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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. "Dusty" wrote in message ... Viggo's ex sues for more child support -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---- Big News Network.com Wednesday 16th June, 2004 Hollywood actor Viggo Mortensen's ex-wife has reportedly asked a Los Angeles judge to increase child support payments for their son from $3,000 to $18,000 a month. In papers filed in Los Angeles Superior Court last month, Christine Edge said she needs the money to cover expenses such as computers, trips, tutoring and car insurance for their 16-year-old son, TheSmokingGun Web site has reported. The couple's 1998 divorce agreement required Mortensen to pay $3,000 in monthly support, however, his former spouse is demanding more now that his acting career has skyrocketed with a starring role in the blockbuster Lord of the Rings trilogy, which earned him more than $3.3 million last year. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. ---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle --- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. "Dusty" wrote in message ... Viggo's ex sues for more child support -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---- Big News Network.com Wednesday 16th June, 2004 Hollywood actor Viggo Mortensen's ex-wife has reportedly asked a Los Angeles judge to increase child support payments for their son from $3,000 to $18,000 a month. In papers filed in Los Angeles Superior Court last month, Christine Edge said she needs the money to cover expenses such as computers, trips, tutoring and car insurance for their 16-year-old son, TheSmokingGun Web site has reported. The couple's 1998 divorce agreement required Mortensen to pay $3,000 in monthly support, however, his former spouse is demanding more now that his acting career has skyrocketed with a starring role in the blockbuster Lord of the Rings trilogy, which earned him more than $3.3 million last year. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. ---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle --- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. "Dusty" wrote in message ... Viggo's ex sues for more child support -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---- Big News Network.com Wednesday 16th June, 2004 Hollywood actor Viggo Mortensen's ex-wife has reportedly asked a Los Angeles judge to increase child support payments for their son from $3,000 to $18,000 a month. In papers filed in Los Angeles Superior Court last month, Christine Edge said she needs the money to cover expenses such as computers, trips, tutoring and car insurance for their 16-year-old son, TheSmokingGun Web site has reported. The couple's 1998 divorce agreement required Mortensen to pay $3,000 in monthly support, however, his former spouse is demanding more now that his acting career has skyrocketed with a starring role in the blockbuster Lord of the Rings trilogy, which earned him more than $3.3 million last year. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. ---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle --- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
Don wrote:
This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
Don wrote:
This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
Don wrote:
This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
Don wrote:
This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
"Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
"Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
CS and women's greed strikes again..
"Bob" wrote in message ... Don wrote: This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice perpetrated against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting with no child support changing hands. Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every measurable criteria. Fathers do know best. Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list of consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the picture like they are now. If any parent is unable or unwilling to do such and there is to be some form of child support then it should only be for basic expenses. Anything above and beyond is lifestyle support which should be up to the parents to decide lifestyle expenses just like it is for intact families. The whole concept of "child support" is a radical feminist experiment that has hurt untold millions of children. It is a travesty and engine of inhuman suffering, and ought to be forgotten. I agree up until this point. You can't do good by doing wrong more effectively. Any form of "absentee child support" is wrong. What about in the situation where where the father does not want to take full custody or shared parenting and the mother works but is unable to make ends meet? The mother likely will turn to the state with the taxpayers footing the bill. That is unacceptable and this is the case where the absentee should pay basic expenses (not lifestyle support) or accept shared parenting or take complete custody of the child. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It's Not About Kids, It's About Women's Choices | GudGye11 | Child Support | 3 | March 19th 04 06:10 AM |
Lookin' For Women's Input . . . | Bob Whiteside | Child Support | 90 | September 8th 03 05:32 AM |