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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:40:44 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote:
Yawn So you're an idiot due to oxygen deprivation. Thanks for the confirmation. If only women were held to that standard. So you hate women and want to try to blame them for not managing _paternities_. You're not merely misogynist, but stupid. On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:49:20 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote: Yet another clueless boob. You must be, if you can't even understand that responsible adults don't have kids they can't afford to raise. On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote: ... does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by their methods ... Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own children to suffer. You can't control yourself. ... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED as paid on time ... If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem' a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment. Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary partner shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:27:56 GMT, "Gini" wrote:
Umm...It was the mother (with assistance of the state) whose methods caused She raped a man and forbade his use of birth control? Oh, do tell. On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:40:44 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote: Yawn So you're an idiot due to oxygen deprivation. Thanks for the confirmation. If only women were held to that standard. So you hate women and want to try to blame them for not managing _paternities_. You're not merely misogynist, but stupid. On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:49:20 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote: Yet another clueless boob. You must be, if you can't even understand that responsible adults don't have kids they can't afford to raise. On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote: ... does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by their methods ... Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own children to suffer. You can't control yourself. ... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED as paid on time ... If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem' a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment. Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary partner shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Police: Man faked death to avoid child support
P. Fritz wrote: You are confusing support with the transfer of wealth at the end of a gun......there is a big difference. Really? And how do you propose that custodial parents get support payments if their spouses refuse to pay? Why should those kids suffer? Actually, allowing the mother to have custody in the first place greatly increases the risk of the child ending up in jail, on drugs, a high school drop out, and or unwed and pregnant. Cite, please. Actually, it is women that are not mature enough to cope with the responsibilities that come with their sole and unilateral choices. Oh yeah, and it's the woman's fault when the guy spots some skinny girl in a bar and takes off with her? There are men who are to blame for some cases, and women to blame in others. Don't take it out on the kids. In the future, if you are unable to accept the responsibility of paying for a kid...I suggest you keep your dick in your pants. Typical feminitwit claptrap. Sex can result in pregnancy, even when using birth control. I thought it was fairly obvious that if you never want to have to pay for child support, you should avoid sex unless you (or your partner) has been "fixed." |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em
* US * wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:27:56 GMT, "Gini" wrote: Umm...It was the mother (with assistance of the state) whose methods caused She raped a man and forbade his use of birth control? === My apologies. I assumed you had the comprehension level of an adult. === |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em
* US * wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:40:44 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote: Yawn So you're an idiot due to oxygen deprivation. Thanks for the confirmation. I hear better retorts from the juior high kids. If only women were held to that standard. So you hate women and want to try to blame them for not managing _paternities_. Nice leap, to bad you missed. So explain why women should not be responsible for their sole and unilateral choices. You're not merely misogynist, but stupid. BWAHAHAHHAHA. You might look in the mirror for a picture of stupidity. On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:49:20 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote: Yet another clueless boob. You must be, if you can't even understand that responsible adults don't have kids they can't afford to raise. On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote: ... does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by their methods ... Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own children to suffer. You can't control yourself. ... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED as paid on time ... If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem' a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment. Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary partner shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Police: Man faked death to avoid child support
"Galileo" wrote in message ups.com... teachrmama wrote: 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. That seems relatively fair. 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? Proof that they are? Cite, please. === G Apparently you are unaware how child support is calculated. "Proof" is in the child support tables that require the non custodial parent to give the custodial parent a percentage of his income regardless of how many dollars that is and regardless of the child's basic needs. No other parent--custodial or parents in intact relationships, are required to spend a percentage of their income on their children. These parents are not subject to any state scrutiny or mandate of support--They are simply required to sustain the child's basic needs. Can you imagine the uproar if the government decided to make *all* parents spend a set percentage of their income on their children and tossed them in jail for noncompliance (violating the order)? Yet, that is precisely what the government does to noncustodial parents. The real kicker is that while the NCP is mandatd to pay the support, the CP is not required to spend the money on the child(ren) at all, so long as their basic needs are met. === |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Police: Man faked death to avoid child support
Gini wrote: "Galileo" wrote in message ups.com... teachrmama wrote: 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. That seems relatively fair. 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? Proof that they are? Cite, please. === G Apparently you are unaware how child support is calculated. "Proof" is in the child support tables that require the non custodial parent to give the custodial parent a percentage of his income regardless of how many dollars that is and regardless of the child's basic needs. No other parent--custodial or parents in intact relationships, are required to spend a percentage of their income on their children. These parents are not subject to any state scrutiny or mandate of support--They are simply required to sustain the child's basic needs. Can you imagine the uproar if the government decided to make *all* parents spend a set percentage of their income on their children and tossed them in jail for noncompliance (violating the order)? Yet, that is precisely what the government does to noncustodial parents. The real kicker is that while the NCP is mandatd to pay the support, the CP is not required to spend the money on the child(ren) at all, so long as their basic needs are met. === Equal protection under the law? Only when it's convenient, or so it seems. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Police: Man faked death to avoid child support
"Scott S" wrote in message oups.com... Gini wrote: "Galileo" wrote TM (I think)wrote 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? Proof that they are? Cite, please. === G Apparently you are unaware how child support is calculated. "Proof" is in the child support tables that require the non custodial parent to give the custodial parent a percentage of his income regardless of how many dollars that is and regardless of the child's basic needs. No other parent--custodial or parents in intact relationships, are required to spend a percentage of their income on their children. These parents are not subject to any state scrutiny or mandate of support--They are simply required to sustain the child's basic needs. Can you imagine the uproar if the government decided to make *all* parents spend a set percentage of their income on their children and tossed them in jail for noncompliance (violating the order)? Yet, that is precisely what the government does to noncustodial parents. The real kicker is that while the NCP is mandatd to pay the support, the CP is not required to spend the money on the child(ren) at all, so long as their basic needs are met. === Equal protection under the law? Only when it's convenient, or so it seems. === The state wiggles around the Constitution by claiming that children of divorce have a higher (compelling) need than children in intact families. However, the state has never explained just what that higher level of need is or how it is justified. Curiously, if these children have a more compelling need, it seems the state would require the CP to account for how the support is spent and provide evidence that she is spending *her* percentage share on the kids as well. Doesn't happen. Too, it simply is not politically correct to defend, support or protect men (and until men become a collected force at the ballot box, little will change). === |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Police: Man faked death to avoid child support
"Galileo" wrote in message oups.com... P. Fritz wrote: You are confusing support with the transfer of wealth at the end of a gun......there is a big difference. Really? And how do you propose that custodial parents get support payments if their spouses refuse to pay? Why should those kids suffer? Actually, allowing the mother to have custody in the first place greatly increases the risk of the child ending up in jail, on drugs, a high school drop out, and or unwed and pregnant. Cite, please. Here's a few cites to keep you busy for a few minutes. Enjoy, Phil #3 * As fathers have been excluded from their children's lives, with the marriage rate falling and the divorce rate rising, SAT scores have fallen to all-time lows while teen births and the crime rate have exploded. The divorce rate, teen birth rate, and the crime rate each doubled between 1975 and 1990. SAT scores fell in 1975 and then dipped below 900 for the first time in 1980. They have remained at that low level. ["Index of Leading Indicators." Washington Times. March 16, 1994.] * Subsequently, unwed pregnancy and childbirth have become a "job" for too many women. In 1960, only 15% of teen births occurred outside of marriage, in 1991, 69% occurred outside of marriage. More than 25% of all births are to unwed mothers. The failure rate among users of contraception is approximately twice as high among "poor" women as among "non-poor" women. ["Trends in Teenage Fertility", pg. 26. Child Trends, Inc., May 4, 1994.] * Teenage pregnancy rates reflect this trend. Data compiled by Child Trends, Inc. indicate that 18% of teen pregnancies resulted from a decision by the mother to become pregnant, 40% resulted from the mothers' ambivalence toward pregnancy, and 42% of teen pregnancies were terminated (abortion). [Facts at a Glance, pg. 2. Child Trends, Inc., January 1994] * "Ambivalent teens were just a likely to have a baby during the next two years as teens who unequivocally wanted a child. ["Trends in Childrearing and Implications for Reform", State-Federal Assembly, National Conference on State Legislatures. Presentation by Child Trends, Inc., May 4, 1994.] * Children who grow up without a father present, even when adjustments are made for income, are 75% more likely to need professional assistance for emotional problems, twice as likely to repeat a grade of school, and more likely to suffer a wide variety of other disorders including anxiety, peer conflict, and hyperactivity. [National Center for Health Statistics, June 1991 study of 17,100 children in various family structures. Children living with a mother and step-father fared worse on most indicators.] * "One clear message from the accumulated divorce research is that children profit by continued exposure to both parents" [Visitation and the Noncustodial Father - Mary Ann P. Koch, Carol R. Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 1984] * "Children who were able to maintain post-divorce relationships with both parents were better able to adjust to the divorce." [Visitation and the Noncustodial Father - Mary Ann P. Koch, Carol R. Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 1984] * "The continuing involvement of divorced fathers in families where mothers maintain physical custody has become recognized as an important mediating factor in the adjustment and well-being of children of divorce." [The Effect of the Post Divorce Relationship on Paternal Involvement: A Longitudinal Analysis - Constance R. Ahrons, Ph.D., and Richard B. Miller, Ph.D., American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63, No. 3, July 1993] * "Children recover more rapidly from the emotional trauma of parents' separation when they maintain close ties with their fathers." [Family Ties after Divorce: The Relationship Between Visiting and Paying Support - Judith A. Seltzer, Nora Shaeffer, Hong-wen Charing, University of Wisconsin, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, No. 4, November 1989.] * "Adolescents who reported closer relationships with their non custodial fathers were assessed as displaying fewer internalizing problems." [Interparental Conflict, Relationship with the Noncustodial Father, and Adolescent Post-Divorced Adjustment - Gene Brody and Rex Forehand, University of Georgia, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 2, April - June 1990] * "Fathers economic and social involvement with children diminishes some of the negative consequences of living with a single mother" [Family Ties after Divorce: The Relationship Between Visiting and Paying Support - Judith A. Seltzer, Nora Shaeffer, Hong-wen Charing, University of Wisconsin, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, No. 4, November 1989] * "When both parents share the social and economic responsibilities of child care, children appear to adapt better to their changed living arrangements than when mothers bear these responsibilities alone." [Relationships between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father's Role after Separation - Judith A. Seltzer, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, No. 1, February 1991] * "Fathers have much to offer their adolescent children in many areas, including their career development, moral development, and sex role identification." [Increasing Our Understanding of Fathers Who Have Infrequent Contact With Their Children - James R. Dudley, Professor, University North Carolina, under a grant from Temple University, Family Relations, Vol . 40, No. 3, July 1991 * "Fathers who spend time with their children teach them values." [Relationships between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father's Role after Separation - Judith A. Seltzer, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, No. 1, February 1991 * "Fathers and children who maintain close touch through visiting communicate regularly in other ways as well." [Relationships between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father's Role after Separation - Judith A. Seltzer, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, No. 1, February 1991 * "Frequent contact with the father is associated with positive adjustment of the children." [The Effect of the Post Divorce Relationship on Paternal Involvement: A Longitudinal Analysis - Constance R. Ahrons, Ph.D., and Richard B. Miller, Ph.D., American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63, No. 3, July 1993] * "Fathers play a significant role in terms of adolescent functioning" [The Role of Paternal Variables in Divorced and Married Families - Amanda Thomas and Rex Forehand, American Journal of Othopsychiatry, Vol. 63, No. 1, January 1993] * "Males who reported high levels of inter-parental conflict and a good relationship with their fathers were perceived [by their teachers] to have fewer internalizing problems. A similar set of results emerged for the female adolescents" [Interparental Conflict, Relationship with the Noncustodial Father, and Adolescent Post-Divorced Adjustment - Gene Brody and Rex Forehand, University of Georgia, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 2, April - June 1990] * "Significant correlations were found between the father's reports of positive relationships with their adolescent offspring and teacher reports of less anxiety/withdrawal on the part of the adolescents." [The Role of Paternal Variables in Divorced and Married Families - Amanda Thomas and Rex Forehand, American Journal of Othopsychiatry, Vol. 63, No. 1, January 1993] Actually, it is women that are not mature enough to cope with the responsibilities that come with their sole and unilateral choices. Oh yeah, and it's the woman's fault when the guy spots some skinny girl in a bar and takes off with her? There are men who are to blame for some cases, and women to blame in others. Don't take it out on the kids. In the future, if you are unable to accept the responsibility of paying for a kid...I suggest you keep your dick in your pants. Typical feminitwit claptrap. Sex can result in pregnancy, even when using birth control. I thought it was fairly obvious that if you never want to have to pay for child support, you should avoid sex unless you (or your partner) has been "fixed." |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Police: Man faked death to avoid child support
"Gini" wrote in message news:09dBf.15100$ur3.12413@trndny07... "Scott S" wrote in message oups.com... Gini wrote: "Galileo" wrote TM (I think)wrote 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? Proof that they are? Cite, please. === G Apparently you are unaware how child support is calculated. "Proof" is in the child support tables that require the non custodial parent to give the custodial parent a percentage of his income regardless of how many dollars that is and regardless of the child's basic needs. No other parent--custodial or parents in intact relationships, are required to spend a percentage of their income on their children. These parents are not subject to any state scrutiny or mandate of support--They are simply required to sustain the child's basic needs. Can you imagine the uproar if the government decided to make *all* parents spend a set percentage of their income on their children and tossed them in jail for noncompliance (violating the order)? Yet, that is precisely what the government does to noncustodial parents. The real kicker is that while the NCP is mandatd to pay the support, the CP is not required to spend the money on the child(ren) at all, so long as their basic needs are met. === Equal protection under the law? Only when it's convenient, or so it seems. === The state wiggles around the Constitution by claiming that children of divorce have a higher (compelling) need than children in intact families. However, the state has never explained just what that higher level of need is or how it is justified. Curiously, if these children have a more compelling need, it seems the state would require the CP to account for how the support is spent and provide evidence that she is spending *her* percentage share on the kids as well. Doesn't happen. Too, it simply is not politically correct to defend, support or protect men (and until men become a collected force at the ballot box, little will change). === The wiggling is done through clever uses of language and legal interpretations that are confusing to try to understand. It is my conclusion Appellate and Supreme Courts start with the desired outcome in mind and then go through pretzel logic to justify what they want the outcome to be. In my state the Supreme Court suggests CS law challenges establish that divorced and separated fathers belong to a class different class from other parents, but that treatment does not implicate the equal protection clause unless fathers are a "true class." A "true class" means people who share characteristics that exist apart from the law in question which, of course, they are. And then they rule fathers are really a "pseudo-class" because they are a class created by the challenged law itself. So if I get what they are saying, the CS laws challenged as being unconstitutional are not unconstitutional because the laws exist. You just have to scratch your head in wonderment at how "smart" these baboons in black robes are compared to normal people. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
Sample US Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 28 | January 21st 04 06:23 PM |
So much for the claims about Sweden | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | November 5th 03 06:31 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Spanking | 11 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |