Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

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

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

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...
(edit)


You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before
the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he
WAS
a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume
that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of
abuse or
neglect.

The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father,
Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of children.
In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and the
father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court
will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring
FOR
that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the
same
page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no
legal obligation to let you know you're a father. Secondly, if she
pursues child support for her child, she can go to court to get
support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child. If the newly
named father can show why the child's interests would be better served
a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him.

Of course! The burden ALWAYS rests with the father. But remember, no
matter
how hard you try, you can NOT make the horse drink......

Not so, Chris....here a mother is also responsible for identifying
herself as the mother; the difference is that that mother does so, by
giving birth. The hospital has a ready record of her delivery, and can
easily identify her as the mother. A father is either named on the
BC as the father, or must prove he is the father. After all, the
mother has proven herself as the mother, no?

There are flaws in the public money and CS system that you are ignoring.
Here are a few that have nothing to do with giving birth:

1. A woman can buy a fraudulent birth certificate for a non-existent child
and use it to get money.
2. The system does not require a mother to physically produce the child to
secure money or benefits.
3. Fathers named on birth certificates are not always the biological father
of the child.
4. Mothers can hide the fact a child is deceased to continue getting CS
money.
5. Mothers can collect money for children they give to another person to
raise.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...
(edit)


You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before
the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he
WAS a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of abuse
or
neglect.

The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father,
Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of children.
In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and the
father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court
will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring FOR
that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the same
page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no
legal obligation to let you know you're a father.

How about a moral obligation, Hy? Don't you think a child deserves both
a
mother and a father? Don't you think a man deserves to know he is a
father?

I think moral choices are generally left up to individuals and their
diety of choice, mama. Don't you find that to be the case? In some
cases, a moral choice might be made to alert a prospective father; and
it other cases, not so much. It's relative.

Secondly, if she pursues child support for her child,

How far back do you think child support should be awarded, Hy? A year? 2
years? Back to the birth of the child? What if the mother doesn't name
the
father until the child is 17? Should the father owe 17 years of back
support?

I have no problem with courts awarding support for the life of the
child regardless of when the mother chooses to identify the child.
After all, the child does not stop eating or needing clothing and
shelter until he is identified, and someone has to pay for all that.

Should his current family be financially devastated at the whim of
a woman who was tooo selfish and self centered to even tell the man he
had a
child?

We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice, and
cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example, what if
the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets out, he
wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru that
every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing, shelter,
education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do you
think that someone should be the mother only?

Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she alone bears
*all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent also, then the father
would bear part of the costs. But until the father is identified by the
mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel.


How, pray tell, is that in the best interests of the child? Seems
to me it is only in the best interests of the woman who has made sure
that
both the child and the man's money belong only to her.

Again, it's not a woman's job to alert a man as to the status of his
sperm. A bright man would make sure his sperm is only used in a way
that satisfies his legal needs. His children shouldn't have to pay for
his negligence, and the mother shouldn't have to support the child
alone.

If the mother chooses to be the child's only paernt, then, yes, she *should*
support the child alone. If she wanted the other parent involved, she
should have let him know he was a parent.



she can go to court to get support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child.

Do you really think it is in the best interests of a child to be raised
by a
mother who is so selfish that she robbed her own child of its father?

I think moral issues are best left to individuals and their dieties.
Some children do better to know their other parent; others, not so
much.

Until the mother can return to the father all the years of the child's life
that she kept from him, he should not have to return to her a plugged nickel
of what she clains to have spent on the child.


If the newly named father can show why the child's interests would be
better served
a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him. Courts don't
assume; they simply look at existing facts.

Some of the existing facts--obviously not all.

Like what?

Like the fact that he is a hardworking, taxpaying citizen who is an
excellent father to his other children. Like the fact that he was prevented
by the mother from developing a relationship with his child, thus robbing
the child of a father's love. None of those things are considered.

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

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

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...
(edit)


You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before
the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he
WAS
a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume
that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of
abuse or
neglect.

The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father,
Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of children.
In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and the
father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court
will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring
FOR
that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the
same
page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no
legal obligation to let you know you're a father. Secondly, if she
pursues child support for her child, she can go to court to get
support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child. If the newly
named father can show why the child's interests would be better served
a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him.

Of course! The burden ALWAYS rests with the father. But remember, no
matter
how hard you try, you can NOT make the horse drink......

Not so, Chris....here a mother is also responsible for identifying
herself as the mother; the difference is that that mother does so, by
giving birth. The hospital has a ready record of her delivery, and can
easily identify her as the mother. A father is either named on the
BC as the father, or must prove he is the father. After all, the
mother has proven herself as the mother, no?

Your above statements make it obvious that you did not understand my
message.


Courts don't assume; they simply look at existing facts. If you
don't offer any,
don't expect to change custody arrangements.

How is it in the best interest of the child to keep such child away from
the
father?

It always depends on the case, just as it would for the mother. For
example, a mother who is negligent or abusive is certainly not acting
in the best interests of the child. The same would be true for a
father.

Difference being that it is automatically assumed that the father is a
danger to his own children.


To clarify my previous question, when a child exists without the
father's
knowledge, what are such previous arrangements? Answer: The father was
not
giving the mother one thin dime. Therefore, it is in the best interest
of
the child for such arrangement to continue. In that regard, you are
correct.

The courts don't agree with you regarding support

Then your claim that judges like to maintain what the couple themselves put
into action is false. Consider: If a father "put into action" being with his
child 24/7 prior to the legal proceeding then judges would support such
arrangement, according to YOUR claim. But they don't!

as it has already
been established that children are to be protected by society, and that
if there are parents, support should come from them. So ....the courts
ARE imposing law that came prior to the child's very existence.
As a matter of logic, the parents can't put into action what they don't
know about.

Use your "logic" to explain why it is in the best interest of the child to
be cared for by the mother rather than the father.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...
(edit)


You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before
the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he
WAS a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of abuse
or
neglect.

The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father,
Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of children.
In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and the
father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court
will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring
FOR
that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the
same
page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no
legal obligation to let you know you're a father.

How about a moral obligation, Hy? Don't you think a child deserves both
a
mother and a father? Don't you think a man deserves to know he is a
father?

I think moral choices are generally left up to individuals and their
diety of choice, mama. Don't you find that to be the case? In some
cases, a moral choice might be made to alert a prospective father; and
it other cases, not so much. It's relative.

Nonsense! Morality is absolute.


Secondly, if she pursues child support for her child,

How far back do you think child support should be awarded, Hy? A year?
2
years? Back to the birth of the child? What if the mother doesn't name
the
father until the child is 17? Should the father owe 17 years of back
support?

I have no problem with courts awarding support for the life of the
child regardless of when the mother chooses to identify the child.

Spoken like a true stalinist.

After all, the child does not stop eating or needing clothing and
shelter until he is identified, and someone has to pay for all that.

Yeah, and that someone ought to be the woman who made the SOLE choice to
cause the existence of her child.


Should his current family be financially devastated at the whim of
a woman who was tooo selfish and self centered to even tell the man he
had a
child?

We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice, and
cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example, what if
the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets out, he
wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru that
every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing, shelter,
education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do you
think that someone should be the mother only?

YES!


How, pray tell, is that in the best interests of the child? Seems
to me it is only in the best interests of the woman who has made sure
that
both the child and the man's money belong only to her.

Again, it's not a woman's job to alert a man as to the status of his
sperm. A bright man would make sure his sperm is only used in a way
that satisfies his legal needs.

With all due respect, what the HECK are you talking about?

His children shouldn't have to pay for
his negligence, and the mother shouldn't have to support the child
alone.

Yet she ALONE made the choice to give birth.


she can go to court to get support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child.

Do you really think it is in the best interests of a child to be raised
by a
mother who is so selfish that she robbed her own child of its father?

I think moral issues are best left to individuals and their dieties.
Some children do better to know their other parent; others, not so
much.

Translation: A woman can decide whether or not her child knows their father.
No matter her decision, it is ALWAYS moral. [ I smell a feminazi. ]


If the newly named father can show why the child's interests would be
better served
a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him. Courts don't
assume; they simply look at existing facts.

Some of the existing facts--obviously not all.

Like what?


If you don't offer any, don't expect to change custody arrangements.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:gKcJg.7679$Mz3.7633@fed1read07...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

snip for length


Again, it's not a woman's job to alert a man as to the status of his
sperm. A bright man would make sure his sperm is only used in a way
that satisfies his legal needs.

With all due respect, what the HECK are you talking about?

His children shouldn't have to pay for
his negligence, and the mother shouldn't have to support the child
alone.

Yet she ALONE made the choice to give birth.

AND, Chris, SHE chose to be the ONLY parent, so she should be the ONLY one
to pay for that choice.

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...
(edit)


You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before
the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he
WAS
a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume
that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of
abuse or
neglect.

The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father,
Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of children.
In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and the
father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court
will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring
FOR
that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the
same
page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no
legal obligation to let you know you're a father. Secondly, if she
pursues child support for her child, she can go to court to get
support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child. If the newly
named father can show why the child's interests would be better served
a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him.

Of course! The burden ALWAYS rests with the father. But remember, no
matter
how hard you try, you can NOT make the horse drink......

Not so, Chris....here a mother is also responsible for identifying
herself as the mother; the difference is that that mother does so, by
giving birth. The hospital has a ready record of her delivery, and can
easily identify her as the mother. A father is either named on the
BC as the father, or must prove he is the father. After all, the
mother has proven herself as the mother, no?

There are flaws in the public money and CS system that you are ignoring.
Here are a few that have nothing to do with giving birth:

1. A woman can buy a fraudulent birth certificate for a non-existent child
and use it to get money.
2. The system does not require a mother to physically produce the child to
secure money or benefits.
3. Fathers named on birth certificates are not always the biological father
of the child.
4. Mothers can hide the fact a child is deceased to continue getting CS
money.
5. Mothers can collect money for children they give to another person to
raise.

People break the law all the time; that doesn't mean the laws are bad;
it means the people are misusing them are crooks. :-) I have no
objection at all to making sure there is a child to support. Did you
really think I would? :-) How do your allegations make any difference
at all to women proving they are mothers, by giving birth?

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...
(edit)


You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before
the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he
WAS a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of abuse
or
neglect.

The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father,
Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of children.
In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and the
father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court
will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring FOR
that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the same
page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no
legal obligation to let you know you're a father.

How about a moral obligation, Hy? Don't you think a child deserves both
a
mother and a father? Don't you think a man deserves to know he is a
father?

I think moral choices are generally left up to individuals and their
diety of choice, mama. Don't you find that to be the case? In some
cases, a moral choice might be made to alert a prospective father; and
it other cases, not so much. It's relative.

Secondly, if she pursues child support for her child,

How far back do you think child support should be awarded, Hy? A year? 2
years? Back to the birth of the child? What if the mother doesn't name
the
father until the child is 17? Should the father owe 17 years of back
support?

I have no problem with courts awarding support for the life of the
child regardless of when the mother chooses to identify the child.
After all, the child does not stop eating or needing clothing and
shelter until he is identified, and someone has to pay for all that.

Should his current family be financially devastated at the whim of
a woman who was tooo selfish and self centered to even tell the man he
had a
child?

We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice, and
cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example, what if
the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets out, he
wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru that
every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing, shelter,
education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do you
think that someone should be the mother only?

Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she alone bears
*all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent also, then the father
would bear part of the costs. But until the father is identified by the
mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel.

I don't agree. But that's ok...we need not agree. The courts will
decide.

How, pray tell, is that in the best interests of the child? Seems
to me it is only in the best interests of the woman who has made sure
that both the child and the man's money belong only to her.

Again, it's not a woman's job to alert a man as to the status of his
sperm. A bright man would make sure his sperm is only used in a way
that satisfies his legal needs. His children shouldn't have to pay for
his negligence, and the mother shouldn't have to support the child
alone.

If the mother chooses to be the child's only paernt, then, yes, she *should*
support the child alone. If she wanted the other parent involved, she
should have let him know he was a parent.

Again I don't agree with you and the courts also do not.


she can go to court to get support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child.

Do you really think it is in the best interests of a child to be raised
by a mother who is so selfish that she robbed her own child of its father?

I think moral issues are best left to individuals and their dieties.
Some children do better to know their other parent; others, not so
much.

Until the mother can return to the father all the years of the child's life
that she kept from him, he should not have to return to her a plugged nickel
of what she clains to have spent on the child.


And you are entitled to your opinion on that, and so are judges. :-)


If the newly named father can show why the child's interests would be
better served a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him. Courts don't
assume; they simply look at existing facts.

Some of the existing facts--obviously not all.

Like what?

Like the fact that he is a hardworking, taxpaying citizen who is an
excellent father to his other children. Like the fact that he was prevented
by the mother from developing a relationship with his child, thus robbing
the child of a father's love. None of those things are considered.

Nor should they be. After all, children still need to be supported,
whether or not you had the presence of mind to know what happened to
your own sperm.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...
(edit)


You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP
the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed
before
the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that
he
WAS
a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume
that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of
abuse or
neglect.

The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a
father,
Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of
children.
In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and
the
father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the
court
will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent
caring
FOR
that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the
same
page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no
legal obligation to let you know you're a father. Secondly, if
she
pursues child support for her child, she can go to court to get
support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third,
the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother
has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child. If the newly
named father can show why the child's interests would be better
served
a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him.

Of course! The burden ALWAYS rests with the father. But remember, no
matter
how hard you try, you can NOT make the horse drink......

Not so, Chris....here a mother is also responsible for identifying
herself as the mother; the difference is that that mother does so, by
giving birth. The hospital has a ready record of her delivery, and
can
easily identify her as the mother. A father is either named on the
BC as the father, or must prove he is the father. After all, the
mother has proven herself as the mother, no?

There are flaws in the public money and CS system that you are ignoring.
Here are a few that have nothing to do with giving birth:

1. A woman can buy a fraudulent birth certificate for a non-existent
child
and use it to get money.
2. The system does not require a mother to physically produce the child
to
secure money or benefits.
3. Fathers named on birth certificates are not always the biological
father
of the child.
4. Mothers can hide the fact a child is deceased to continue getting CS
money.
5. Mothers can collect money for children they give to another person
to
raise.

People break the law all the time; that doesn't mean the laws are bad;
it means the people are misusing them are crooks. :-) I have no
objection at all to making sure there is a child to support. Did you
really think I would? :-) How do your allegations make any difference
at all to women proving they are mothers, by giving birth?

Yes. I offered the list to show mothers are not required to show proof they
are mothers as you claimed. If that proof was required the fraudulent
activities I listed above would not ever occur. Your assumption mothers
always tell the truth is widely held, but never seems to play out in family
law matters.

In reality, mothers statements are accepted as factual and no proof is
necessary to back up their claims. On the flip side fathers are expected to
submit to DNA testing, disclose details of their financial situations, and
produce documentation for anything they claim.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...
(edit)


You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before
the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he
WAS a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume
that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of
abuse
or
neglect.

The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father,
Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of
children.
In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and
the
father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court
will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring
FOR
that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the
same
page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no
legal obligation to let you know you're a father.

How about a moral obligation, Hy? Don't you think a child deserves
both
a
mother and a father? Don't you think a man deserves to know he is a
father?

I think moral choices are generally left up to individuals and their
diety of choice, mama. Don't you find that to be the case? In some
cases, a moral choice might be made to alert a prospective father; and
it other cases, not so much. It's relative.

Secondly, if she pursues child support for her child,

How far back do you think child support should be awarded, Hy? A year?
2
years? Back to the birth of the child? What if the mother doesn't name
the
father until the child is 17? Should the father owe 17 years of back
support?

I have no problem with courts awarding support for the life of the
child regardless of when the mother chooses to identify the child.
After all, the child does not stop eating or needing clothing and
shelter until he is identified, and someone has to pay for all that.

Should his current family be financially devastated at the whim of
a woman who was tooo selfish and self centered to even tell the man he
had a
child?

We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice, and
cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example, what if
the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets out, he
wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru that
every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing, shelter,
education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do you
think that someone should be the mother only?

Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she alone
bears
*all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent also, then the
father
would bear part of the costs. But until the father is identified by the
mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel.


How, pray tell, is that in the best interests of the child? Seems
to me it is only in the best interests of the woman who has made sure
that
both the child and the man's money belong only to her.

Again, it's not a woman's job to alert a man as to the status of his
sperm. A bright man would make sure his sperm is only used in a way
that satisfies his legal needs. His children shouldn't have to pay for
his negligence, and the mother shouldn't have to support the child
alone.

If the mother chooses to be the child's only paernt, then, yes, she
*should*
support the child alone. If she wanted the other parent involved, she
should have let him know he was a parent.



she can go to court to get support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child.

Do you really think it is in the best interests of a child to be raised
by a
mother who is so selfish that she robbed her own child of its father?

I think moral issues are best left to individuals and their dieties.
Some children do better to know their other parent; others, not so
much.

Until the mother can return to the father all the years of the child's
life
that she kept from him, he should not have to return to her a plugged
nickel
of what she clains to have spent on the child.

Bear in mind that you are debating someone who lacks the ability to grasp
the concept that ALL responsibilities come bundled with rights.



If the newly named father can show why the child's interests would be
better served
a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him. Courts
don't
assume; they simply look at existing facts.

Some of the existing facts--obviously not all.

Like what?

Like the fact that he is a hardworking, taxpaying citizen who is an
excellent father to his other children. Like the fact that he was
prevented
by the mother from developing a relationship with his child, thus robbing
the child of a father's love. None of those things are considered.

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

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

snip

We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice, and
cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example, what if
the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets out, he
wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru that
every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing, shelter,
education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do you
think that someone should be the mother only?

Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she alone
bears
*all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent also, then the
father
would bear part of the costs. But until the father is identified by the
mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel.

I don't agree. But that's ok...we need not agree. The courts will
decide.

The courts in many states now have laws on the books limiting arrearage
awards to only a short time before the finding of paternity. Some states
even say that child support begins the day paternity is established. So
you're right. The courts will decide.


How, pray tell, is that in the best interests of the child? Seems
to me it is only in the best interests of the woman who has made sure
that both the child and the man's money belong only to her.

Again, it's not a woman's job to alert a man as to the status of his
sperm. A bright man would make sure his sperm is only used in a way
that satisfies his legal needs. His children shouldn't have to pay for
his negligence, and the mother shouldn't have to support the child
alone.

If the mother chooses to be the child's only paernt, then, yes, she
*should*
support the child alone. If she wanted the other parent involved, she
should have let him know he was a parent.

Again I don't agree with you and the courts also do not.

Well, actually, many courts do agree with me.



she can go to court to get support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child.

Do you really think it is in the best interests of a child to be
raised
by a mother who is so selfish that she robbed her own child of its
father?

I think moral issues are best left to individuals and their dieties.
Some children do better to know their other parent; others, not so
much.

Until the mother can return to the father all the years of the child's
life
that she kept from him, he should not have to return to her a plugged
nickel
of what she clains to have spent on the child.


And you are entitled to your opinion on that, and so are judges. :-)

Yes--fortunately, they have begun to recognize the scam women pull leaving
men on the hook for $$$$$ when they don't even know they are fathers.



If the newly named father can show why the child's interests would be
better served a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him.
Courts don't
assume; they simply look at existing facts.

Some of the existing facts--obviously not all.

Like what?

Like the fact that he is a hardworking, taxpaying citizen who is an
excellent father to his other children. Like the fact that he was
prevented
by the mother from developing a relationship with his child, thus robbing
the child of a father's love. None of those things are considered.

Nor should they be. After all, children still need to be supported,
whether or not you had the presence of mind to know what happened to
your own sperm.

Fortunately, the courts are disagreeing with you more and more, Hy. =c)