Shouldn't the ability to pay be the FIRST thing you consider?

http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/Ne...articleID=7038


How long do you think this will last before they realize that they're
going to have to start giving all these non custodial parents such
things as "due process", "assistance of counsel", "the presumption of
innocence". You know, the trifling little things family court could ignore.

On Mar 11, 3:56 pm, John Meyer wrote:
http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/Ne...articleID=7038

How long do you think this will last before they realize that they're
going to have to start giving all these non custodial parents such
things as "due process", "assistance of counsel", "the presumption of
innocence". You know, the trifling little things family court could ignore.

If the family courts keep wasting all the resources available to them
on chasing down non payers, they should also chase down custodial
parents who do not allow contact with fathers using half of these
resources. They know what they are doing. Our governemnt uses
tactics like this to scare the bulk of the people in a way that the
family court office is avoided. If they did do the right thing, the
court would be swamped with cases that needed to be heard.

John,

I hope you are right, however, I believe that
child support enforcement is much like illegal
immigration....It has been going on so long
that is has become a quagmire!! I believe that
the solution for men is that we must be cunning
to avoid this system; not to relinquish to it!

It is a system that has no heart or feeling; It is
on auto-pilot, much like Nazi Germany. Don't
get me wrong, I don't blame the German people
at large, for God's sake, I lived in Germany for
many years.....but I believe that the government
then is much like the government now in this
country; Elitists that want to find a scapegoat
for a perceived ill perpetrated by a so-called
inferior class!!

Patrick Lee wrote:
John,

I hope you are right, however, I believe that
child support enforcement is much like illegal
immigration....It has been going on so long
that is has become a quagmire!! I believe that
the solution for men is that we must be cunning
to avoid this system; not to relinquish to it!


For a long time I tried to avoid the problem, and it got me into much
more problems than anything else did. With all due respect, I don't
believe you can change the problem by evading it; you push it right
underneath their nostrils. They say they are "for the children"; make
them prove it, and make that impossible to do.
I was reading this article the other day
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/page/2/), and I am hardly a
Clinton supporter, but if the fathers' rights movement could do
anything, is to take those maxims of Alinsky and use them. There was a
man of action for you. Forget communism, forget worker's revolts, take
those central ideas and use them against the enemy.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
Patrick Lee wrote:
John,

I hope you are right, however, I believe that
child support enforcement is much like illegal
immigration....It has been going on so long
that is has become a quagmire!! I believe that
the solution for men is that we must be cunning
to avoid this system; not to relinquish to it!


For a long time I tried to avoid the problem, and it got me into much
more problems than anything else did. With all due respect, I don't
believe you can change the problem by evading it; you push it right
underneath their nostrils. They say they are "for the children"; make
them prove it, and make that impossible to do.
I was reading this article the other day
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/page/2/), and I am hardly a
Clinton supporter, but if the fathers' rights movement could do
anything, is to take those maxims of Alinsky and use them. There was a
man of action for you. Forget communism, forget worker's revolts, take
those central ideas and use them against the enemy.

The law clearly states that a man does NOT have the right to choose whether
or not a child will exist. It also clearly states that a woman DOES have
such right; that it rests SOLELY with her. Additionally, she retains the
SOLE right whether or not to have any legal responsibility to her child
after she makes the SOLE choice to give birth. Yet the father is charged
with being "responsible" for HER choice; a choice that he is legally
PROHIBITED from making. What's the deal?

Chris wrote:
The law clearly states that a man does NOT have the right to choose whether
or not a child will exist. It also clearly states that a woman DOES have
such right; that it rests SOLELY with her. Additionally, she retains the
SOLE right whether or not to have any legal responsibility to her child
after she makes the SOLE choice to give birth. Yet the father is charged
with being "responsible" for HER choice; a choice that he is legally
PROHIBITED from making. What's the deal?



I agree with you. Now we must point out that hypocracy, make them live
up to their own maxims about free choice and responsibility.

On Mar 12, 6:25 pm, John Meyer wrote:
Chris wrote:
The law clearly states that a man does NOT have the right to choose whether
or not a child will exist. It also clearly states that a woman DOES have
such right; that it rests SOLELY with her. Additionally, she retains the
SOLE right whether or not to have any legal responsibility to her child
after she makes the SOLE choice to give birth. Yet the father is charged
with being "responsible" for HER choice; a choice that he is legally
PROHIBITED from making. What's the deal?

I agree with you. Now we must point out that hypocracy, make them live
up to their own maxims about free choice and responsibility.

Men need to have a choice too. How do you ever get the laws to change.
They can keep the child but the man should have a right also to say he
does not want the child.

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 12, 6:25 pm, John Meyer wrote:
Chris wrote:
The law clearly states that a man does NOT have the right to choose
whether
or not a child will exist. It also clearly states that a woman DOES
have
such right; that it rests SOLELY with her. Additionally, she retains
the
SOLE right whether or not to have any legal responsibility to her
child
after she makes the SOLE choice to give birth. Yet the father is
charged
with being "responsible" for HER choice; a choice that he is legally
PROHIBITED from making. What's the deal?

I agree with you. Now we must point out that hypocracy, make them live
up to their own maxims about free choice and responsibility.

Men need to have a choice too. How do you ever get the laws to change.
They can keep the child but the man should have a right also to say he
does not want the child.

What a NOVEL concept! But we can't have that, because it would erode the
legal right for women to extort free money from men.
[ By the way, nice user name. ]