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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I'd like to say we have a new short bus rider, but I think Arkansas has a reserved spot
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I'd like to say we have a new short bus rider, but I think Arkansashas a reserved spot
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I'd like to say we have a new short bus rider, but I think Arkansas has a reserved spot
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I'd like to say we have a new short bus rider, but I think Arkansashas a reserved spot
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I'd like to say we have a new short bus rider, but I think Arkansas has a reserved spot
"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-. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I'd like to say we have a new short bus rider, but I think Arkansas has a reserved spot
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I'd like to say we have a new short bus rider, but I think Arkansas has a reserved spot
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Alex Rider: the proof that boys should be boys | Fred Goodwin, CMA | General | 3 | July 25th 06 06:35 AM |
How to spot an idiot | Opinions | Spanking | 6 | December 4th 05 12:56 AM |
red spot near pupil of new born | Humber Consumer | General | 7 | February 1st 04 10:02 PM |
red spot near pupil of new born | Humber Consumer | Pregnancy | 3 | February 1st 04 11:24 AM |
red spot near pupil of new born | Humber Consumer | Kids Health | 3 | February 1st 04 04:08 AM |