENTS!! But, ONLY the woman gets to decide if there will BE a baby ? " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility* ! " Her wallet. If a woman wants a man's money, she owes in return, an equal place at the Decision Table. Andre |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support
On Jul 21, 7:01 am, "Chris" wrote:
"Atalanta arctos" wrote in message oups.com... On Jul 19, 12:53 pm, wrote: On Jul 16, 1:25 am, "teachrmama" wrote: "Avenger" wrote in message news:SXBmi.4020$fj5.590@trnddc08... teachrmama" wrote in message ... "John Larkin" wrote in messagenews:n9dl93hmsada667t1sf6pjgvpnqpr1t3hp@4ax .com... On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:46:06 GMT, "Avenger" wrote: What probably happened in this case is that he didn't have any money 20 years ago which is why the bitch didn't go after him before, and may have only made or come into some recently. The sneaky bitch found out about it and in her greed tried to get her hands on it. But why would she need it now? The kid is grown, so obviously they survived and had the money to survive. Besides, what's a 40 yo bitch doing having a kid anyway and ruining the best years of a man's life when he should be enjoying his youth. Well one good thing about this is at least he won't have to pay the money and will have plenty to spend in prison ) He wouldn't pay 200 a month to help support his own child? Was there a DNA test? Was none 20 years ago so this Ho may be lying. In 80% of these cases the man isn't even the father. Maybe he didn't have it at the time. Who knows? The best I've been able to find out is that they were never married, and that the woman refused to let him have a relationship with the child. I haven't been able to find out when the order was issued, whether or not it was ongoing support from the birth of the child, or support assigned when the child was 15, and ordered back to the birth of the child, leaving him at the starting gate with a staggering arrearage. The most I've found is that the child was born sometime in the 80s, maybe. I would certainly like to know way more about this story. As the wife of aman-who- found-out-he-had-a-child-just-before-said-child-turned-13, I can tell you that the blow to ones financial well-being is substantial. And my husband, due to current laws, only had to pay 2 years of instant arrearages. It used to be that arrearages were assigned back to the birth of the child, including pregnancy and birth expenses--well padded, of course. Why would amanhave to pay birth expenses lol Ya got me, but that is tacked nicely onto child support orders! When the first "you owe child support" order came in, the arrearages were staggering, and included pregnancy and birth expenses. He requested a paternity test, got the blood drawn, and she refused to bring the child in for the test. After more than a year of trying to force her to do so, the judge finally dismissed the case. Several years later, the next demand for child support came in (same mom, same kid, different state), he again requested proof of paternity and took the blood test. This time mom took the kid in for the test, and he was the father. (The child was almost 13 by this time) But the law, by this point in time, only permitted arrearages to be assessed two years back from proof of paternity I don't think there should be any arrearages in that situation whatsoever. It's simple. As a mother, if you want child support, then find the father. It's not that hard, especially given that the government will use its resources to find him for you. If you choose not to, then you don't get the support. You shouldn't get to show up 5 years later, having completely deprived the father of any chance at a relationship with his child, and then demand full financial support for the whole time you were keeping the kid from him. And even the woman honestly doesn't know who the father is, that doesn't change anything. I mean, if you'reso irresponsible that you don't even know who the father of your children is, and don't figure it out until 5 or 10 years later, then tough luck. That's the way I see it, anyway. I feel like fathers should be able to request receipts and/or an itemized accounting of how their money is spent to be sure that the child really is getting the support money and the woman isn't just using it to get herself some new shoes. Why does the mother get government agencies to force the father to pay "in the interests of the child" and then there is absolutely no accounting to make that she's even serving the interests of the child at all? Seems completely unfair to me. But I suppose that's another subject. I agree with you about the timeliness factor. But the first thing I would have put on my accounting list - to my X - would have been "babysitting" and "practical nursing care" - in his absence. Since he did not have any custody of them to speak of (he was supposed to have then 25% of the time, but wished not to), he needed (all along) to compensate me for their care. He wanted those kids as much as I did - and he decided childcare wasn't his gig (at all). Well, it's hard work. In fact, just the bills for the nursing care spent on injuries acquired while in his custody (accidents and so forth) - at the rates that visiting nurses provide for round-the-clock care would have averaged out to a good chunk of change, annually. So ? YOU chose to make a *baby*, so the bills are YOURS, too. Sheesh. He provided no services to the children. I'm a professional who charges an hourly rate (so is he). Had I charged him half my hourly rate (he's still family), he would have had to pay way more in CS than he did. Thats the modern misandrist me,me,me female. Its all about " Pay me for what *I* wanted to do ! ". Disgusting. You should not have custody of a goldfish, much less a child. In other words - that money isn't about stuff or shoes. It's about a caretaker cutting down on other sources of money in order to provide topnotch care for children - at least that's how I see it. A woman who isn't providing care for the kids shouldn't be using the money to buy shoes. But, taxiing the kids to private school, tutoring them from time to time, taking them to the doctor (the MediVan chsrges $20 one way to go to the doctor - our daughters went for allergy treatments 2X a week each - that's $160 per week right there, had he wanted to purchase that service on the open market). Or - he could have provided some of those services himself. It was way, way cheaper to pay me to do it. One view is that he needed to either care for them half the time - or compensate me for my time for doing so. For example, I had to have medical treatments myself (surgery) and had to hire childcare for the kids while I went for MRI's and X-rays. What my X signed onto - when he married me and when he said he wanted kids - was supporting me and helping me, the mother of his kids. And what did YOU sign onto when you married him? You noticed that, eh ? This Atalanta whore is all about the MONEY for what SHE alone choice to create. As I said, disgusting. Fortunately, my X was of the same mind as I was about this - he knew his limitations in terms of actually being around the tots or caring for them in the middle of the night - and he knew he'd have had to hire someone to take them his 25% had he chosen to exercise his custodial rights. Since he didn't have to pay a penny more (one way or another) to me, regardless of how many hours I had the kids, it was a good deal for him. It worked out to minimum wage or less (after deducting, of course, the kids' share of the rent, utilities, clothing, etc.) I always felt (just as the CS order stated) that we were to share those things 50/50 - How about sharing the CHOICE to MAKE a BABY ? That one you wanted and kept 100% to yourself. Well: " YOUR body, YOUR choice... YOUR *responsibility* ! " but it was never he who went and bought the presents at Christmas time or procured the birthday party favors or the cake - or any of that. Merely paying half the cost of getting that stuff is not the point. .. Laughs No, its exactly your point. Like a whore, you want to be paid for having a vagina that YOU chose to use. Disgusting. Andre |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support
On Jul 21, 11:15 am, "Chris" wrote:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 19, 9:45 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Well, Bob, it at least sounds as if everyone is ending up satisfied--the man who never wanted the child (just wanted the child to have his name for a while) does not have to pay anything any more. The child has a father who wants him enough to adopt him. And mom, dad, and kid are a family unit. Change your opinion yet? She's a nutcase Women's Studies whacko who hates men and obviously drove her ex away from their son. Once she got her sob story challenged by a man she went into verbal abuse mode. Pretty much, yes. If she were really a happy women who had done the same degree of her duties as she *kept to herself with her choices*, well, she'd have been able to say " I made my choices, and I'm covering their consequences and I didn't demand any Free Money from anyone who *I gave AbZero choice in the matter to*. " But, she didn't say that, because she... CAN'T. She just expects that her view that women get 100% of the choice and can then demand 50% of the $$$ from the man who had 0% of the choice is the " reasonable " one, and she is shocked into namecalling ( Yes, she does fight like a girl... ) when that sexist viewpoint is even questioned, never mind challenged. Fair-minded folks fight for men's HALF of the pie, whereas feminazis fight for the ENTIRE pie. No wonder the ball is always far to one side of the field. Imagine the outcome of a football game where one team is pushing for a goal while the opponent is attempting just to get to the 50 yard line. Truth. WomenFirsters demand it ALL, and treat men as non people, who exist only to serve women. That makes the term FemiNazi quite accurate. For instance, if we are to allow women NON medical and NON biological LEGAL rights to POST coitally void parenthood, then it is nothing other than misandrous sexism to deny men Equal LEGAL Rights. Feh. Andre |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support
There's only so much abuse a man can take before reacting. And
this is the kind of man that pushes back, violently. If the state is not going to protect the rights of men, it is no surprise that men take the law into their own hands. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support
"J. Keeper" wrote in message oups.com... There's only so much abuse a man can take before reacting. And this is the kind of man that pushes back, violently. If the state is not going to protect the rights of men, it is no surprise that men take the law into their own hands. It's a pity he didn't whack the judge and a few cops as well ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Per the CSE office of Texas, a parent ONLY has a duty to support children... | whatamess | Child Support | 0 | May 4th 07 08:38 PM |
VIRGINIA: State Senate kills bill to allow fathers to prepay child support obligations | [email protected] | Child Support | 0 | February 21st 06 02:17 AM |
US Office of Child Support Enforcement Statistics | Patrick Lee | Child Support | 2 | November 15th 05 01:30 AM |
Man who owed child support crashes truck through office doors | Don | Child Support | 33 | August 29th 04 05:46 AM |
OHIO Child-support office tried to hide $17,000 overpayment | Dave Briggman | Child Support | 18 | April 28th 04 11:34 PM |