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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05... Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name on the birth certificate Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because the child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses. Therefore, there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's quite obvious she is the mother. It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child is considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is. Oh, I just recognized the handle. That explains a lot. Moon, you aren't paying attention. I'm not upset that Mom doesn't have to claim maternity. Obviously that would be silly. Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary" affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the ONLY one financially responsible for the child. As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception. I just asked my GF if she ever had to sign a document claming that she agreed to be financially responsible for the child (without mention of anyone else) in order to get her name on our son's birth certificate. She told me that she did not. Do you get it yet? That you can play ring-around-the-legal-rosie and formulate some hypothesis of how she is financially responsible for our son is irrelevant and untrue. We all know she could drop him off at the local fire station and never have to pay one further red cent towards his upkeep. And THAT is the law, in actuality. I suppose that might seem paranoid to you -- and I would have thought so, too, before I had my dealings with CSE and the Family Court System. Their manner of dealing with fathers breeds paranoia. That's a consequence of their attitudes and actions that we will ALL have to deal with until some changes are made. Then again, perhaps the paranoia is all yours. I've had dealings with CSE and the Family court system as well - and watched while my ex ignored court orders on any number of topics, without so much as a slap on the wrist - he's stopped paying child support and never put in jail, nor even threatened with it. Moon, the list of my abuses at the hands of CSE is long enough to begin looking unbelievable. I've never missed a payment, and yet I have been jailed... Told that a judge would order 90% of the standard award for a child I have exactly as many hours of the week that his mother does... Threatened with severe punitive actions (loss of license, passport, and license to teach) if I did not pay the state close to $500 in money that I never owed and that to this day no one at CSE has ever been able to explain how or why I owed... Had a $100 per month "obligation" to CSE (in addition to the amount agreed on between my ex and myself, to be paid directly to my ex) tacked on by CSE's lawyer to a judge's decree that the judge never ordered... All of this and more. But Moon, your previous discussions in this forum reveal your true colors, and I realize going into this with you that you have made up your mind and have no interest in changing it. Enjoy. So........... all of this Chicken Little "the sky is falling" ain't necessarily so. If chicken little had had large chunks of the firmament plummeting down to smack him in his head, he'd have had a case no matter who stood on the sidelines and heckled him. - Ron ^*^ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Werebat" wrote in message news:Sm1qe.28764$iU.2037@lakeread05... Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05... Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name on the birth certificate Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because the child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses. Therefore, there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's quite obvious she is the mother. It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child is considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is. Oh, I just recognized the handle. That explains a lot. Moon, you aren't paying attention. I'm not upset that Mom doesn't have to claim maternity. Obviously that would be silly. Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary" affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the ONLY one financially responsible for the child. As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception. I just asked my GF if she ever had to sign a document claming that she agreed to be financially responsible for the child (without mention of anyone else) in order to get her name on our son's birth certificate. She told me that she did not. Do you get it yet? She signed the birth certirficate. Get it yet? That you can play ring-around-the-legal-rosie and formulate some hypothesis of how she is financially responsible for our son is irrelevant and untrue. We all know she could drop him off at the local fire station and never have to pay one further red cent towards his upkeep. And THAT is the law, in actuality. Yet she still signed that birth certificate, didn't she. I suppose that might seem paranoid to you -- and I would have thought so, too, before I had my dealings with CSE and the Family Court System. Their manner of dealing with fathers breeds paranoia. That's a consequence of their attitudes and actions that we will ALL have to deal with until some changes are made. Then again, perhaps the paranoia is all yours. I've had dealings with CSE and the Family court system as well - and watched while my ex ignored court orders on any number of topics, without so much as a slap on the wrist - he's stopped paying child support and never put in jail, nor even threatened with it. Moon, the list of my abuses at the hands of CSE is long enough to begin looking unbelievable. I've never missed a payment, and yet I have been jailed... Told that a judge would order 90% of the standard award for a child I have exactly as many hours of the week that his mother does... Threatened with severe punitive actions (loss of license, passport, and license to teach) if I did not pay the state close to $500 in money that I never owed and that to this day no one at CSE has ever been able to explain how or why I owed... Had a $100 per month "obligation" to CSE (in addition to the amount agreed on between my ex and myself, to be paid directly to my ex) tacked on by CSE's lawyer to a judge's decree that the judge never ordered... All of this and more. But Moon, your previous discussions in this forum reveal your true colors, and I realize going into this with you that you have made up your mind and have no interest in changing it. Enjoy. Raising my kids? I do enjoy it, thanks! So........... all of this Chicken Little "the sky is falling" ain't necessarily so. If chicken little had had large chunks of the firmament plummeting down to smack him in his head, he'd have had a case no matter who stood on the sidelines and heckled him. - Ron ^*^ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Werebat" wrote in message news:tpOpe.28711$iU.23522@lakeread05... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name on the birth certificate -- a document that specifically required ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You are overlooking one significant fact. The mother signed the child's birth certificate at the hospital and her doctor signed it too as a witness to the birth. And by operation of state law as the documented parent of the child she has financial responsibility for the child, so no additional declaration by her is necessary. Then have the declaration of paternity reflect that, and not imply that the father and the father alone is responsible for the child's financial well-being. Come on -- this isn't rocket science, people. Take a look at RI Statute 11-9-5 Cruelty or Neglect of Children. The statute includes a long list of offenses against children. One of the offenses is for the person with custody or control of a child to be charged with failure to "pay the reasonable charges for support of the child." If that is not a way of implying the need for financial responsibility from an unmarried mother with custody for the well being of her child I'd sure don't know what else it could mean. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:Sm1qe.28764$iU.2037@lakeread05... Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05... Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name on the birth certificate Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because the child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses. Therefore, there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's quite obvious she is the mother. It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child is considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is. Oh, I just recognized the handle. That explains a lot. Moon, you aren't paying attention. I'm not upset that Mom doesn't have to claim maternity. Obviously that would be silly. Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary" affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the ONLY one financially responsible for the child. As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception. I just asked my GF if she ever had to sign a document claming that she agreed to be financially responsible for the child (without mention of anyone else) in order to get her name on our son's birth certificate. She told me that she did not. Do you get it yet? She signed the birth certirficate. Get it yet? Maybe birth certificates in your state specifically mention maternal responsibility for the financial well-being of the child. Here, they do not. That you can play ring-around-the-legal-rosie and formulate some hypothesis of how she is financially responsible for our son is irrelevant and untrue. We all know she could drop him off at the local fire station and never have to pay one further red cent towards his upkeep. And THAT is the law, in actuality. Yet she still signed that birth certificate, didn't she. Moon, I am not going to be sucked into an argument with you. I would also gladly sign the birth certificate, and by that I mean the same document she signed. However I am not allowed to sign it directly. I am required to first sign another document that implies that I am the only person responsible for my son's financial upkeep. This is not right. That you are too thick-headed to see that it is not right, and WHY it is not right, does not make it right. But Moon, your previous discussions in this forum reveal your true colors, and I realize going into this with you that you have made up your mind and have no interest in changing it. Enjoy. Raising my kids? I do enjoy it, thanks! Irrelevant to the matter at hand, Moon. It's great, don't get me wrong, but irrelevant to the matter at hand. - Ron ^*^ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:tpOpe.28711$iU.23522@lakeread05... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name on the birth certificate -- a document that specifically required ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You are overlooking one significant fact. The mother signed the child's birth certificate at the hospital and her doctor signed it too as a witness to the birth. And by operation of state law as the documented parent of the child she has financial responsibility for the child, so no additional declaration by her is necessary. Then have the declaration of paternity reflect that, and not imply that the father and the father alone is responsible for the child's financial well-being. Come on -- this isn't rocket science, people. Take a look at RI Statute 11-9-5 Cruelty or Neglect of Children. The statute includes a long list of offenses against children. One of the offenses is for the person with custody or control of a child to be charged with failure to "pay the reasonable charges for support of the child." If that is not a way of implying the need for financial responsibility from an unmarried mother with custody for the well being of her child I'd sure don't know what else it could mean. Pay the reasonable charges for support of the child out of whose pocket? Accepting financial responsibility and being required to pay the reasonable charges for the support of the child are two very different things when some are allowed to pay with money they never really earned. Very little "responsibility" is required to pick someone else's pocket and then pay your bills with the swag. "Be responsible", we men are told over and over. And there, being "responsible" means earning your own money and paying your own way, as well as for the way of your minor kids. Which is fine -- I agree with that definition of responsibility. What I do not agree with is having two separate definitions of responsibility for two different classes of people -- the CPs and the NCPs (read: women and men). What I am hearing over and over is, "Signing this document is not a big deal". But if it were not such a big deal, why would the state be so insistent on my signing the document? If signing the birth certificate is tantamount to agreeing to accept financial responsibility of the child, then why force me to sign another document accepting financial responsibility in order to get my name on the birth certificate? Why not just let me sign the birth certificate and then let the same legal route revealing responsibility for the mother reveal responsibility for me? It's like forcing Black people to sign a document agreeing that they won't steal things from the mall before they can be allowed in, and then saying that it is OK because White people are also not allowed to steal things from the mall. I'm sorry, it just isn't right. Let me sign the birth certificate, and bypass the other sexist nonsense. Or come clean and require the mother to sign another "extra" document agreeing to accept financial responsibility. And for God's sake, don't call a document "voluntary" if failing to sign it deprives you of legal rights to your child. That's just wrong. It sets a very frightening precedent. - Ron ^*^ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Werebat" wrote in message newsH4qe.28786$iU.25102@lakeread05... news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... Pay the reasonable charges for support of the child out of whose pocket? Doesn't matter as long as the child gets their reasonable needs met. It could be the mother's income, money from relatives, welfare benefits, a husband's income, child support received, or support from someone she lives with. What I am hearing over and over is, "Signing this document is not a big deal". But if it were not such a big deal, why would the state be so insistent on my signing the document? One of the performance factors the federal government has in place to drive the amount of federal bonus money paid to state CS systems is based on how close the state comes to their "paternity establishment" goals. States encourage unmarried fathers to sign the paternity acknowledgement immediately after the child is born while they are caught up in the emotional aspect of child birth. States also know unmarried mothers will rarely disclose any doubts about paternity options in front of an unmarried father who supports her during child birth. That is why state laws allow the father to seek DNA testing, and allow for reversals to deny the paternity acknoledgement within a stipulated timeframe after the birth. If signing the birth certificate is tantamount to agreeing to accept financial responsibility of the child, then why force me to sign another document accepting financial responsibility in order to get my name on the birth certificate? Most states do not allow a father to sign the birth certificate. Posters have reported here some states allow father's to sign the birth certificate. I have children born in two different states and neither state allowed me, as a married father, to sign anything. My name is on the children's birth certificates because my ex-spouse certified I was "the child's father to the best of my (her) knowledge." Why not just let me sign the birth certificate and then let the same legal route revealing responsibility for the mother reveal responsibility for me? You'll have to take your suggestions up with congress and your state legislature. Right now the laws in place establish parental rights and financial responsibility for the mother when her child is born. Married fathers get the rights and responsibility by default. Unmarried fathers have to sign the paternity acknowledgement form to secure their rights and responsibility. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
... "Werebat" wrote in message news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05... Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary" affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the ONLY one financially responsible for the child. As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception. I believe it's called paranoia based on past experiences. Although some child-support awards are high, it doesn't mean that mothers are not financially responsible for their children. Ron - I agree with Bob. It's a matter if you wish your name to be on your child's birth certificate or not. Signing the document, or not signing it, won't stop the mother from going after you for child-support at any time in the future. I believe most people in this group can testify that promises can be broken, and regardless of what the mother said - you never know what she may do any time in the future. Thanks, Tracy ~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Tracy wrote: "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Werebat" wrote in message news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05... Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary" affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the ONLY one financially responsible for the child. As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception. I believe it's called paranoia based on past experiences. Although some child-support awards are high, it doesn't mean that mothers are not financially responsible for their children. The wording on the document (I am quoting from memory here because their cloak-and-dagger rules wouldn't let me take a blank copy home with me) went something like this: "I agree to assume responsibility for the financial expenses of the child." Note that it doesn't say partial responsibility, or my share of the responsibility, or responsibility for my portion of the financial expenses of the child. The implication is that I am the only one financially responsible for the child. You are right in that there is some amount of paranoia from past experiences. I am the type to simply sign off on the usual contract without giving it more than a cursory read. That comes from a basic trust in our human systems that they aren't going to go off and do something unreasonable because they "gotcha" on a technicality. A system gets one chance there. When it screws you over on a technicality, it's pretty easy for it to win -- but you never, ever, ever trust them again, not any further than you can toss them. This document was written by lawyers working for CSE, and I have no interest in signing anything that passed through their slippery tentacles unless I have read it with a very critical eye and am satisfied with every jot and tittle of the document. I am not satisfied with this document. What I am being told is that I will have no legal recognition as a parent unless I sign it. This is unjust. No amount of hemming and hawing is going to make it just. The excuse that "you'll have to fight city hall to change it, so you might as well give in" is not acceptable. Ron - I agree with Bob. It's a matter if you wish your name to be on your child's birth certificate or not. Signing the document, or not signing it, won't stop the mother from going after you for child-support at any time in the future. I believe most people in this group can testify that promises can be broken, and regardless of what the mother said - you never know what she may do any time in the future. I agree that it is a minor quibble in the grand scheme of things, and that if she were to go off the deep end and get on Welfare I'd be screwed whether or not I signed the document. However, I feel... unclean... participating in such a blatantly sexist policy. It is just like my analogy about Blacks being forced to sign a document agreeing not to shoplift before being allowed into the mall, and the mall using the excuse that it is a fair practice because Whites will be prosecuted for shoplifting if they get caught, too. Can you imagine the outrage if this were to happen? Can you imagine ANYONE standing up and telling angered Black people that they should just give in and sign the document, because it "wasn't a big deal" and "didn't really change anything"? I think that Black people, and any other group, would be completely justified in feeling outrage at being treated in such a manner. And this is only for being allowed to shop in the mall! Here, we are talking about basic human rights, like being legally recognized as parent of your own child. - Ron ^*^ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message newsH4qe.28786$iU.25102@lakeread05... news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... Pay the reasonable charges for support of the child out of whose pocket? Doesn't matter as long as the child gets their reasonable needs met. It could be the mother's income, money from relatives, welfare benefits, a husband's income, child support received, or support from someone she lives with. What I am hearing over and over is, "Signing this document is not a big deal". But if it were not such a big deal, why would the state be so insistent on my signing the document? One of the performance factors the federal government has in place to drive the amount of federal bonus money paid to state CS systems is based on how close the state comes to their "paternity establishment" goals. States encourage unmarried fathers to sign the paternity acknowledgement immediately after the child is born while they are caught up in the emotional aspect of child birth. States also know unmarried mothers will rarely disclose any doubts about paternity options in front of an unmarried father who supports her during child birth. That is why state laws allow the father to seek DNA testing, and allow for reversals to deny the paternity acknoledgement within a stipulated timeframe after the birth. If signing the birth certificate is tantamount to agreeing to accept financial responsibility of the child, then why force me to sign another document accepting financial responsibility in order to get my name on the birth certificate? Most states do not allow a father to sign the birth certificate. That is not a valid argument for the practice. "Most states permit the enslavement of Blacks", etc. Posters have reported here some states allow father's to sign the birth certificate. I have children born in two different states and neither state allowed me, as a married father, to sign anything. My name is on the children's birth certificates because my ex-spouse certified I was "the child's father to the best of my (her) knowledge." Why not just let me sign the birth certificate and then let the same legal route revealing responsibility for the mother reveal responsibility for me? You'll have to take your suggestions up with congress and your state legislature. Right now the laws in place establish parental rights and financial responsibility for the mother when her child is born. Married fathers get the rights and responsibility by default. Unmarried fathers have to sign the paternity acknowledgement form to secure their rights and responsibility. By treating me differently than they treat the mother -- by forcing me to sign a special document in addition to the birth certificate in order to get the same things the mother gets for merely signing the birth certificate -- they are treating my class (fathers) differently from her class (mothers). This is illegal. You are already backing down by falling back to the defense that "you'll have to take it up with congress". This is what people do when they know they are wrong. They step aside and let the marshmallow defense of bureaucracy handle the situation, because they have run out of viable arguments. In essence, you are saying that I am right, but that that fact won't do me any good because it would be so difficult to make a change. This is a bogus argument for the same reason it is a bogus argument for keeping any societal evil in place. I still have no problem with signing the document, if they would only alter the wording to make it equitable. As it stands, leaving in objectionable clauses and then telling me that I cannot be legally recognized as the father unless I sign is a frightening abuse of power on the part of the State. Would they be justified in telling me that unless I signed a document agreeing to raise my child in a Christian church, I would not have any legal rights or recognition as a parent? I think not, but by their logic, that would be just A-OK. - Ron ^*^ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CA Court Overturns Paternity Fraud- Finally | Andre Lieven | Child Support | 3 | July 21st 04 01:54 PM |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Mother's Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court Case | TrashBBRT | Child Support | 8 | May 21st 04 05:52 PM |
Sample US Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 28 | January 21st 04 06:23 PM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 03:47 AM |