Child Support ?'s

teachrmama wrote:
"Soprano" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Soprano" wrote in message
...
animal05 wrote:

And naturally, all the news coverage was favoring the adoptive parents,
there was a made of TV movie made, which basically portrayed the bio
parents as trailer trash............same old. same old.

Why on earth does the media care about this kind of stuff anyways?
The media likes to be noticed--and to be noticed you have to present
things that the public will react to. It's really quite simple.
Like I said. **** the media. I boycott the media. Its idiotic.

One cannot learn to be discerning if one isolates himself from the world.
The media is one source of informations, as biased as it is. There are many
other sources out there as well.


Right. This newsgroup being one. My fellowship and my church being
another. Government publications being a third.

"Soprano" wrote in

Right. This newsgroup being one. My fellowship and my church being
another. Government publications being a third.

The Nazi's had their informative publications and propaganda reports.

Remember the Iraqi Information officer, all is well. LOLOLOLOL

teachrmama wrote:

"animal05" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:


"animal05" wrote in message
news:ZvudnZDbtqmIsjrbnZ2dnUVZ_tSknZ2d@wideopenw est.com...


Soprano wrote:



teachrmama wrote:



"Chris" wrote in message
...



"teachrmama" wrote in message
...



"Chris" wrote in message
...



"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

That depends on what you mean by "consequences". The mother has
legal
"walk
out" options available to her. The father, ONLY because of his

gender,



is



denied such options.

I was not aware that a mother could choose to walk away from a
child at

any



time. I thought the LAW you are referring to limited the time to
just

a



few



days after birth. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what LAW
you

are



referring to in your comments.

I never said "law". Nonetheless, if a mother can "walk away" prior
to a
few
days after birth, why is a father denied the same EQUAL right?

I have no idea why the law is so unfair as to only let a woman walk
away
during that short time period after birth, Chris. But I don't think
that
unfairness justifies your defending the rights of men to walk away
from
their children any time they want to for any reason, or no reason at
all.

FAIRNESS justifies it.


Women can walk away within one week after birth, so men can walk away
any time during 18 years--just how is that fair, Chris?

BTW, how many more years of servitude are you sentenced to until your
child is grown?




As you well know, I DO agree with you about equitable
post conception choices for both men and women. But after 4

years,



we



are
no longer talking "post comception," except in its broadest

sense.



Being that mothers can unilaterally adopt out their children;
yes

we



are.



Do you think that the mother could have adopted the child out

without



the



father's permission after 4 years of raising the child together,
Chris?

Being that it occurs on a regular basis, you tell me.

Really, Chris? Hmmmm.....I had not EVER heard of such a case.
Perhaps

you



would be so good as to post a few of these cases online for me to
peruse..

And perhaps you can post a few cases of where someone had pasta for
dinner.

No, Chris, I would be satisfied with your posting a few cases where a

mother



adopted out the children in an intact relationship without the
father's
permission.

As I inferred, I don't keep inventory. But that doesn't mean it does
not
take place. It happened with a friend of mine; involving BOTH her
children.
To think that such events don't occur is to be living on another
planet.


I am thinking about the couple who adopted a little girl at birth
because mom and dad had fallen out over her pregnancy. Whe the child
was 3-1/2, bio mom and dad got back together and wanted the child, but
the adoption was legal and mom could not undo it. So DAD asserted that
mom had no right to give his child away, and Dad won in court. The
showed the little girl being put into a van with the total strangers
who were her bio parents, and her adoptive parents crying in the
background ans their child was taken away forever. Dads can get
adoptions overturned if they did not consent to them.


That's sick. What state?

There is far more to the story than that.

The child was placed with the prospective adoptive parents immediately
after her birth (in Iowa) The adoptive parents took the child to
Michigan. The bio father, filed for custody shortly after the birth of
the child, prevailed in court, in the appeals court, and the state
Supreme court. The adoptive parents than made a claim in a Michgan court,
found a "homer" judge to rule in their favor. It was overturned on
appeal, at the state supreme court, and finally in federal court. The
adoptive parents were the ones that were sick, without the bio father's
consent, the adoption was never going to be valid, after losing in one
state (and 2 years of time) they argued they should keep the child
because they had her so long.


The whole point of bringing up the story was that the FATHER's rights had
been ignored in the adoption process,and that the adoption was overturned
because of that. When the story first came out, the fact that the father
filed the complaint shortly after the birth of the child was not made
known--it was far into the story before we found out that the original
petition to overturn the adoption had happened shortly after the child's
birth. It was a very sad story, because the child *was* hurt by being
taken from the only home she had ever known, and it should never have
happened the way it did--the adoptive parents hould not have run after
the original ruling. But it DID serve to firmly establish a father's
right to keep a child that the mother sought to adopt out.

And naturally, all the news coverage was favoring the adoptive parents,
there was a made of TV movie made, which basically portrayed the bio
parents as trailer trash............same old. same old.


I know it did--I watched the TV as the child was put screaming and fighting
into that van and driven away, and felt anger toward the parents who had so
disrupted their child's life. THEN I found out that the father had NOT file
when the dhild was already 3 years old--but had filed when she was a couple
of months old. That changed everything. And the movie wasn't very fair
either.




I followed it for quite a while, it was happening one county away. The
thing that REALLY ****ed me off was that the adotive parents were
essentially getting free legal help from the University of Michigan law
school.......i.e. my tax dollars.