I'd like to say we have a new short bus rider, but I think Arkansashas a reserved spot

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=46127

Once again we have the courts of the land condoning fraud and deceit
under the guise of "in the best interests of the child" by saying that
if you believe your wife and it’s proven later that she’s lied, you’re
to blame for it.

The Arkansas Short Bus Crew has ruled that a man must pay child support
on a child that everybody admits is not his child because he didn’t
contest the fact in the divorce. Kevin Martin divorced his wife in
1998, but like many men he trusted his wife when she said that it was
his child. When Lisa sued for back child support, Kevin demanded a
paternity test.

In a split decision–and I guess the positive is that not ALL of the
judges bought this–the Arkansas Court blamed the victim and said he had
to keep on paying the child support. And I am very sure that, if Kevin
wants to actually face the manifestation of his wife’s lie on a daily
basis, Lisa would never think of using this to deny him visitation or
poison the child against him. Of course, I’m also convinced that the
sun will rise in the west some day. It’s only been billions of years,
but I’m sure it could happen.

This is a reminder to all men everywhere to demand a paternity test all
the time, every time, whether or not you are married or however sure you
are in your own mind. Demand it, and don’t pay a dime of child support
until you get it. In fact, don’t even act like you are the child’s
father in any way shape or form until that test comes through. Before
you take the baby home take that DNA test.
I never thought I would say that before, but the courts have made it
more and more clear that you will be blamed if you have trust in your
spouse and the spouse lies to you.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
...
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=46127

Once again we have the courts of the land condoning fraud and deceit
under the guise of "in the best interests of the child" by saying that
if you believe your wife and it's proven later that she's lied, you're
to blame for it.

The Arkansas Short Bus Crew has ruled that a man must pay child support
on a child that everybody admits is not his child because he didn't
contest the fact in the divorce. Kevin Martin divorced his wife in
1998, but like many men he trusted his wife when she said that it was
his child. When Lisa sued for back child support, Kevin demanded a
paternity test.

In a split decision-and I guess the positive is that not ALL of the
judges bought this-the Arkansas Court blamed the victim and said he had
to keep on paying the child support. And I am very sure that, if Kevin
wants to actually face the manifestation of his wife's lie on a daily
basis, Lisa would never think of using this to deny him visitation or
poison the child against him. Of course, I'm also convinced that the
sun will rise in the west some day. It's only been billions of years,
but I'm sure it could happen.

This is a reminder to all men everywhere to demand a paternity test all
the time, every time, whether or not you are married or however sure you
are in your own mind. Demand it, and don't pay a dime of child support
until you get it. In fact, don't even act like you are the child's
father in any way shape or form until that test comes through. Before
you take the baby home take that DNA test.
I never thought I would say that before, but the courts have made it
more and more clear that you will be blamed if you have trust in your
spouse and the spouse lies to you.

This Is just so wrong and It sickens me. I can't see how these *******
judges can make decisions like this which ruins a mans life for the next 18
years and sleep at night. It's bad enough that your slut wife cheats on you
getting pregnant In the process, but then having to pay for the *******
child for the next 18 years. And they wonder why some guys go nuts and kill
the woman or the judge in these situations.
I hope this guy appeals all the way to the supreme court and sues and wins
for all costs Incurred doing so.

Dusty Steenbock wrote:

This Is just so wrong and It sickens me. I can't see how these *******
judges can make decisions like this which ruins a mans life for the next 18
years and sleep at night. It's bad enough that your slut wife cheats on you
getting pregnant In the process, but then having to pay for the *******
child for the next 18 years. And they wonder why some guys go nuts and kill
the woman or the judge in these situations.
I hope this guy appeals all the way to the supreme court and sues and wins
for all costs Incurred doing so.


You know, I had somebody once ask me if it would change how I feel about
my sons if I learned if one or both were not my biological children.
And in all honesty, I really can't say how I would react. But what I
can tell you is that I'd react better if the wife had come out and
admitted that there might BE a chance the children are not mine, at
least biologically, rather than hoping I didn't find out on my lonesome.
But, okay, let's go with the fact that you can't change the paternity
through something as "trivial" as a DNA test. A Pennsylvania court
found recently that a child had three parents, one adoptive and two
biological. You may have read about this one. Following this logic out
one could reason that this child also has three parents. Well, only ONE
had been paying the child support. If there is another parent out
there, doesn't it follow that this father has not only been paying what
he should have, but what the other person should have been as well?
Doesn't the presumed father have a case against that other party for the
child support that they overpaid. At the very least, his current
obligation should be split in half.

"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in message
...

"John Meyer" wrote in message
...
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=46127

Once again we have the courts of the land condoning fraud and deceit
under the guise of "in the best interests of the child" by saying that
if you believe your wife and it's proven later that she's lied, you're
to blame for it.

The Arkansas Short Bus Crew has ruled that a man must pay child support
on a child that everybody admits is not his child because he didn't
contest the fact in the divorce. Kevin Martin divorced his wife in
1998, but like many men he trusted his wife when she said that it was
his child. When Lisa sued for back child support, Kevin demanded a
paternity test.

In a split decision-and I guess the positive is that not ALL of the
judges bought this-the Arkansas Court blamed the victim and said he had
to keep on paying the child support. And I am very sure that, if Kevin
wants to actually face the manifestation of his wife's lie on a daily
basis, Lisa would never think of using this to deny him visitation or
poison the child against him. Of course, I'm also convinced that the
sun will rise in the west some day. It's only been billions of years,
but I'm sure it could happen.

This is a reminder to all men everywhere to demand a paternity test all
the time, every time, whether or not you are married or however sure you
are in your own mind. Demand it, and don't pay a dime of child support
until you get it. In fact, don't even act like you are the child's
father in any way shape or form until that test comes through. Before
you take the baby home take that DNA test.
I never thought I would say that before, but the courts have made it
more and more clear that you will be blamed if you have trust in your
spouse and the spouse lies to you.

This Is just so wrong and It sickens me. I can't see how these *******
judges can make decisions like this which ruins a mans life for the next
18
years and sleep at night. It's bad enough that your slut wife cheats on
you
getting pregnant In the process, but then having to pay for the *******
child for the next 18 years. And they wonder why some guys go nuts and
kill
the woman or the judge in these situations.
I hope this guy appeals all the way to the supreme court and sues and
wins
for all costs Incurred doing so.

I'd settle for the grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, and other
siblings ripping these women to shreds for pulling these stunts. Just think
about this fact - Any woman who is dishonest about her child's paternity is
setting that child up with a false medical history that could end up costing
that child their life due to life threatening illnesses just so she can
cover her sorry butt.

Bob Whiteside wrote:

I'd settle for the grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, and other
siblings ripping these women to shreds for pulling these stunts. Just think
about this fact - Any woman who is dishonest about her child's paternity is
setting that child up with a false medical history that could end up costing
that child their life due to life threatening illnesses just so she can
cover her sorry butt.


Not that I'd wish harm on any child, but if this actually did threaten a
child's health (say, for instance, an organ transfer) I think you could
make a hell of a case for attempted negligent homicide.
And even if that wasn't the case, here you have a child--who is as much
of a victim as the father--being pawned off by the mother as legitimate.
How many estates could this impact. And if the father has kids who ARE
his, how much support has this child stolen off from them? What about
any new wives or ex-girlfriends. Couldn't they make an argument that
because of the woman's actions, their own kids have suffered?

"John Meyer" wrote in message
...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

I'd settle for the grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, and other
siblings ripping these women to shreds for pulling these stunts. Just
think
about this fact - Any woman who is dishonest about her child's paternity
is
setting that child up with a false medical history that could end up
costing
that child their life due to life threatening illnesses just so she can
cover her sorry butt.


Not that I'd wish harm on any child, but if this actually did threaten a
child's health (say, for instance, an organ transfer) I think you could
make a hell of a case for attempted negligent homicide.
And even if that wasn't the case, here you have a child--who is as much
of a victim as the father--being pawned off by the mother as legitimate.
How many estates could this impact. And if the father has kids who ARE
his, how much support has this child stolen off from them? What about
any new wives or ex-girlfriends. Couldn't they make an argument that
because of the woman's actions, their own kids have suffered?

Just the standard medical history questions answered improperly could throw
a doctor off - You know the stuff like any history of cancer in your family?
Any heart disease? Any allergies to medicines? How old was your father
when he died? What did he die of?

Then when you throw in life insurance proceeds, estate distributions, Social
Security Survivor Benefits, etc. the fraud becomes even larger.

Women who pull these stunts need to be prosecuted for what they do to their
children and be forced to deal with the consequences of their self-.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

I'd settle for the grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, and other
siblings ripping these women to shreds for pulling these stunts. Just
think
about this fact - Any woman who is dishonest about her child's paternity
is
setting that child up with a false medical history that could end up
costing
that child their life due to life threatening illnesses just so she can
cover her sorry butt.


Not that I'd wish harm on any child, but if this actually did threaten a
child's health (say, for instance, an organ transfer) I think you could
make a hell of a case for attempted negligent homicide.
And even if that wasn't the case, here you have a child--who is as much
of a victim as the father--being pawned off by the mother as legitimate.
How many estates could this impact. And if the father has kids who ARE
his, how much support has this child stolen off from them? What about
any new wives or ex-girlfriends. Couldn't they make an argument that
because of the woman's actions, their own kids have suffered?

They could, but only to fall on deaf ears. The welfare of the children being
harmed by the judge is "irrelevant" to the judge. That's why "family" court
judges harm children.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"John Meyer" wrote in message
...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

I'd settle for the grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, and other
siblings ripping these women to shreds for pulling these stunts. Just
think
about this fact - Any woman who is dishonest about her child's
paternity
is
setting that child up with a false medical history that could end up
costing
that child their life due to life threatening illnesses just so she
can
cover her sorry butt.


Not that I'd wish harm on any child, but if this actually did threaten a
child's health (say, for instance, an organ transfer) I think you could
make a hell of a case for attempted negligent homicide.
And even if that wasn't the case, here you have a child--who is as much
of a victim as the father--being pawned off by the mother as legitimate.
How many estates could this impact. And if the father has kids who ARE
his, how much support has this child stolen off from them? What about
any new wives or ex-girlfriends. Couldn't they make an argument that
because of the woman's actions, their own kids have suffered?

Just the standard medical history questions answered improperly could
throw
a doctor off - You know the stuff like any history of cancer in your
family?
Any heart disease? Any allergies to medicines? How old was your father
when he died? What did he die of?

Then when you throw in life insurance proceeds, estate distributions,
Social
Security Survivor Benefits, etc. the fraud becomes even larger.

Women who pull these stunts need to be prosecuted for what they do to
their
children and be forced to deal with the consequences of their self-.

But they could NEVER do that as it would be justice! And furthermore, they
would be forcing a woman to pay a penalty just as they do a man. Most judges
think it's wrong to punish women for wrongdoings.