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

CS and women's greed strikes again..



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 18th 04, 01:56 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 18th 04, 01:56 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 18th 04, 01:56 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 18th 04, 02:39 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 18th 04, 02:39 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 18th 04, 02:39 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 18th 04, 02:39 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 18th 04, 02:53 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 18th 04, 02:53 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 18th 04, 02:53 PM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 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.