Police: Man faked death to avoid child support

"WhyNotMe" wrote in

A decent man wants his child's life to improve as his own situation
improves. Please note, I said a decent man. There are plenty that prefer
to spend that raise on a new car, new honey, new boat, etc...

Yes, and a decent society would allow him to show this on his own instead of
being strong armed by the state.

Seems the American way is to mandate the State's will by force!

"DB" wrote in message . net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

But what do you think about a parent faking their own death to avoid supporting their own children? In your opinion,
is this something that is acceptable?

In a free society, my opinion of another's behavior does not matter nor should personal opinions be used as a basis
for establishing a law to support those opinions.

Interesting non-answer - is there some problem for you simply stating your opinion? Certainly, you seem to do it freely
enough in other posts.

"WhyNotMe" wrote in message
news:gDNAf.749992$xm3.405805@attbi_s21...
teachrmama wrote:

"Galileo" wrote in message
oups.com...

P. Fritz wrote:

A falsely created debt matched by a falsely created death.......not
a
problem to me.

Falsely created debt? So, you approve of men who father children and
contribute nothing to their upbringing or support...increasing the
chance that the mother (and children) will wind up on some sort of
government support? ****ing brilliant. Our tax dollars at work.


IF the father was required to pay for 1/2 the cost to meet the child's
basic
needs (shelter, clothing and food--no luxury items) that would be one
thing.
But requiring a man to pay for anything beyond that is way too
intrusive.
Married couples aren't required to pay for more than the basic needs of
a
child--why should divorced or never married fathers be required to pay
beyond that?



Free hint for the clueless.....college is not a right

Free hint for the comprehension impaired: read the whole paragraph
again. I said "IF" the mother could cover basic necessities on her
own, then maybe the father could start a college fund. What's your
suggestion for another way to contribute to the kids' support?


Even if the mother is able to cover the basic needs of the child,
college is
still not a right, and the father should not be required to start a
college
fund.



Provide proof that he re ran away from his responsibilities and was
not
driven away, and had monetary demand placed on him, literally at the
point
of a gun.


I'm going by the article that was provided. Provide another source
that disproves it. Please.

My parents got divorced when I was 5, and my father paid support to my
mom until I was a teenager...because he knows I am partly his
responsibility. He was (and is) able to take responsibility for his
actions. From the whining we're seeing on this issue, it seems like a
lot of men out there aren't mature enough to cope with that idea.


I think that a lot of the complaints aren't about supporting
children--but
about the intrusiveness of a system that gets to decide how much
children
"need" based on what a man earns. Needs are needs--a child does not
"need"
more every time his father gets a raise.



A decent man wants his child's life to improve as his own situation
improves. Please note, I said a decent man. There are plenty that
prefer to spend that raise on a new car, new honey, new boat, etc...

Keep drinking the koolaid.

"WhyNotMe" wrote in message
news:gDNAf.749992$xm3.405805@attbi_s21...
teachrmama wrote:

"Galileo" wrote in message
oups.com...

P. Fritz wrote:

A falsely created debt matched by a falsely created death.......not a
problem to me.

Falsely created debt? So, you approve of men who father children and
contribute nothing to their upbringing or support...increasing the
chance that the mother (and children) will wind up on some sort of
government support? ****ing brilliant. Our tax dollars at work.


IF the father was required to pay for 1/2 the cost to meet the child's
basic needs (shelter, clothing and food--no luxury items) that would be
one thing. But requiring a man to pay for anything beyond that is way too
intrusive. Married couples aren't required to pay for more than the basic
needs of a child--why should divorced or never married fathers be
required to pay beyond that?



Free hint for the clueless.....college is not a right

Free hint for the comprehension impaired: read the whole paragraph
again. I said "IF" the mother could cover basic necessities on her
own, then maybe the father could start a college fund. What's your
suggestion for another way to contribute to the kids' support?


Even if the mother is able to cover the basic needs of the child, college
is still not a right, and the father should not be required to start a
college fund.



Provide proof that he re ran away from his responsibilities and was
not
driven away, and had monetary demand placed on him, literally at the
point
of a gun.


I'm going by the article that was provided. Provide another source
that disproves it. Please.

My parents got divorced when I was 5, and my father paid support to my
mom until I was a teenager...because he knows I am partly his
responsibility. He was (and is) able to take responsibility for his
actions. From the whining we're seeing on this issue, it seems like a
lot of men out there aren't mature enough to cope with that idea.


I think that a lot of the complaints aren't about supporting
children--but about the intrusiveness of a system that gets to decide how
much children "need" based on what a man earns. Needs are needs--a child
does not "need" more every time his father gets a raise.



A decent man wants his child's life to improve as his own situation
improves. Please note, I said a decent man. There are plenty that prefer
to spend that raise on a new car, new honey, new boat, etc...

If custody were set up as 50/50 by default, a father would have an
opportunity to just that. Even with the primary custody/visitation
situation we see right now, if child support were needs based rather than
percentage-of-income, a father could pay child support and still have money
left to spend on his child--rather than forking it over to mom to spend any
way she pleases, since it is not required that CS be spent on children. I
think that having a child ask "Dad, can I be in football this year?" and
being able to say "Sure, Son, let' go buy the equipment." is a far better
scenario than "Well, Son, I paid you CS for this month and don't have any
money left for extras. Go ask your Mom."

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Interesting non-answer - is there some problem for you simply stating your
opinion? Certainly, you seem to do it freely enough in other posts.

None of us are in any position to judge this man or any other individual and
our opinions should not control other people in a free society. The man was
probably driven to the point where he had to change his name to escape the
Gestapo from ruining his life? If CS rates were more reasonable, people
wouldn't be forced into such drastic actions!

DB wrote:
"WhyNotMe" wrote in


A decent man wants his child's life to improve as his own situation
improves. Please note, I said a decent man. There are plenty that prefer
to spend that raise on a new car, new honey, new boat, etc...


Yes, and a decent society would allow him to show this on his own instead of
being strong armed by the state.

Seems the American way is to mandate the State's will by force!


There are hundreds and thousands of child support cases that are handled
without any state involvement. It is a fact, however, that the vast,
vast majority of non-custodial parents do not pay on time and in full &
the assistance of the government is needed in collecting even the
generally modest amounts that are ordered by courts. The federal CSE
program essntially started in 1975 & was in response to a glaring need
that was not being met by the courts and private attorneys. Prior to
that there was a long, long, long period of time in which the
willingness of (mainly) male non-custodial parents to do the decent
thing was demonstrated pretty conclusively. The taxpayers, by the way,
were left to foot the bill in most instances.

"WhyNotMe" wrote in message
news:6qSAf.508245$084.209812@attbi_s22...
DB wrote:
"WhyNotMe" wrote in


A decent man wants his child's life to improve as his own situation
improves. Please note, I said a decent man. There are plenty that
prefer to spend that raise on a new car, new honey, new boat, etc...


Yes, and a decent society would allow him to show this on his own instead
of being strong armed by the state.

Seems the American way is to mandate the State's will by force!


There are hundreds and thousands of child support cases that are handled
without any state involvement. It is a fact, however, that the vast, vast
majority of non-custodial parents do not pay on time and in full & the
assistance of the government is needed in collecting even the generally
modest amounts that are ordered by courts. The federal CSE program
essntially started in 1975 & was in response to a glaring need that was
not being met by the courts and private attorneys. Prior to that there was
a long, long, long period of time in which the willingness of (mainly)
male non-custodial parents to do the decent thing was demonstrated pretty
conclusively. The taxpayers, by the way, were left to foot the bill in
most instances.

Can you please post a cite for your statements above? Where we live, ALL
court ordered child support is done by wage garnishment. ALL! In my
husband's case (he did not even know about the child until she was almost
13, btw) his wages are garnished on the 1st of each month, as ordered by the
court. However, CSE counts him as delinquent each and every month, even
though the money is paid exactly according to court order. He has NEVER
missed a payment--but statistics count him among the deadbeats. You know
what they say: There are lies, d*mn lies, and statistics. There are not
nearly as many deadbeats out there as you have been led to believe.

"WhyNotMe" wrote in message
news:6qSAf.508245$084.209812@attbi_s22...
DB wrote:
"WhyNotMe" wrote in


A decent man wants his child's life to improve as his own situation
improves. Please note, I said a decent man. There are plenty that
prefer
to spend that raise on a new car, new honey, new boat, etc...


Yes, and a decent society would allow him to show this on his own
instead of
being strong armed by the state.

Seems the American way is to mandate the State's will by force!


There are hundreds and thousands of child support cases that are handled
without any state involvement. It is a fact, however, that the vast,
vast majority of non-custodial parents do not pay on time and in full &
the assistance of the government is needed in collecting even the
generally modest amounts that are ordered by courts. The federal CSE
program essntially started in 1975 & was in response to a glaring need
that was not being met by the courts and private attorneys. Prior to
that there was a long, long, long period of time in which the
willingness of (mainly) male non-custodial parents to do the decent
thing was demonstrated pretty conclusively. The taxpayers, by the way,
were left to foot the bill in most instances.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Step #1 Get you head out of your ass
Step #2 Stop Drinking the Koolaid
Step #3 Learn the facts.

"DB" wrote in message t...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Interesting non-answer - is there some problem for you simply stating your opinion? Certainly, you seem to do it
freely enough in other posts.

None of us are in any position to judge this man or any other individual

Yet you seem to routinely judge women who collect child support.

and
our opinions should not control other people in a free society.

Then your opinions shouldn't change the CS system, either?

The man was
probably driven to the point where he had to change his name to escape the Gestapo from ruining his life?

Geem sounds like a judgement to me - on what do you base this supposition? There was nothing in the article to support
it.

If CS rates were more reasonable, people
wouldn't be forced into such drastic actions!

And more judgements, with no basis?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Docky Wocky" wrote in message
news:ZdFAf.1731$zh2.1487@trnddc01...
Gee. If this dude faked his demise just to get out of child support,
imagine what Osama would fake knowing he not only owes a lot of child
support,

Do they have child support laws over there?


If not, they soon will have with "democracy" shoved up.. er.. down their
throats.
Phil #3