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
  #11  
Old August 27th 06, 09:53 PM 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


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


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? 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..."


People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these issues.....their
scum!


Yes I know. He claims to have used his credentials to somehow
self-aggrandize his position when the facts are good enough for you and
me. Thank you for your wonderful contributions.



- Ron ^*^


  #12  
Old August 27th 06, 09:55 PM 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


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.


Gee, I guess you're pretty ****ed at being one-uped by two. :-) Oh
well, no one is buying your snake oil. Are you, by any chance that
Steve Imparl guy...trying to pretend daddy is no longer mad at you for
posting on the net using your real name?

  #13  
Old August 27th 06, 10:11 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
pandora
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"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



  #14  
Old August 27th 06, 11:55 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression



Hyerdahl wrote:

Col. Tuttle USAF NI wrote:

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


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? 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..."


People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these issues.....their
scum!



Yes I know. He claims to have used his credentials to somehow
self-aggrandize his position when the facts are good enough for you and
me. Thank you for your wonderful contributions.


Oh, I get it. You're a word weasel.

OK, 'nuff said.

- Ron ^*^


  #15  
Old August 28th 06, 12:17 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression



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?


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.


Or are you just self-aggrandizing, here?


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


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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

- Ron ^*^

  #16  
Old August 28th 06, 12:59 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"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.



  #17  
Old August 28th 06, 02:00 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Gini" wrote in message news:clqIg.129$8Q6.76@trndny01...

"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.


Good thought, Gini. I once worked with a femwit who asked me and another
man over drinks if we had ever been discriminated against. He said never.
I gave her a long list based on my family court experiences. She actually
gave me favorable brownie points for understanding I had experienced
discrimination. ;-)


  #18  
Old August 28th 06, 02:48 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

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?




  #19  
Old August 28th 06, 03:01 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


Hyerdahl wrote:
Meldon Fens wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message

Gee, I guess you're pretty ****ed at being one-uped by two. :-) Oh
well, no one is buying your snake oil. Are you, by any chance that
Steve Imparl guy...trying to pretend daddy is no longer mad at you for
posting on the net using your real name?


Again, WOMEN get the money, not the kids - the kids should be the one's
allocated the cash in super, schooling books, food vouchers - NOT for
mom to loose on the pokie gambling hyer-liar.

  #20  
Old August 28th 06, 03:02 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
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.


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 ^*^




 




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 01:05 PM.


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