Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"pandora" wrote in message
...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:6dERg.27054$Lb5.12633@edtnps89...
Moon Shyne wrote:

Well......... as long as it's only one gender that can actually BE
pregnant,
you'll never have 100% fairness.

Bull****..."fairness" is achieved quit easily. Simply apply the
predominant concept in Western jurisprudence to family law in exactly
the same way that it is applied in criminal, civil and labour
law...that
predominant concept is "Natural Justice" which, paraphrased, says "no
individual can be held responsible for something over which they
had/have no control"
In this case, since the woman has 100% of the power and authority over
the gestation process, she should "naturally" have 100% of the
responsibility for the consequences of her control of the process. What
this would mean is that the woman would have to *convince* the man to
become/remain involved because she could not force him to be...

And conversely NO man could ever be a father without her express
permission.
Works for me.
Are we done with that now?

So long as not being a father includes not having to pay child support for
a
child he rarely gets to see, and never gets to parent. Either she wants
him
as a partner parent or not at all. That works for me. We'll just see how
many women are willing to forego the $$$ they have counted on.

The biggest problem with all this is that parenting (raising) a child has
ZERO to do with money. The two can exist independently.
Even WORSE, is forcing one parent to hand free cash over to the other
parent. What's up with that?

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:_pPRg.35744$E67.3333@clgrps13...
Hyerdahl wrote:

teachrmama wrote:

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
roups.com...

Actually, it has already been interpreted that women have equal
contractual rights. If you don't think they do, then you prove they
don't. I can't believe you are so daft as to want me to prove women
have equal contractual rights. If they don't, that car dealership down
the street shouldn't sell to women, eh? :-)

Uhm, what does equal contractual rights have to do with her having the
responsibility to inform a man that he is a father? And, please, show
us a
cite--not just another silly opinion.

That's easy. First, there is no law demanding that men devulge the
identity of their sexual partners or co-parents, and there is no law
like that for women either, as equality would tend to demand.

But of course, there is your famous argument about being biologically
"differently situated" to account for the pro-female biases we see in
family court...well Parg/Hyerdahl, that cuts both ways, if being
biologically "differently situated" leads to preferential treatment for
women in many cases, then being biologically "differently situated" must
also lead to greater responsibility for women when that "different
situation" puts them into the situation of having sole knowledge that is
essential to others (the possible fathers of their children)

But don't you know that such biological difference can only apply to rights?
Never mind the responsibility.
That is just as ridiculous as some woman menstruating all over someone's
nice furniture exclaiming "because I am biologically different, I have a
right to do so". Indeed, she has a right to menstruate just as certain as
she has a right give birth; but along with her right comes the
responsibility to wear a rag.


Family law is based on contract law, using tort and constitutional law
as a buffer.

What you mean is that so called "constitutional" law provides an
"excuse" to provide preferential treatment to women where the more
usual, familiar civil and criminal law would tend to hold them to
responsibility for their decisions and actions...

The three combined are how family law courts operate.

Isn't it convenient that the family courts don't have to follow the
normal tenet of US courts to "seek justice"...

Thus, the social contract implied in parenting children demands that
both
parents, when there are two parents, being totally, 100% responsible
for the children they co-create.

The "social contract" has never included a general understanding that
women should be allowed to force men to become parents...that's why
there was never any law *requiring* that a man marry a woman who had
become pregnant. This wasn't much of an issue of course until Stanton &
Anthony etal managed to brow beat legislators into passing anti-abortion
laws. After that it was blatantly unfair that women have the whole
burden of an unwanted pregnancy so legislation was passed to force men
to support the children who could no longer be terminated. Once this
offensive legislation was over turned however, the equally offensive
legislation forcing men to pay for women's decisions should also have
been eliminated.
As Karen DeCrow, president of the National Organization of Women said:
"Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision
to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and
cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of
support.
Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions
about their lives should not expect men to finance their Choice."
and
"If women have the right to choose if they become parents, men
[should] have that right too. There is a connection between legalizing
abortion for women and ending of paternity suits for men. Giving men
their own choices would not deny choices to women. It would only
eliminate their expectation of having those choices financed by men.

Of course, those were in the days when NOW *WAS* an organization that
believed in the ideals of equality and pursued egalitarian objectives...

You really expect her to understand this? Somehow, the woman has a right to
the man's money. Go figure.


...Ken

Hyerdahl wrote:

teachrmama wrote:

She just doesn't want to believe that her beloved child support system would
ever do anything deceptive--or that any man deserves anything other than
pain and punishment.

Here's what I believe about child support. First, that it's up to each
person to make sure he or she KNOWs about any children they co-create.
Secondly, that each parent owes support to a child they co-create.
Third, that people who live in caves should not be too shocked when for
whom the bell tolls, tolls for them. And fourth, that it is not up to
me or the courts to administer punishment to feckless men, but it's a
good thing to make them pay for that which they co-create.

Here's what *I* believe about child support. Unless a man (like a
woman) freely chooses to be a parent by acknowledging and accepting
parental obligations and, thereby gaining absolutely equal and identical
parental rights, he IS NOT a parent and SHOULD NOT be held responsible
for any consequences arising from the exercise of the MOTHER's sovereign
rights and authority.
Since women are "differently situated" it is right and appropriate that
they have final and sovereign authority over the gestation process
however BECAUSE they have sole authority, unless they convince the
father to acknowledge and accept his role as a parent, she SHOULD HAVE
100% responsibility for the consequences arising from HER decision to
gestate.
Also, it has been shown time and time again that, except in the most
unusual circumstances, it is absolutely in the best interests of a child
to know and have a solid relationship with their father. Since women ARE
"differently situated", they are the ONLY ones who have both the ability
and right to know the state of their health, fertility and gestation.
Consequently, in the best interests of their child to be, they have a
obligation to disclose a pregnancy to the father. If she is is uncertain
who the father is she has an obligation to inform ALL of her (male) sex
partners who could be the father, in an attempt discern WHO the father
actually is.
That's what *I* believe about child support...

....Ken

pandora wrote:

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

teachrmama wrote:

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:MjXQg.20041$KA6.2326@clgrps12...

Hyerdahl wrote:

teachrmama wrote:


(edit)

(edit)

She just doesn't want to believe that her beloved child support system

would

ever do anything deceptive--or that any man deserves anything other than
pain and punishment.

Here's what I believe about child support. First, that it's up to each
person to make sure he or she KNOWs about any children they co-create.
Secondly, that each parent owes support to a child they co-create.
Third, that people who live in caves should not be too shocked when for
whom the bell tolls, tolls for them. And fourth, that it is not up to
me or the courts to administer punishment to feckless men, but it's a
good thing to make them pay for that which they co-create.


I agree to all of the above.

Quelle suprise !

It couldn't be any clearer.

I agree, it couldn't be any clearer that this is blatantly biases
against men and completely fails to meet the constitutional test of
"Equal Treatment" AND completely fails to provide a man with ANY
justice, natural or otherwise...

I don't know what it is that some people would like to see happen.

Then you haven't been listening...what most people on this NG want to
see is men treated equally and to be provided with a mechanism to
abrogate unwanted parental obligations which is equivalent to those
provided to women...is THAT clear enough ?

To NOT be responsible for child support to children they co-create?

I agree 100% than a man who freely agrees to accept parental
obligations *IS* so obligated until the child is an adult OR until the
child, with his free permission, is given up for adoption to a suitable
home...otherwise no dice...women should NOT be able to force unwanted
parental obligations onto a woman any more than he can force unwanted
parental obligations onto her...

Is that really a reasonable expectation in our society?

Yes, Marg, *I* think that it is. I think that the vast majority of
people would support C4M if feminists and right wing religious fanatics
would stop lying and obfuscating and confusing the issue...

Just WHO would be expected to pay for their support then?

How about the woman who decides, against the wishes of the father, to
have the child anyway ?

The rest of us? Why should we?

We shouldn't have to...place the burden where it belongs...upon the one
who decided to have the child. If she is unable to properly support the
child, make the child a ward of the state and seek adoptive parents who
*are* capable of providing proper support...

Oh, now and then, we get stuck with paying for some child that neither
parent can afford to support, but do we really want to encourage more
of that irresponsible behavior?

Absolutely not...which is why women who *chose* to gestate when they
are unable to support their children should lose those children to
adoptive parents who CAN support them...

sniped...patting self on back

But fathers, in particular, don't get a get out of being a parent card just
for playing with sex.

I have absolutely no sympathy for fathers who deliberately abandon
children who they have agree to parent...men who are forced unwillingly
to support the choices and decisions and actions of an irresponsible
women are a different matter altogether...

....Ken

pandora wrote:

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:6dERg.27054$Lb5.12633@edtnps89...

Moon Shyne wrote:


Well......... as long as it's only one gender that can actually BE

pregnant,

you'll never have 100% fairness.

Bull****..."fairness" is achieved quit easily. Simply apply the
predominant concept in Western jurisprudence to family law in exactly
the same way that it is applied in criminal, civil and labour law...that
predominant concept is "Natural Justice" which, paraphrased, says "no
individual can be held responsible for something over which they
had/have no control"
In this case, since the woman has 100% of the power and authority over
the gestation process, she should "naturally" have 100% of the
responsibility for the consequences of her control of the process. What
this would mean is that the woman would have to *convince* the man to
become/remain involved because she could not force him to be...


And conversely NO man could ever be a father without her express permission.

Well Marg, since women can unilaterally chose to terminate a pregnancy
for any reason...or for no reason...that is pretty much the case now so
adding protection to prevent him being *FORCED* to be a father against
his will can ONLY be an improvement for men...

Works for me.

Works for me to...

Are we done with that now?

With you, sure...but I have to point out that this *is* a rather large
deviation from what you've written in other posts on this very same
thread...today...you seem to change your attitude with the direction of
the wind :-)

....Ken

"pandora" wrote
"Gini" wrote
...................
==
Well, there is that nasty little *superior* rights in family court ;-).

What superior rights?
==
Mother preference for custody/ Lack of accountibility for child support
spending.
Failing to consider the custodial parent's income on CS awards as a
percentage of NCP's
income. Allowing mothers to abort/abandon children without financial
responsibility
while denying fathers the option to walk away. Failing to consider the NCP's
basic needs
while determining "available income" for child support awards. Attempting to
maintain custodial
parent's standard of living post divorce while failing to consider the NCP's
decreased standard
of living. Failing to take into account the NCP's financial needs when the
children are in his household.
Relegating fathers as visitors in the child's life rather than 50/50 custody
and co-parenting. Allowing
mothers a lower standard of proof for all things "in the best interest of
children." Accepting a CP's abuse
accusations without any evidence that abuse has occured.
........................................
None that I've heard of.
==
You should be embarrassed about your profound lack of awareness.

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ken Chaddock wrote:
Moon Shyne wrote:

Well......... as long as it's only one gender that can actually BE
pregnant,
you'll never have 100% fairness.

Bull****..."fairness" is achieved quit easily. Simply apply the
predominant concept in Western jurisprudence to family law in exactly
the same way that it is applied in criminal, civil and labour law...that
predominant concept is "Natural Justice" which, paraphrased, says "no
individual can be held responsible for something over which they
had/have no control"

You must be a Clarence Thomas devotee. :-) He's stupid too. In any
event individuals are responsible all the time for outcomes that are
beyond their CURRENT control.

Uhuh. Just like if you didn't manufacture the gun, you could not have
wholesaled it to the dealer, the dealer could not have sold it to the consumer, and the
burglar could not have stolen it and used it to kill someone. Therefore, Mr.
Manufacturer, YOU are responsible for the murder. The kneebone is connected
to the shin bone..............

But that's not so, dear. Gun manufacturers are NOT responsible for
murder, while any gun manufacturer with a child having his DNA is still
a father. You see proximate cause is not an issue here grasshopper.

Men, of course, have control over their
sperm and it is up to men when they DECIDE to give that up. Once they
have passed the burden onto someone else, they don't control it but are
still responsible for setting it in motion. And let's face it fellas,
women have NO DUTY to abort your little parasite.

Aren't you glad that your mother didn't abort you when YOU were a little
parasite?

Indeed, and so is my mother. But that doesn't mean she should not have
a right to choose, eh?


In this case, since the woman has 100% of the power and authority over
the gestation process, she should "naturally" have 100% of the
responsibility for the consequences of her control of the process.

Once again, without the sperm the ova is not fertilized, and once men
pass that BURDEN onto women, they don't get to avoid consequences, just
because they don't control gestation. Doctors know that. Priests know
that, and yes....Virginia....JUDGES know that.
It's not quite the same as a Rube Goldberg cartoon here; we can follow
the harm back to the man's CHOICE to inseminate.

What this would mean is that the woman would have to *convince* the
man to become/remain involved because she could not force him to be...

I can understand why you'd want that; it's the only way you would ever
get a woman to agree to stay with you. But, you'd have to rape and
impregnate her first, Ken.


...Ken

Ken Chaddock wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:

teachrmama wrote:

She just doesn't want to believe that her beloved child support system would
ever do anything deceptive--or that any man deserves anything other than
pain and punishment.

Here's what I believe about child support. First, that it's up to each
person to make sure he or she KNOWs about any children they co-create.
Secondly, that each parent owes support to a child they co-create.
Third, that people who live in caves should not be too shocked when for
whom the bell tolls, tolls for them. And fourth, that it is not up to
me or the courts to administer punishment to feckless men, but it's a
good thing to make them pay for that which they co-create.

Here's what *I* believe about child support. Unless a man (like a
woman) freely chooses to be a parent by acknowledging and accepting
parental obligations and, thereby gaining absolutely equal and identical
parental rights, he IS NOT a parent and SHOULD NOT be held responsible
for any consequences arising from the exercise of the MOTHER's sovereign
rights and authority.

When a woman and man RISK becoming parents they don't get to wish for
other things that deny parenthood. :-) Men don't get to walk away
just becasue they risked and were caught. How foolish to beleive that
way.

Since women are "differently situated" it is right and appropriate that
they have final and sovereign authority over the gestation process
however BECAUSE they have sole authority, unless they convince the
father to acknowledge and accept his role as a parent, she SHOULD HAVE
100% responsibility for the consequences arising from HER decision to
gestate.

ONce a man has passed the burden to the woman he cannot force her to
either gestate or deliver; it is now her burden and her choice. Nor
can a man take away her rights under the social contract. That he
cannot affect her decision, does not mean he did not already choose to
risk. Tough noogies.

Also, it has been shown time and time again that, except in the most
unusual circumstances, it is absolutely in the best interests of a child
to know and have a solid relationship with their father.

Not true. What has been shown is that the more people a child has to
love them the better for that child. There is no study that shows the
effects of two people, not the parents. And there is no study that has
been able to eliminate the effects of poverty.
So, now you have nothing there. You never did, really, since the govt.
cannot promise a child...even one parent....let alone two.

Since women ARE "differently situated", they are the ONLY ones who
have both the ability and right to know the state of their health,
fertility and gestation.
Consequently, in the best interests of their child to be, they have a
obligation to disclose a pregnancy to the father.

Not so. Women retain the rights over their own concience, hearts and
minds and owe nothing to a would be father. No big man in a black robe
can force a woman to divulge any more than he could make a man divulge
HIS sex partners. If you want to live in such a place, go to Iran.

If she is is uncertain who the father is she has an obligation to
inform ALL of her (male) sex partners who could be the father, in an
attempt discern WHO the father
actually is.That's what *I* believe about child support...

Hehehehe.....hie thee to a manery. :-)



...Ken

"Hyerdahl" wrote
......................
No big man in a black robe
can force a woman to divulge any more than he could make a man divulge
HIS sex partners. If you want to live in such a place, go to Iran.
==
Or Florida :-). You keep ignoring Florida :-). That's so funny, the way
you keep pretending there is no law requiring a woman to divulge her
sexual partners. LOL :-)

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
.....................
No big man in a black robe
can force a woman to divulge any more than he could make a man divulge
HIS sex partners. If you want to live in such a place, go to Iran.
==
Or Florida :-). You keep ignoring Florida :-). That's so funny, the way
you keep pretending there is no law requiring a woman to divulge her
sexual partners. LOL :-)

What are you talking about? No man in a black robe in FL can force a
woman to divulge her sex partners either.