A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 19th 09, 08:34 PM posted to alt.child-support
Shadow39
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx


  #2  
Old January 20th 09, 07:54 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.



--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Shadow39" wrote in message
...
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx



Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should pay
"child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they use DNA
to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such DNA doesn't
ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman? Can you say
"double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect back support from the
biological father. Looks like an awful lot of "double" happenin'.....
double children (twins), double dipping (free money from TWO men), and
DOUBLE standards!

The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the twins knew
during the course of the marriage." She also stated: ".... the only father
they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used only to unjustifiably
take money away from a man. Which begs the question: If a child never knew a
"father", does this mean that no one has to pay the woman money?

Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear recognition
(that) the utmost importance in determining cases like this, is the
relationship between the child and the non-biological father, not so much
whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems that "knowing a father" is
a prerequisite before anyone is charged with
child support". Am I wrong?

  #3  
Old January 20th 09, 04:28 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Shadow39" wrote in message
...
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx



Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should
pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they
use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such
DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman?
Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect
back support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of
"double" happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free
money from TWO men), and DOUBLE standards!

The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the
twins knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: "....
the only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used
only to unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the
question: If a child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one
has to pay the woman money?


A good question, Chris.
Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these
women who then proclaim they are "independent".


Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear
recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like
this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological
father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems
that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged
with
child support". Am I wrong?


Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial
relationship to force a man to pay a woman.
Phil #3


  #4  
Old January 21st 09, 04:18 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.



--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Shadow39" wrote in message
...
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx



Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should
pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they
use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such DNA
doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman? Can
you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect back
support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of "double"
happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free money from
TWO men), and DOUBLE standards!

The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the twins
knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: ".... the only
father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used only to
unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the question: If a
child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one has to pay the
woman money?


A good question, Chris.
Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these women
who then proclaim they are "independent".


Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear
recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like this,
is the relationship between the child and the non-biological father, not
so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems that "knowing a
father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged with
child support". Am I wrong?


Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial
relationship to force a man to pay a woman.
Phil #3


Which leads to the NEXT question: If DNA is NOT the determinant factor in
whether or not a man has to pay the woman money, then why do they still use
it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that double standards is the answer; if DNA
convicts him, we use it, if it exonerates him, we DON'T use it. How could I
be so dumb!




  #5  
Old January 21st 09, 06:42 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Shadow39" wrote in message
...
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx



Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should
pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they
use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such
DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman?
Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect back
support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of "double"
happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free money from
TWO men), and DOUBLE standards!

The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the twins
knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: ".... the only
father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used only to
unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the question: If a
child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one has to pay the
woman money?


A good question, Chris.
Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these women
who then proclaim they are "independent".


Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear
recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like this,
is the relationship between the child and the non-biological father, not
so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems that "knowing
a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged with
child support". Am I wrong?


Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial
relationship to force a man to pay a woman.
Phil #3


Which leads to the NEXT question: If DNA is NOT the determinant factor in
whether or not a man has to pay the woman money, then why do they still
use it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that double standards is the answer; if
DNA convicts him, we use it, if it exonerates him, we DON'T use it. How
could I be so dumb!


The real argument is about women and their lack of sexual fidelity in a
martial relationship.

As long as family courts are willing to reward a woman's infidelity by
requiring a former husband to pay her money for her promiscuity the CS
system will be screwed up.

  #6  
Old January 21st 09, 03:50 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to
have custody of such child.
"Shadow39" wrote in message
...
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx



Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man
should pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How
can they use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the
woman if such DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay
money to a woman? Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can
legally collect back support from the biological father. Looks like
an awful lot of "double" happenin'..... double children (twins),
double dipping (free money from TWO men), and DOUBLE standards!

The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the
twins knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated:
".... the only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase
used only to unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs
the question: If a child never knew a "father", does this mean that
no one has to pay the woman money?


A good question, Chris.
Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these
women who then proclaim they are "independent".


Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear
recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like
this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological
father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells."
Seems that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is
charged with
child support". Am I wrong?


Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial
relationship to force a man to pay a woman.
Phil #3


Which leads to the NEXT question: If DNA is NOT the determinant factor
in whether or not a man has to pay the woman money, then why do they
still use it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that double standards is the
answer; if DNA convicts him, we use it, if it exonerates him, we DON'T
use it. How could I be so dumb!


Now you got it.
DNA is important and used only if it supports the desired outcome. This
is true in criminal court at times and civil court all the time.
Phil #3


  #7  
Old January 21st 09, 09:39 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.



--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Shadow39" wrote in message
...
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx



Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should
pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they
use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such
DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman?
Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect back
support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of "double"
happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free money from
TWO men), and DOUBLE standards!

The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the twins
knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: ".... the
only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used only to
unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the question: If a
child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one has to pay the
woman money?

A good question, Chris.
Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these
women who then proclaim they are "independent".


Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear
recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like
this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological
father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems
that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged with
child support". Am I wrong?

Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial
relationship to force a man to pay a woman.
Phil #3


Which leads to the NEXT question: If DNA is NOT the determinant factor in
whether or not a man has to pay the woman money, then why do they still
use it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that double standards is the answer; if
DNA convicts him, we use it, if it exonerates him, we DON'T use it. How
could I be so dumb!


The real argument is about women and their lack of sexual fidelity in a
martial relationship.

As long as family courts are willing to reward a woman's infidelity by
requiring a former husband to pay her money for her promiscuity the CS
system will be screwed up.


The "child support" system by its very nature is screwed up.



  #8  
Old April 2nd 09, 04:26 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Man ordered to continue paying child support after finding out kids aren't his.


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to
have custody of such child.
"Shadow39" wrote in message
...
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx



Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man
should pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How
can they use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the
woman if such DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay
money to a woman? Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can
legally collect back support from the biological father. Looks like
an awful lot of "double" happenin'..... double children (twins),
double dipping (free money from TWO men), and DOUBLE standards!

The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the
twins knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated:
".... the only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase
used only to unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs
the question: If a child never knew a "father", does this mean that
no one has to pay the woman money?


A good question, Chris.
Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these
women who then proclaim they are "independent".


Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear
recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like
this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological
father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells."
Seems that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is
charged with
child support". Am I wrong?


Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial
relationship to force a man to pay a woman.
Phil #3


Which leads to the NEXT question: If DNA is NOT the determinant factor
in whether or not a man has to pay the woman money, then why do they
still use it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that double standards is the
answer; if DNA convicts him, we use it, if it exonerates him, we DON'T
use it. How could I be so dumb!

To go one step farther, many men in prison, some on death row want DNA
evidence tested that may prove their innocence but prosecutors and
judges do all they can to deny it. Many samples have been "lost" and
then there are several cases like former head-chemist Joyce Gilchrist of
Oklahoma City who falsified results to obtain guilty verdicts against
innocent men many times over some of which were involved in capital
cases. The law is not just blind, it's stupid to boot. It relies on
hypocrisy to exist.
Phil #3


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Man ordered to pay $100,000 in back child support John Meyer Child Support 1 January 11th 07 11:03 PM
Gynecologist Ordered to Pay Child Support for failed birth control... [email protected] Child Support 1 December 17th 06 06:06 PM
SC: Man ordered to pay 28-year-old child support bill or go to jail Dusty Child Support 22 January 26th 06 08:44 PM
ME: Man ordered to pay support for child that's not his - after judge rules he doesn't have to pay. Dusty Child Support 12 April 26th 05 11:34 PM
This is one mom who won't be paying any child-support Tracy Child Support 3 August 7th 04 07:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.