Police: Man faked death to avoid child support

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.

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.

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."

* 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.
===

* 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.

"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.
===

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.

"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).
===

"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."

"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.