Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Jul 20, 7:52 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message

snip for length


As for your scenario, well, the odds that you will run off with Danny
Dick are just a hair higher than your hubby will run off with Bertha
Big-
Boobs ( Once again, CF Braver ). How about a word for the millions
of *men* disenfranchised from their families over that reason ?

It's wrong, wrong, wrong. I cannot imagine what my life sould have been
like without my father. I cannot imagine how much poorer my girls lives
would be without their Daddy--and I don't mean financially.

Consider that you answered my question about empathy for such MEN by
talking about your life, and what it cost YOU. Now, try that again,
and
place those men *first*...

Children
DESERVE to have BOTH parents in their lives--not just a mommy and a
checkbook.

Absolutely. But think about the present system of forcing men to
become
liable for cash parents with NO choice in either aspect of their life
status. That *positively encourages* MORE OF what you just decried.

One cannot get some Good by subsidizing Bad. That subsidy WILL and
HAS created a LOT of Bad. Like April... Who Just Doesn't Get It.

I can't do any more than say that I agree with you that the system has
created unfais inewuities, abased fathers to the point that they are not
more than wallets, and harmed children by denying them a father who gets to
BE a father. I'm with you on default 50/50 custody, no money changing hands
except if a person WANTS to provide money. It should not be required.
(Although I do have to say that I feel that in cases of long term marriages
where both parties agreed that one would be a stay-at-home parent, and the
other would be the breadwinner--if the breadwinner decides to leave, there
needs to be some financial help getting the stay-at-home parent established.
If the SAH decides to leave, they are on their own) CHILDREN deserve both
parents. Both parents deserve to be PARENTS!!

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:02:08 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
.. .
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:02:57 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:30:34 -0700, "DB" wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in

I'd prefer she didn't, but then if she has fed, housed, and cared
for
his kid for 12 years, don't you think he owes her something?

His Kid?

I thought that was the case.


Owe her something?

Owes his kid, actually.

How so?

Tradition and law.

Negros were considered less than whole persons, and women were not
allowed
to vote.......... tradition and law.



Tell that to the judge.

What judge, and why?


John

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 19, 4:52 pm, "April" wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

...

"April" wrote in message
...
** Well, I had to leave my son's father. He was very abusive to
me
and was starting on our son. I could handle it, but you don't
beat
on a 1 1/2 year old because he won't stop crying because he
doesn't
want a nap. He had anxiety issues and was being medicated for
about a
month. Then he quit. He promised month after month to go back
but
it
never happened. AFter 3 months State troppers knock on my door
because my husband was caught on surveillance cameras stealing
over
1200.00 for his job.( he worked retail). I couldn't handle
anymore. I
gave him an easy choice. He could forego paying support by just
signing him totally over to me. He refused. He paid child
support.
He couldn't keep a job,and was constantly behind on his
payments.
In
over 4 years, he never once tried to see his son yet would tell
me
that the name is what's important ( mind you the child knows
nothing
about the family name since his father never saw him) and that
he
still loves him. I never will understand my ex-husbands
philosophy
on
all of this. But Alas, I have remarried and Next month we all go
downtown to swear in front of the judge that my husband is
adopting
my son. his father finally.. (after 7 years) realizes that our
son
is better off having a father who does things with him and takes
care
of him. So I guess my story DOES have a happy ending

I'm very glad to hear that a man who had no wish to be a father
stepped aside so that the man who wants to be the father is free
to
raise your child with you. It's too bad it took the bio dad so
long
to let go. If any child support arrearages have accrued, will you
be
signing a letter of satisfaction saying that they are paid in
full?

I wish you and your family the very best, April. It sounds like
things are working out well for all of you.
** to tell you the truth, he paid up all his back arrears and is
also
paying ofor the adoption. Lawyer's idea and I agree... on one
hand
he
could be paying the next 9 years of child support or the $1200.00
for
the adoption.. He opted for the latter.

Wait a second. You have a legal CS obligation too. How much have
you
been required to pay all along? Why are you so willing to sell out
your
own CS obligation? Do you really think accepting $1200 lets you
off
the
hook to support your child?
** afraid I'm not following what you are saying.

In the majority of states CS orders detail the CP's obligation, the
NCP's
obligation, and the total obligation. Your comments have focused
only
on
the NCP's CS obligation and have totally ignored what the impact will
be
on your CS obligation. In fact, your comments have suggested you
don't
recognize your portion of the existing court ordered CS obligation.

By accepting the $1,200 to pay for an adoption you are taking a
payoff
to
get out from under your court ordered CS obligation. The net legal
affect
will be for both the CP's and NCP's legal CS obligation to go away.
The
result will be the obligation to support the child will no longer be
controlled by the state/courts.

So my questions are - How much have you been ordered to pay? Have
you
been providing it? How do you plan to handle any CS arrearage
amounts
from the NCP?

** I am the childs mother, I have provided a hell of alot more
financially
and emotionally then his bio-father has. I have paid my due and will
continue the rest of my life.

Not really, no. You had 100% of the *choices*, yet by using the bio-
dad
( Who got ZERO % of the choices ) to fund YOUR choice, you have NOT
" paid your due. "

That comes when you pay in *direct proportion* to your choices: 100%

My husband wants to adopt my son. My son is
thrilled with the idea and cannot wait. The Bio-father has realized he
hasn't been and doesn't care to perform any obligations where his son
is
concerned. And that is fine. My son has someone who does and has
been.
What's soo wrong about that?

This: You got 100% of the choice. In *every other area of law* that
position
comes bundled with 100% of the *consequences*.

By claiming 100% of the CHOICES, but *refusing* the EQUAL share of
the consequences, you are trying to claim Free Money. From someone YOU
gave ZERO choice to. Thats evil.

What is soo wrong to have all arrears paid up
and the adoption paid for so that my son can be in a family that cares
about
him and his well being? This isn't Ebay.. I'm not looking for the best
deal..

Yeah, you a you stated that you wanted the " arrears paid up ". HIS
money for YOUR 100% choice and consequence.

In anything else, thats *theft*. That you got the government to be
your
accomplice in it, mitigates your role not one whit.

I'm looking for the real thing.

Wrong. The " real thing " is, either *share* the choices, or keep ALL
the consequences with ALL of the choices.

All else is demanding special and UNequal treatment. Which is sexist
and evil.

If you had any honour, you would not demand a penny from the man YOU
made, with NO choice for HIM, a bio father. How dare you ? On both
points !


Andre, they raised the child together for 4 years! She didn't get
pregnant,
then demand money. She even gave him the choice to sign away his parental
rights in return for him never having to pay a penny of child support. He
never even came to see the child. How can you say she duped him into
fatherhood? I understand and agree with the need to give men equitable
post
conception choices. But I don't understand the POV that says men should
have the option to walk away from a child they helped create

If I supply the lumber, did I "help" you build a house?

and have been
raising and caring for any time they feel like it for any reason or no
reason at all.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 20, 12:46 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jul 20, 3:46 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Jul 19, 4:52 pm, "April" wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

...

"April" wrote in message
...
** Well, I had to leave my son's father. He was very
abusive
to me
and was starting on our son. I could handle it, but you
don't
beat
on a 1 1/2 year old because he won't stop crying because
he
doesn't
want a nap. He had anxiety issues and was being medicated
for
about a
month. Then he quit. He promised month after month to go
back
but it
never happened. AFter 3 months State troppers knock on my
door
because my husband was caught on surveillance cameras
stealing
over 1200.00 for his job.( he worked retail). I couldn't
handle
anymore. I gave him an easy choice. He could forego
paying
support by
just signing him totally over to me. He refused. He paid
child
support.
He couldn't keep a job,and was constantly behind on his
payments. In
over 4 years, he never once tried to see his son yet would
tell
me
that the name is what's important ( mind you the child
knows
nothing
about the family name since his father never saw him) and
that
he still loves him. I never will understand my ex-husbands
philosophy on
all of this. But Alas, I have remarried and Next month we
all
go
downtown to swear in front of the judge that my husband is
adopting
my son. his father finally.. (after 7 years) realizes
that
our
son
is better off having a father who does things with him and
takes care
of him. So I guess my story DOES have a happy ending

I'm very glad to hear that amanwho had no wish to be a
father
stepped aside so that themanwho wants to be the father is
free
to
raise your child with you. It's too bad it took the bio
dad
so
long
to let go. If any child support arrearages have accrued,
will
you be
signing a letter of satisfaction saying that they are paid
in
full?

I wish you and your family the very best, April. It sounds
like
things are working out well for all of you.
** to tell you the truth, he paid up all his back arrears
and
is
also
paying ofor the adoption. Lawyer's idea and I agree... on
one
hand he
could be paying the next 9 years of child support or the
$1200.00
for the adoption.. He opted for the latter.

Wait a second. You have a legal CS obligation too. How much
have
you been required to pay all along? Why are you so willing
to
sell
out your
own CS obligation? Do you really think accepting $1200 lets
you
off the hook to support your child?
** afraid I'm not following what you are saying.

In the majority of states CS orders detail the CP's obligation,
the
NCP's
obligation, and the total obligation. Your comments have
focused
only on
the NCP's CS obligation and have totally ignored what the
impact
will be
on your CS obligation. In fact, your comments have suggested
you
don't
recognize your portion of the existing court ordered CS
obligation.

By accepting the $1,200 to pay for an adoption you are taking a
payoff to
get out from under your court ordered CS obligation. The net
legal
affect
will be for both the CP's and NCP's legal CS obligation to go
away.
The
result will be the obligation to support the child will no
longer
be
controlled by the state/courts.

So my questions are - How much have you been ordered to pay?
Have
you
been providing it? How do you plan to handle any CS arrearage
amounts from the NCP?

** I am the childs mother, I have provided a hell of alot more
financially
and emotionally then his bio-father has. I have paid my due and
will
continue the rest of my life.

Not really, no. You had 100% of the *choices*, yet by using the
bio-
dad ( Who got ZERO % of the choices ) to fund YOUR choice, you
have
NOT " paid your due. "

That comes when you pay in *direct proportion* to your choices:
100%

My husband wants to adopt my son. My son is
thrilled with the idea and cannot wait. The Bio-father has
realized
he hasn't been and doesn't care to perform any obligations where
his son is concerned. And that is fine. My son has someone
who does and has been.
What's soo wrong about that?

This: You got 100% of the choice. In *every other area of law*
that
position comes bundled with 100% of the *consequences*.

By claiming 100% of the CHOICES, but *refusing* the EQUAL share of
the consequences, you are trying to claim Free Money. From someone
YOU
gave ZERO choice to. Thats evil.

What is soo wrong to have all arrears paid up and the
adoption paid for so that my son can be in a family that
caresabout
him and his well being? This isn't Ebay.. I'm not looking for
the
best deal..

Yeah, you a you stated that you wanted the " arrears paid up ".
HIS
money for YOUR 100% choice and consequence.

In anything else, thats *theft*. That you got the government to be
your accomplice in it, mitigates your role not one whit.

I'm looking for the real thing.

Wrong. The " real thing " is, either *share* the choices, or keep
ALL
the consequences with ALL of the choices.

All else is demanding special and UNequal treatment. Which is
sexist
and evil.

If you had any honour, you would not demand a penny from themanYOU
made, with NO choice for HIM, a bio father. How dare you ? On
both
points !

Andre, they raised the child together for 4 years! She didn't get
pregnant, then demand money.

Um, yes, thats *exactly* what she did, with a step or two between
those two points. Those steps change my point, not at all.

So you are saying that,

Here comes the " Ignore everything that Andre actually said, I prefer
to have him face a Straw Woman of my own making... "

if my husband chose to run off with Bertha
Big-Boobs, he would no longer have any responsibility toward our 2
teenage
daughters because he never "chose" to have them--that was my choice?

There are several differences there that make your " question " above
nothing
more than an evasive Straw Woman.

Did you and your hubby *decide together* to make and raise kids in a
family ?
BEFORE you were pregnant ?

Yes, Andre, we did. We decided together to have children. We decided
that
2 children was the perfect number for us. THEN, when they were 3 and 4,
we
found out about his older daughter--but we NEVER regretted the 2 wonderful
children we decided together to have. So your caveat is that if the man
decides with the woman to create a child, then the man is equally
responsible for the child? If so, then, good, I am glad to hear that.


If so, then ANY step that ends the intactness of the family ( And
remember;
women, not men, end most marriages, and for almost always trivial
reasons,
CF Braver ), then that is the step that disenfranchises the parent who
did
NOT choose that ending.

In the case of unmarrieds, well, there the man has NOT given ANY
consent
to be a part of a family.

And, even after all of that, if one parent demands more time than
50-50 shared
joint legal and physical custody, we come right back to:

" Her body, her choice... HER *consequences*. " ( " Her " for the
simple
fact that women not only get sole custody so overwhelmingly
frequently,
but also because most PAL is done by them to purposefully
disenfranchise
the father apart from his kids. )

Andre, I think the current system is disgusting. I think that looking at
men as $$$ rather than fathers is immoral. My concern was the idea that
men
should have no responsibility whatsoever--I think that idea is disgusting,
too. I, personally, think we should scrap this system, fire everyone, and
stop seeking employees for the CS system in mental hospitals and insane
asylums.


As for your scenario, well, the odds that you will run off with Danny
Dick
are just a hair higher than your hubby will run off with Bertha Big-
Boobs
( Once again, CF Braver ). How about a word for the millions of *men*
disenfranchised from their families over that reason ?

It's wrong, wrong, wrong. I cannot imagine what my life sould have been
like without my father. I cannot imagine how much poorer my girls lives
would be without their Daddy--and I don't mean financially. Children
DESERVE to have BOTH parents in their lives--not just a mommy and a
checkbook.

The other parent is the one appointed by the mother.........................
the "child support" judge.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"John Larkin"

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:56:31 -0700, "teachrmama"

wrote:


"John Larkin"

wrote in message
news:k58r9314s5d0bpnn6tgndii8k5tm ...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:38:32 -0700, "teachrmama"

wrote:


John, think about it. How would you feel in a
situation
like that. (And
please don't go all preachy on me and tell me how
you
would *never* behave
in such a way as to create such a problem)


I have no idea. I wouldn't get into a situation like
that.

How did I know that you were going to say that. So,
John,
I would like a
bit of clarification from you. Do you feel that it is
ok
for a woman to
conceal from a man the fact that he is a father until
12
years have passed,
then demand current child support plus 12 years of
back
support? Do you
feel that she is doing right by the child to deny that
child a father for 12
years so she can build herself a nice nest egg?


I'd prefer she didn't, but then if she has fed,
housed,
and
cared for
his kid for 12 years, don't you think he owes her
something? Even if
she collects $84K, that amounts to $7000 a year, about
80
cents an
hour, not to mention expenses like food and clothing
and
medical.

I would say that when the woman can give the man HIS
SHARE
of the hugs and kisses, the first steps and first
sords,
the
firts day of schools, the "let's paly ball, Dad's" and
wrestling matches and dancing-on-Daddy's-feets, and all
the
other wonderful growing up memories that dad's and kids
share, then and only then should he pay her "child
support"
for all the years she stole from him and his child. If
SHE
made the unilateral decision to be a single parent for
12
years (while keeping all the wonders of the child's
growing
and development for herself), she should be not only
willing, but obligated, to pay the price herself.

If you gave your friend a lawnmower, and he mowed your
lawn
for you for 5 years, but only did it while you were at
work,
and never told you he was doing it, would you be
willing
to
fork over several thousand dollars when he demanded it
at
the end of 5 years?

Sorry, but I see too many men who abuse their children
or
spouses to totally agree with you. To make my point, if
you
gave your friend a lawnmower and he broke it while doing
your
lawn.... should YOU have to pay for it?

Oh, I see. Because some men abuse their children, all
men
should be handed the sh*tty end of the stick?
** I'm not saying that. You were making a genaralization
and
so was I. Each case is different.

That doesn't even begin to make sense, April.
Are you attempting to say that a woman who has a child
without
informing the man that she is pregnant, then demands 12
years
of back child support plus ongoing support has the RIGHT
to
do
that. because some men have been abusive?
**Nope, wasn't attempting.

No proof necessary that this particular man might become
abusive--just the woman's unilateral decision? I've
known
some mothers who have abused their children--does that
mean
that it is ok with you that a father could take his child
and
run off with the child, and 12 years later demand 12
years
of
back child support?
** My Mother left my father with me when I was 2, After 30
years, I finally found my father. My mother told me lies
all
my life. I WAS an abused child. Mentally, Physically and
Emotionally by her. My mother doesn't deserve anything.
It
was
her choice to keep me away from my father all those years
and
deprive me of having him in my formative years. ( doesn't
matter, come to find out I was always like him even when
he
wasn't around lol) I'm just saying you were generalizing
in
your post so I retorted doing the same. I don't totally
disagree with you but I don't totally agree either. There
are
exceptions.

But, unfortunately, the current CS law does not recognize
that.
It's "victim mommy" deserves the money becuase she raised
the
child alone. I do not think that a mother who purposely
keeps
a
child from the father deserves a flipping penny whe she
finally
proves paternity. IF she is doing because of abuse, she
needs
to
PROVE it!! But the system doesn't care about anything
except
the
almighty dollar. To heck with a child's need to have 2
parents--only money matters.



** Isn't that the way the world is with EVERYTHING? Sad I
know,
but it's the truth. Money is the most important thing to
most
ppl anymore. Not values.. and certainly not morals.

So let's get this down to your personal opinion--not that it
is
any more important than mine or any other individual's when
it
comes to the child support system. Do you, personally, think
that
a woman should be able to have a child without informing the
father, raise that child for 12 years, then demand 12 years
of
back child support and ongoing support? (Barring any sort of
abuse, of course) Do you think this is right?


**No I don't. As I said it was her choice to keep the father
away
from the child not his. Whay should he have to pay for her
choice?
Now, if the mother is prepared to allow the father visitation
and
allow him to get to know his child. I think from that point
on
out
he should pay child support. Hard to pay for something you
didn't
even know you had.

Yes, that's my take on it also. Some places, however, still
charge
a man back to the birth of the child, no matter what. Other
places
have recognized the unfairness of using a man as a savings
account
without his knowledge, and limit the amount of time they charge
for.
Some have refused to charge any arrearages at all in such
situations.

From your experience growing up without your father, I can see
that
you realize first hand how important it is for a child to have
his/
father in his/her life. I wish more people understood that
money
will never replace a father. Nor can the hole in the father's
heart
be healed by telling him "but you get to pay for all the time
you
missed."

** Well, I had to leave my son's father. He was very abusive to
me
and was starting on our son. I could handle it, but you don't
beat
on a 1 1/2 year old because he won't stop crying because he
doesn't
want a nap. He had anxiety issues and was being medicated for
about
a
month. Then he quit. He promised month after month to go back
but
it
never happened. AFter 3 months State troppers knock on my door
because my husband was caught on surveillance cameras stealing
over
1200.00 for his job.( he worked retail). I couldn't handle
anymore.
I
gave him an easy choice. He could forego paying support by just
signing him totally over to me. He refused. He paid child
support.
He couldn't keep a job,and was constantly behind on his
payments.
In
over 4 years, he never once tried to see his son yet would tell
me
that the name is what's important ( mind you the child knows
nothing
about the family name since his father never saw him) and that
he
still loves him. I never will understand my ex-husbands
philosophy
on
all of this. But Alas, I have remarried and Next month we all go
downtown to swear in front of the judge that my husband is
adopting
my son. his father finally.. (after 7 years) realizes that our
son
is better off having a father who does things with him and takes
care
of him. So I guess my story DOES have a happy ending

I'm very glad to hear that a man who had no wish to be a father
stepped aside so that the man who wants to be the father is free
to
raise your child with you. It's too bad it took the bio dad so
long
to let go. If any child support arrearages have accrued, will you
be
signing a letter of satisfaction saying that they are paid in
full?

I wish you and your family the very best, April. It sounds like
things are working out well for all of you.
** to tell you the truth, he paid up all his back arrears and is
also
paying ofor the adoption. Lawyer's idea and I agree... on one
hand
he
could be paying the next 9 years of child support or the $1200.00
for
the adoption.. He opted for the latter.

Wait a second. You have a legal CS obligation too. How much have
you
been required to pay all along? Why are you so willing to sell out
your
own CS obligation? Do you really think accepting $1200 lets you
off
the
hook to support your child?

I don't quite understand what you are asking, Bob. April said her
child's bio father never wanted anything to do with the child, but
refused to sign away his rights. This last year, he said he would
sign
away his rights and let April's husband, who has been raising the
child
along with April, adopt him. He has agreed to pay the $1200
adoption
fee. Then he doesn't have to pay child support for 9 more years for
a
child he has never even attempted to have a relationship with.
April
has
been doing her part to support her son all along.

Well she has had a pretty sweet deal. She gets CS from the child's
father
(he paid all arrears, right?), has a current husband helping to
support
her kid, and she doesn't even acknowledge she had any CS obligation
of
her
own. Her comments have indicated three adults have been paying to
support
this kid, but I suspect the people supporting the kid are the two
men.

I'm asking her how much she was ordered to pay and if she paid it.
If
she
claims to have been providing her portion of support too then she has
one
really well taken care of kid. And the adoption will reduce the
amount
of
support from three adults to two adults and make the kid worse off.
I
suspect this is just another case where the CP mom is shuffling
dollars
around and claiming she has been paying her share of CS with the
money
she
has been getting from two different men.
** for your information, All of the money I have gotten from the
bio-father
has gone into a savings acct for him.

Yet it is supposed to be used to support the child; hence the term
"child
support". I rest my case.

You don't really think she is going to tell her son the savings account
money is from his bio-father, do you?

HAHAHAHAHA HAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA!

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"John Larkin"
wrote
in message ...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:56:31 -0700, "teachrmama"

wrote:


"John Larkin"
wrote
in message
news:k58r9314s5d0bpnn6tgndii8k5tmpcnvo ...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:38:32 -0700, "teachrmama"

wrote:


John, think about it. How would you feel in a situation
like
that. (And
please don't go all preachy on me and tell me how you would
*never* behave
in such a way as to create such a problem)


I have no idea. I wouldn't get into a situation like that.

How did I know that you were going to say that. So, John, I
would like a
bit of clarification from you. Do you feel that it is ok for
a
woman to
conceal from a man the fact that he is a father until 12 years
have passed,
then demand current child support plus 12 years of back
support?
Do you
feel that she is doing right by the child to deny that child a
father for 12
years so she can build herself a nice nest egg?


I'd prefer she didn't, but then if she has fed, housed, and
cared for
his kid for 12 years, don't you think he owes her something?
Even if
she collects $84K, that amounts to $7000 a year, about 80
cents
an
hour, not to mention expenses like food and clothing and
medical.

I would say that when the woman can give the man HIS SHARE of
the
hugs and kisses, the first steps and first sords, the firts day
of schools, the "let's paly ball, Dad's" and wrestling matches
and dancing-on-Daddy's-feets, and all the other wonderful
growing
up memories that dad's and kids share, then and only then
should
he pay her "child support" for all the years she stole from him
and his child. If SHE made the unilateral decision to be a
single
parent for 12 years (while keeping all the wonders of the
child's
growing and development for herself), she should be not only
willing, but obligated, to pay the price herself.

If you gave your friend a lawnmower, and he mowed your lawn for
you for 5 years, but only did it while you were at work, and
never told you he was doing it, would you be willing to fork
over
several thousand dollars when he demanded it at the end of 5
years?

Sorry, but I see too many men who abuse their children or
spouses
to totally agree with you. To make my point, if you gave your
friend a lawnmower and he broke it while doing your lawn....
should YOU have to pay for it?

Oh, I see. Because some men abuse their children, all men should
be handed the sh*tty end of the stick?
** I'm not saying that. You were making a genaralization and so
was
I. Each case is different.

That doesn't even begin to make sense, April.
Are you attempting to say that a woman who has a child without
informing the man that she is pregnant, then demands 12 years of
back child support plus ongoing support has the RIGHT to do that.
because some men have been abusive?
**Nope, wasn't attempting.

No proof necessary that this particular man might become
abusive--just the woman's unilateral decision? I've known some
mothers who have abused their children--does that mean that it is
ok with you that a father could take his child and run off with
the
child, and 12 years later demand 12 years of back child support?
** My Mother left my father with me when I was 2, After 30 years,
I
finally found my father. My mother told me lies all my life. I
WAS
an abused child. Mentally, Physically and Emotionally by her. My
mother doesn't deserve anything. It was her choice to keep me
away
from my father all those years and deprive me of having him in my
formative years. ( doesn't matter, come to find out I was always
like him even when he wasn't around lol) I'm just saying you were
generalizing in your post so I retorted doing the same. I don't
totally disagree with you but I don't totally agree either. There
are exceptions.

But, unfortunately, the current CS law does not recognize that.
It's
"victim mommy" deserves the money becuase she raised the child
alone.
I do not think that a mother who purposely keeps a child from the
father deserves a flipping penny whe she finally proves paternity.
IF she is doing because of abuse, she needs to PROVE it!! But the
system doesn't care about anything except the almighty dollar. To
heck with a child's need to have 2 parents--only money matters.



** Isn't that the way the world is with EVERYTHING? Sad I know, but
it's the truth. Money is the most important thing to most ppl
anymore. Not values.. and certainly not morals.

So let's get this down to your personal opinion--not that it is any
more important than mine or any other individual's when it comes to
the
child support system. Do you, personally, think that a woman should
be
able to have a child without informing the father, raise that child
for
12 years, then demand 12 years of back child support and ongoing
support? (Barring any sort of abuse, of course) Do you think this is
right?


**No I don't. As I said it was her choice to keep the father away
from
the child not his. Whay should he have to pay for her choice? Now,
if
the mother is prepared to allow the father visitation and allow him to
get to know his child. I think from that point on out he should pay
child support. Hard to pay for something you didn't even know you had.

Yes, that's my take on it also. Some places, however, still charge a
man
back to the birth of the child, no matter what. Other places have
recognized the unfairness of using a man as a savings account without
his
knowledge, and limit the amount of time they charge for. Some have
refused to charge any arrearages at all in such situations.

My state treats retroactive CS differently for never married parents
versus married/separated/divorced parents. The court has no authority
to
set retroactive CS during a marriage dissolution and can only provide
for
the future care and maintenance of a child. But in never married cases
the court has the authority to set past and future CS as well as order
payments for pre-natal, childbirth, and post-natal care of a child.

I know--weird what they expect from unmarried fathers.

Never married fathers are penalized for never being married, but never
married mothers are REWARDED for never being married. Only in
AmeriKa............

Fortunately, in our
situation, they only went back 2 years. But the child wasn't born there,
either.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...
** Well, I had to leave my son's father. He was very abusive
to
me and was starting on our son. I could handle it, but you
don't beat on a 1 1/2 year old because he won't stop crying
because he doesn't want a nap. He had anxiety issues and was
being medicated for about a month. Then he quit. He promised
month after month to go back but it never happened. AFter 3
months State troppers knock on my door because my husband was
caught on surveillance cameras stealing over 1200.00 for his
job.( he worked retail). I couldn't handle anymore. I gave him
an easy choice. He could forego paying support by just
signing
him totally over to me. He refused. He paid child support.
He
couldn't keep a job,and was constantly behind on his payments.
In over 4 years, he never once tried to see his son yet would
tell me that the name is what's important ( mind you the child
knows nothing about the family name since his father never saw
him) and that he still loves him. I never will understand my
ex-husbands philosophy on all of this. But Alas, I have
remarried and Next month we all go downtown to swear in front
of
the judge that my husband is adopting my son. his father
finally.. (after 7 years) realizes that our son is better off
having a father who does things with him and takes care of
him.
So I guess my story DOES have a happy ending

I'm very glad to hear that a man who had no wish to be a father
stepped aside so that the man who wants to be the father is
free
to raise your child with you. It's too bad it took the bio dad
so long to let go. If any child support arrearages have
accrued,
will you be signing a letter of satisfaction saying that they
are
paid in full?

I wish you and your family the very best, April. It sounds
like
things are working out well for all of you.
** to tell you the truth, he paid up all his back arrears and is
also paying ofor the adoption. Lawyer's idea and I agree... on
one hand he could be paying the next 9 years of child support or
the $1200.00 for the adoption.. He opted for the latter.

Wait a second. You have a legal CS obligation too. How much
have
you been required to pay all along? Why are you so willing to
sell
out your own CS obligation? Do you really think accepting $1200
lets you off the hook to support your child?

I don't quite understand what you are asking, Bob. April said her
child's bio father never wanted anything to do with the child, but
refused to sign away his rights. This last year, he said he would
sign away his rights and let April's husband, who has been raising
the child along with April, adopt him. He has agreed to pay the
$1200 adoption fee. Then he doesn't have to pay child support for
9
more years for a child he has never even attempted to have a
relationship with. April has been doing her part to support her
son
all along.

Well she has had a pretty sweet deal. She gets CS from the child's
father (he paid all arrears, right?), has a current husband helping
to support her kid, and she doesn't even acknowledge she had any CS
obligation of her own. Her comments have indicated three adults
have
been paying to support this kid, but I suspect the people
supporting
the kid are the two men.

I'm asking her how much she was ordered to pay and if she paid it.
If she claims to have been providing her portion of support too
then
she has one really well taken care of kid. And the adoption will
reduce the amount of support from three adults to two adults and
make
the kid worse off. I suspect this is just another case where the
CP
mom is shuffling dollars around and claiming she has been paying
her
share of CS with the money she has been getting from two different
men.
** for your information, All of the money I have gotten from the
bio-father has gone into a savings acct for him. The money was for
him and it will remain so. I have worked upwards of 3 jobs at one
time to take care of my son on my own. I have paid ALL medical
bills,
ALL food bills, ALL clothing. 70.00 a week doesn't cover **** when
you
have a chilld. hence why it all went into a bank acct. Perhaps ,
you
sir, should get your ****in facts straight before you go off in
directions you have NO comapss for.

Here are the facts. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the mean CS
award for all custodial mothers is currently $5176 per year. The
average custodial mother has 1.6 children. That means the average CS
award per child is $3235 per year, or $270 per month. Your award of
$70 per week is equal to $303 per month. This money is tax free.
You
have a slightly above average CS award. You acknowledge receiving
100%
of what was owed.

In addition, you are eligible to receive the Income Tax Exemption,
the
Earned Income Credit, any Education Tax Credits, and use at a minimum
Head of Household filing status. These tax savings further subsidize
your costs to raise your child. Making it sound like you don't
receive
enough money to support your son is not believable.
** I NEVER once said that I had a hard time supporting my son.. Not
once. My ex-husband WANTED to pay the CS. I NEVER kept him from
seeing
his son, he , obviously, didn't care to. Are you telling me that
because I had NO problems taking care of my son, that I shouldn't have
taken his father for CS?!?! And BTW: I never did get EIC on my tax
returns.. I made too much.

Based on your most recent posts showing the extreme anger and hostility
you feel toward men, and your foul language and aggressive attitude
toward men, I find it normal for your ex-husband to not want to have
any
contact with you or your son. No wonder he is willing to take your
deal
to get out of the abuse cycle.

If you are willing to talk the way you have when addressing a total
stranger, it is not a far stretch to assume you put your ex-husband
through some significant verbal abuse. Why would he want to come
around
you and your son to take the abuse? Your son will figure it out in the
long term.
** you take my hostility as a sign to all men? lmao. that's funny. I
take offense to someone oblivious and close minded. That fact right
there
is the decline of our civilization, thank you for being the subject and
showing your true colors. I grow tired of you and your mindless
banter...
go .. away with you.. I desire no more mind numbing ramblings.

Sounds like a paraphrase out of a Women's Studies textbook.

Wouldn't that be like...................... the Feminazi Manifesto?


I salute your ex-husband for running away from your psycho-babble.

"GL Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:16:37 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


Based on your most recent posts showing the extreme anger and hostility
you
feel toward men, and your foul language and aggressive attitude toward
men,
I find it normal for your ex-husband to not want to have any contact with
you or your son. No wonder he is willing to take your deal to get out of
the abuse cycle.

If you are willing to talk the way you have when addressing a total
stranger, it is not a far stretch to assume you put your ex-husband
through
some significant verbal abuse. Why would he want to come around you and
your son to take the abuse? Your son will figure it out in the long
term.

Bad language is just rude, and a sign of a bankrupt mind1

And it is PRECISELY these kinds of minds that are raising a majority of
today's children. Gee, I wonder why the American family is so screwed up?


A jury is 12 individuals who decides who has the best lawyer.
- Mark Twain

"Atalanta arctos" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 19, 12:53 pm, wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:25 am, "teachrmama" wrote:



"Avenger" wrote in message

news:SXBmi.4020$fj5.590@trnddc08...

teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"John Larkin" wrote in
messagenews:n9dl93hmsada667t1sf6pjgvpnqpr1t3hp@4ax .com...
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:46:06 GMT, "Avenger"

wrote:

What probably happened in this case is that he didn't have any
money 20
years ago which is why the bitch didn't go after him before, and
may
have
only made or come into some recently. The sneaky bitch found out
about
it
and in her greed tried to get her hands on it. But why would she
need it
now? The kid is grown, so obviously they survived and had the
money to
survive. Besides, what's a 40 yo bitch doing having a kid anyway
and
ruining
the best years of a man's life when he should be enjoying his
youth.Well
one
good thing about this is at least he won't have to pay the money
and
will
have plenty to spend in prison )

He wouldn't pay 200 a month to help support his own child?

Was there a DNA test? Was none 20 years ago so this Ho may be lying.
In
80%
of these cases the man isn't even the father.

Maybe he didn't have it at the time. Who knows? The best I've
been able
to find out is that they were never married, and that the woman
refused
to let him have a relationship with the child. I haven't been able
to
find out when the order was issued, whether or not it was ongoing
support
from the birth of the child, or support assigned when the child was
15,
and ordered back to the birth of the child, leaving him at the
starting
gate with a staggering arrearage. The most I've found is that the
child
was born sometime in the 80s, maybe. I would certainly like to
know way
more about this story. As the wife of a man-who-
found-out-he-had-a-child-just-before-said-child-turned-13, I can
tell you
that the blow to ones financial well-being is substantial. And my
husband, due to current laws, only had to pay 2 years of instant
arrearages. It used to be that arrearages were assigned back to
the
birth of the child, including pregnancy and birth expenses--well
padded,
of course.

Why would a man have to pay birth expenses lol

Ya got me, but that is tacked nicely onto child support orders! When
the
first "you owe child support" order came in, the arrearages were
staggering,
and included pregnancy and birth expenses. He requested a paternity
test,
got the blood drawn, and she refused to bring the child in for the
test.
After more than a year of trying to force her to do so, the judge
finally
dismissed the case. Several years later, the next demand for child
support
came in (same mom, same kid, different state), he again requested
proof of
paternity and took the blood test. This time mom took the kid in for
the
test, and he was the father. (The child was almost 13 by this time)
But the
law, by this point in time, only permitted arrearages to be
assessestwo
years back from proof of paternity

I don't think there should be any arrearages in that situation
whatsoever.

It's simple. As a mother, if you want child support, then find the
father. It's not that hard, especially given that the government will
use its resources to find him for you. If you choose not to, then you
don't get the support. You shouldn't get to show up 5 years later,
having completely deprived the father of any chance at a relationship
with his child, and then demand full financial support for the whole
time you were keeping the kid from him. And even the woman honestly
doesn't know who the father is, that doesn't change anything. I mean,
if you're so irresponsible that you don't even know who the father of
your children is, and don't figure it out until 5 or 10 years later,
then tough luck.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

I feel like fathers should be able to request receipts and/or an
itemized accounting of how their money is spent to be sure that the
child really is getting the support money and the woman isn't just
using it to get herself some new shoes. Why does the mother get
government agencies to force the father to pay "in the interests of
the child" and then there is absolutely no accounting to make that
she's even serving the interests of the child at all? Seems
completely unfair to me. But I suppose that's another subject.

I agree with you about the timeliness factor.

But the first thing I would have put on my accounting list - to my X -
would have been "babysitting" and "practical nursing care" - in his
absence. Since he did not have any custody of them to speak of (he
was supposed to have then 25% of the time, but wished not to), he
needed (all along) to compensate me for their care. He wanted those
kids as much as I did - and he decided childcare wasn't his gig (at
all). Well, it's hard work. In fact, just the bills for the nursing
care spent on injuries acquired while in his custody (accidents and so
forth) - at the rates that visiting nurses provide for round-the-clock
care would have averaged out to a good chunk of change, annually.

He provided no services to the children. I'm a professional who
charges an hourly rate (so is he). Had I charged him half my hourly
rate (he's still family), he would have had to pay way more in CS than
he did.

In other words - that money isn't about stuff or shoes. It's about a
caretaker cutting down on other sources of money in order to provide
topnotch care for children - at least that's how I see it. A woman
who isn't providing care for the kids shouldn't be using the money to
buy shoes.

But, taxiing the kids to private school, tutoring them from time to
time, taking them to the doctor (the MediVan chsrges $20 one way to go
to the doctor - our daughters went for allergy treatments 2X a week
each - that's $160 per week right there, had he wanted to purchase
that service on the open market).

Or - he could have provided some of those services himself. It was
way, way cheaper to pay me to do it. One view is that he needed to
either care for them half the time - or compensate me for my time for
doing so. For example, I had to have medical treatments myself
(surgery) and had to hire childcare for the kids while I went for
MRI's and X-rays. What my X signed onto - when he married me and when
he said he wanted kids - was supporting me and helping me, the mother
of his kids.

And what did YOU sign onto when you married him?



Fortunately, my X was of the same mind as I was about this - he knew
his limitations in terms of actually being around the tots or caring
for them in the middle of the night - and he knew he'd have had to
hire someone to take them his 25% had he chosen to exercise his
custodial rights. Since he didn't have to pay a penny more (one way
or another) to me, regardless of how many hours I had the kids, it was
a good deal for him. It worked out to minimum wage or less (after
deducting, of course, the kids' share of the rent, utilities,
clothing, etc.) I always felt (just as the CS order stated) that we
were to share those things 50/50 - but it was never he who went and
bought the presents at Christmas time or procured the birthday party
favors or the cake - or any of that. Merely paying half the cost of
getting that stuff is not the point.

A.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

You don't really think she is going to tell her son the savings account
money is from his bio-father, do you?

Of course she is, she's also matching the funds too with the 3 jobs she's
working as she claims she's never had any problems raising her child. And
now with another sucker to marry her and look after her and her child, that
savings account will grow even larger. If she really had a clue, she would
get rid of the savings account and start a mutual stocks portfolio. Oops
can't do that, no more mommy support coming in! LOL