Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote

If everyone thought more of the child and less about the money things
would
be so much different.
==
Actually, all that would be needed is for *the courts* to think more about
the child
and less about money:

Agreed there--

To order 50/50 custody, to enforce custody, to require
accountability for lifestyle CS awards, to make false claims of abuse a
felony and enforce it,

Not sure I understand what you mean there....are you saying there are alot
of false claims of abuse?

to reverse custody when PAS is found....
==

Tracy, I hope all goes well with your situation. You must be a strong
person
to have done this on your own.
==
That she is.
==
==
Good luck.

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote

If everyone thought more of the child and less about the money things
would
be so much different.
==
Actually, all that would be needed is for *the courts* to think more
about
the child
and less about money:

Agreed there--

To order 50/50 custody, to enforce custody, to require
accountability for lifestyle CS awards, to make false claims of abuse a
felony and enforce it,

Not sure I understand what you mean there....are you saying there are alot
of false claims of abuse?
==
Unfortunately, yes. It is a weapon of choice in contested custody/visitation
cases.
Florida passed a statute calling for prosecution of false claims but I have
yet to
see/hear of anyone charged under it.
==
==

to reverse custody when PAS is found....
==

Tracy, I hope all goes well with your situation. You must be a strong
person
to have done this on your own.
==
That she is.
==
==
Good luck.

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote

If everyone thought more of the child and less about the money things
would
be so much different.
==
Actually, all that would be needed is for *the courts* to think more
about
the child
and less about money:

Agreed there--

To order 50/50 custody, to enforce custody, to require
accountability for lifestyle CS awards, to make false claims of abuse a
felony and enforce it,

Not sure I understand what you mean there....are you saying there are alot
of false claims of abuse?
==
Unfortunately, yes. It is a weapon of choice in contested custody/visitation
cases.
Florida passed a statute calling for prosecution of false claims but I have
yet to
see/hear of anyone charged under it.
==
==

to reverse custody when PAS is found....
==

Tracy, I hope all goes well with your situation. You must be a strong
person
to have done this on your own.
==
That she is.
==
==
Good luck.

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote

If everyone thought more of the child and less about the money
things
would
be so much different.
==
Actually, all that would be needed is for *the courts* to think more
about
the child
and less about money:

Agreed there--

To order 50/50 custody, to enforce custody, to require
accountability for lifestyle CS awards, to make false claims of abuse
a
felony and enforce it,

Not sure I understand what you mean there....are you saying there are
alot
of false claims of abuse?
==
Unfortunately, yes. It is a weapon of choice in contested
custody/visitation
cases.
Florida passed a statute calling for prosecution of false claims but I
have
yet to
see/hear of anyone charged under it.

You are right there should be prosecution against false claims. My sister
recently was visited by Children and Youth Services because her boyfriends
ex called and claimed she was sexually molesting her child. Everything is
untrue, and found to be a lie by the investigation, BUT she had no legal
recourse against the girl who called. I wrote a letter to the senator, the
governor, and the head of C & Y about it. The answers I got seemed like
they were toying wiht the idea of making a statute but nothing here yet
either. I think that is the lowest most dispicable thing to do. Not to
mention disgusting. Here the retaliation usually seen between friends who
have had an argument or separated couples, is calling Children and Youth
services and trying to have the children taken away. It is quite ridiculous.
What these people don't understand is they are hurting the children by
making the false claims, not just the other party involved. It happens way
to much. Honestly I dont know why there isn't a law in EVERY state to charge
these people making the false claims.
==
==

to reverse custody when PAS is found....
==

Tracy, I hope all goes well with your situation. You must be a
strong
person
to have done this on your own.
==
That she is.
==
==
Good luck.

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote

If everyone thought more of the child and less about the money
things
would
be so much different.
==
Actually, all that would be needed is for *the courts* to think more
about
the child
and less about money:

Agreed there--

To order 50/50 custody, to enforce custody, to require
accountability for lifestyle CS awards, to make false claims of abuse
a
felony and enforce it,

Not sure I understand what you mean there....are you saying there are
alot
of false claims of abuse?
==
Unfortunately, yes. It is a weapon of choice in contested
custody/visitation
cases.
Florida passed a statute calling for prosecution of false claims but I
have
yet to
see/hear of anyone charged under it.

You are right there should be prosecution against false claims. My sister
recently was visited by Children and Youth Services because her boyfriends
ex called and claimed she was sexually molesting her child. Everything is
untrue, and found to be a lie by the investigation, BUT she had no legal
recourse against the girl who called. I wrote a letter to the senator, the
governor, and the head of C & Y about it. The answers I got seemed like
they were toying wiht the idea of making a statute but nothing here yet
either. I think that is the lowest most dispicable thing to do. Not to
mention disgusting. Here the retaliation usually seen between friends who
have had an argument or separated couples, is calling Children and Youth
services and trying to have the children taken away. It is quite ridiculous.
What these people don't understand is they are hurting the children by
making the false claims, not just the other party involved. It happens way
to much. Honestly I dont know why there isn't a law in EVERY state to charge
these people making the false claims.
==
==

to reverse custody when PAS is found....
==

Tracy, I hope all goes well with your situation. You must be a
strong
person
to have done this on your own.
==
That she is.
==
==
Good luck.

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote

If everyone thought more of the child and less about the money things
would
be so much different.
==
Actually, all that would be needed is for *the courts* to think more
about
the child
and less about money:

Agreed there--

To order 50/50 custody, to enforce custody, to require
accountability for lifestyle CS awards, to make false claims of abuse a
felony and enforce it,

Not sure I understand what you mean there....are you saying there are alot
of false claims of abuse?

False claims of abuse are made to initiate restraining orders against men.
Lawyers for women seeking divorce urge their clients to get RO's to gain a
tactical advantage if it is suspected custody will be an issue because the
husband has been a good father. They are also used as "kick-out" orders to
force men to leave the family home.

Surveys are all over the board on how many of the RO's are based on false
allegations. The range is anywhere from 30-70% depending on where and when
the survey was taken.

I have personally observed women being coached by other women at the county
courthouse in how to fill out the paperwork to get an RO. The typical case
is to instruct the woman to fudge the reason for wanting the RO by stating
"the man has shown signs of violence in the past and she is in fear that
something might happen." False allegations of child abuse are also used to
prevent a father from having normal visitations with their children.

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote

If everyone thought more of the child and less about the money things
would
be so much different.
==
Actually, all that would be needed is for *the courts* to think more
about
the child
and less about money:

Agreed there--

To order 50/50 custody, to enforce custody, to require
accountability for lifestyle CS awards, to make false claims of abuse a
felony and enforce it,

Not sure I understand what you mean there....are you saying there are alot
of false claims of abuse?

False claims of abuse are made to initiate restraining orders against men.
Lawyers for women seeking divorce urge their clients to get RO's to gain a
tactical advantage if it is suspected custody will be an issue because the
husband has been a good father. They are also used as "kick-out" orders to
force men to leave the family home.

Surveys are all over the board on how many of the RO's are based on false
allegations. The range is anywhere from 30-70% depending on where and when
the survey was taken.

I have personally observed women being coached by other women at the county
courthouse in how to fill out the paperwork to get an RO. The typical case
is to instruct the woman to fudge the reason for wanting the RO by stating
"the man has shown signs of violence in the past and she is in fear that
something might happen." False allegations of child abuse are also used to
prevent a father from having normal visitations with their children.

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Ronni:

The tone of your comments below suggests that you have not devoted
much
time to thinking about these issues. So I will content myself with
making one simple point.

You seem to justify the present situation, where the choices are
made
unilaterally by women, by saying that it's the woman's body that is
involved.

Let's assume for the moment that this is a fair summary of the
situation (and there are many who would not agree, since another
human
being--the unborn child--is involved). However, if the woman is to
have
all the choices on this biological basis, why shouldn't the man have
choices, on the same biological basis, about whether or not to pay
child
support?

Because he helped make the child.

No he diddn't.......only the sole and unilateral choices of the mother
made
the CHILD

A woman doesn't get pregnant by herself. When a woman gets pregnant a man
can say what he wants, think what he wants, but that baby is part of the
woman.

Are you that dense or just trolling.......pregnancy DOES NOT equate to child
birth


He took the responsiblility of having sex
and a baby was conceived.

Free hint for the clueless........conception DOES NOT equate to
childbirth.

And the point is what? If you do the deed accept the possible
consequences.

Which is why the woman should be held responsible for the sole and
unilateral choices that SHE makes.


What you are saying is a man is no longer responsible for his actions in
making a child.

Once again.....conception DOES NOT equate to child birth


If he (or any NCP) didn't want to pay child
support and felt so strongly that he didn't want to be a father then
the
only
true precaution is not to have sex.

When the same standard is applied to women, then it would aplly equally
to
men

It is applied to women. If a woman doesnt want to get pregnant dont have
sex. Birth control isnt 100%...its plain and simple but you dont seem to
get
it. And on the same note, some women cant take Birth Control --- keep that
in mind. But certain people in this conversation tend to believe that all
the womens choices are easily made. How many of you relize that birth
control can increase the risk of the women who takes it getting certain
kind
of cancers? It can cause blood clots. But we are supposed to put our
bodies,
and in some cases our lives, at risk because you dont want to be
responsible.

Cry me a river........women have it so bad their life expectance is so
mucher shorter than men's snicker



There's no biological imperative to pay child support. There's no
organ in the male body that generates this money. It's purely a
legal
requirement, and could be repealed.

Legal requirement, yes. But it is also the responsibility of a parent.

Circular arguement........It is a responsibility because it is a
current
legal requirement.

No it is the responsibility as a human being. Bring another life into the
world and not help support that life? Disgusting.

The woman is the only one with the sole and unilateral choice to bring
another life into the world.......no amount of tap dancing will change that
FACT

You whine, cry, bitch, and
moan about having to pay child support.

ASSuming? snicker

Have you ever thought of what a
woman has to go through to carry a child, give birth, have an abortion or
give the child up for adoption? Of course not, you see the $ signs being
taken out of your paycheck...

The old being paid for child birth arguement.........lame old tire arguement
that is.


The
message
being given here is that as long as you didn't want to have a baby
then
you
shouldn't have to pay child support.

Women already have that right.

Oh really? How is that? Legal requirements apply to a non custodial mother
too. When the mother is the CP she is giving alot more to that child in
every way than the NC father. Same when the father is the CP and the
mother
the NCP.

WRONG......mothers have AAA......abort, abandon, adopt........options
fathers do not.

CP always are giving more to the child than NCP.

Absolute horse****, much like the rest of your drivel.

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Ronni:

The tone of your comments below suggests that you have not devoted
much
time to thinking about these issues. So I will content myself with
making one simple point.

You seem to justify the present situation, where the choices are
made
unilaterally by women, by saying that it's the woman's body that is
involved.

Let's assume for the moment that this is a fair summary of the
situation (and there are many who would not agree, since another
human
being--the unborn child--is involved). However, if the woman is to
have
all the choices on this biological basis, why shouldn't the man have
choices, on the same biological basis, about whether or not to pay
child
support?

Because he helped make the child.

No he diddn't.......only the sole and unilateral choices of the mother
made
the CHILD

A woman doesn't get pregnant by herself. When a woman gets pregnant a man
can say what he wants, think what he wants, but that baby is part of the
woman.

Are you that dense or just trolling.......pregnancy DOES NOT equate to child
birth


He took the responsiblility of having sex
and a baby was conceived.

Free hint for the clueless........conception DOES NOT equate to
childbirth.

And the point is what? If you do the deed accept the possible
consequences.

Which is why the woman should be held responsible for the sole and
unilateral choices that SHE makes.


What you are saying is a man is no longer responsible for his actions in
making a child.

Once again.....conception DOES NOT equate to child birth


If he (or any NCP) didn't want to pay child
support and felt so strongly that he didn't want to be a father then
the
only
true precaution is not to have sex.

When the same standard is applied to women, then it would aplly equally
to
men

It is applied to women. If a woman doesnt want to get pregnant dont have
sex. Birth control isnt 100%...its plain and simple but you dont seem to
get
it. And on the same note, some women cant take Birth Control --- keep that
in mind. But certain people in this conversation tend to believe that all
the womens choices are easily made. How many of you relize that birth
control can increase the risk of the women who takes it getting certain
kind
of cancers? It can cause blood clots. But we are supposed to put our
bodies,
and in some cases our lives, at risk because you dont want to be
responsible.

Cry me a river........women have it so bad their life expectance is so
mucher shorter than men's snicker



There's no biological imperative to pay child support. There's no
organ in the male body that generates this money. It's purely a
legal
requirement, and could be repealed.

Legal requirement, yes. But it is also the responsibility of a parent.

Circular arguement........It is a responsibility because it is a
current
legal requirement.

No it is the responsibility as a human being. Bring another life into the
world and not help support that life? Disgusting.

The woman is the only one with the sole and unilateral choice to bring
another life into the world.......no amount of tap dancing will change that
FACT

You whine, cry, bitch, and
moan about having to pay child support.

ASSuming? snicker

Have you ever thought of what a
woman has to go through to carry a child, give birth, have an abortion or
give the child up for adoption? Of course not, you see the $ signs being
taken out of your paycheck...

The old being paid for child birth arguement.........lame old tire arguement
that is.


The
message
being given here is that as long as you didn't want to have a baby
then
you
shouldn't have to pay child support.

Women already have that right.

Oh really? How is that? Legal requirements apply to a non custodial mother
too. When the mother is the CP she is giving alot more to that child in
every way than the NC father. Same when the father is the CP and the
mother
the NCP.

WRONG......mothers have AAA......abort, abandon, adopt........options
fathers do not.

CP always are giving more to the child than NCP.

Absolute horse****, much like the rest of your drivel.

"Ronni" wrote in message ...
"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Ronni:

The tone of your comments below suggests that you have not devoted
much
time to thinking about these issues. So I will content myself with
making one simple point.

You seem to justify the present situation, where the choices are made
unilaterally by women, by saying that it's the woman's body that is
involved.

Let's assume for the moment that this is a fair summary of the
situation (and there are many who would not agree, since another human
being--the unborn child--is involved). However, if the woman is to
have
all the choices on this biological basis, why shouldn't the man have
choices, on the same biological basis, about whether or not to pay
child
support?

Because he helped make the child.

No he diddn't.......only the sole and unilateral choices of the mother
made
the CHILD

A woman doesn't get pregnant by herself. When a woman gets pregnant a man
can say what he wants, think what he wants, but that baby is part of the
woman.

He took the responsiblility of having sex
and a baby was conceived.

Free hint for the clueless........conception DOES NOT equate to
childbirth.

And the point is what? If you do the deed accept the possible consequences.
What you are saying is a man is no longer responsible for his actions in
making a child.

If he (or any NCP) didn't want to pay child
support and felt so strongly that he didn't want to be a father then the
only
true precaution is not to have sex.

When the same standard is applied to women, then it would aplly equally to
men

It is applied to women. If a woman doesnt want to get pregnant dont have
sex. Birth control isnt 100%...its plain and simple but you dont seem to get
it. And on the same note, some women cant take Birth Control --- keep that
in mind. But certain people in this conversation tend to believe that all
the womens choices are easily made. How many of you relize that birth
control can increase the risk of the women who takes it getting certain kind
of cancers? It can cause blood clots. But we are supposed to put our bodies,
and in some cases our lives, at risk because you dont want to be
responsible.


There's no biological imperative to pay child support. There's no
organ in the male body that generates this money. It's purely a legal
requirement, and could be repealed.

Legal requirement, yes. But it is also the responsibility of a parent.

Circular arguement........It is a responsibility because it is a current
legal requirement.

No it is the responsibility as a human being. Bring another life into the
world and not help support that life? Disgusting. You whine, cry, bitch, and
moan about having to pay child support. Have you ever thought of what a
woman has to go through to carry a child, give birth, have an abortion or
give the child up for adoption? Of course not, you see the $ signs being
taken out of your paycheck...

Ronni, you are not thinking this all the way through. Two people have
sex. A child is (accidentally or not so accidentally) conceived. MOM
can abort, abandon, or adopt out. She can do these things without
consulting Dad. She doesn't even have to tell him she is pregnant.
DAD can only sit and wait for mom's decision. That's for starters.

After the child is born, mom does not have to earn money. She can go
on welfare, move in with someone, and/or demand child support. DAD has
to fork over the $$$. He can't say "Make her go work, and I'll watch
the kid as my part of child support." Courts do not order such things.

If mom is not capable of supporting the child she chooses to bear 100%
on her own, why does she keep the child? Moms who make decisions such
as keeping an unexpected child should have the means to support their
choices ON THEIR OWN with no help from anyone. THEN, if dad chooses
to be a participant in the child's life (just as mom chose to do when
she kept the child) that is so much icing on the cake. That way both
parents have CHOSEN to be parents. If mom can't support the child,
then she should give it up so that someone who CAN support the child
can give it the life it deserves. Neither moms nor kids should be
dependent on child support wrung from an unwilling participant.