Hello, way long sorry.....

Paul Fritz wrote in message
...

"lm" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:58:17 -0500 (EST), (Bebe
lestrnge) wrote:


Hello, way long sorry.....

Group: alt.support.single-parents Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 2:27pm
(EST+5) From: (lm)

It's not too late for the baby to be given up for adoption.

lm


You are not serious right? Is any of what I am saying making any
sense.
I will not ever have my own family abandoned, to be part of another
family like that,,,,,why? I have made it clear I am not built that
way,
it is not what my father taught me and that is that. My daughter does
not want that and she is doing a fine job and that is the way it is .
Oh
and Yes should she ever decide she can't be a good mom then yes I
will
indeed raise my geanddaughter. In a heartbeat ........

I understand your choice and I'll not mention it again as you've made
your choice clear. However, your comments on adoption (in several of
your posts) compel me to point out that giving up a child for adoption
is not equivalent to abandoning it; it is probably the most selfless
decision someone could possibly make.

lm

It is quite evident that this baby is all about the grandmother's wants
and needs, and NOT what is truely in the best interests of the baby, or
it's
mother.


Its sometimes hard for a grandparent to see a grandbaby go to another
family. Especially of they have none. This women already has a few. My
mother was insistent that my baby not be given up, that she would help tons,
ect. But she did make it clear she wasn't going to raise another child. She
has been a great help but now she is older and ill. Had she at that point
decided to take on a baby, she would be having a very hard time at it now.
Actually, she couldn't physically do it. I have seen this happen with many
grandparents who take care of grandkids. The kids suffer in the end as the
are not able to live a normal kids life full of activity and fun.

T

"V" wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"V" wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

Child support is the guvmint mandating what ONE parent spends
on
their
child, without ANY accounting of how that money is spent by the
other
parent. It further sets a different for NCP's vs. ALL other
types
of
parents. It is patently unconstitutional,

Then why did the Appellate Court of Florida rule in Bennett v.
Bennett?

And that has what bearing on the other 49 states?......whatever the
decision was.

Usually other states follow other states in these types of decisions.
A factor in child support, which occurs in all states.

No, State Court opinions hod almost no value in other state courts unless
they have been challenged in Fed. court and upheld.




but since it is so PC, it is
allowed to continue. It has also further eroded the stability of
marriage
in this country, as well as encourages out of wedlock births.

You can not blame out of marriage births on child support.

Wanna bet?


Sure.

How can it erode the stability of marriage?

States that have instituted a default joint physical custody have
experienced a drop in the significant drop in the divorce rate.
Combined
with the fact that 70-80% of divorces are the initiated by women. When
mom
doesn't get automatic custody and CS, the divorce rate drops.


And what percentage is because of the male's infidelity?

Low, as is for abuse. The number one reason is women wanting to 'find
themselves' or wanting to move on etc.

Lies, More lies and
statistics..... The new significant drop has been how long? Other factors
should be correlated with the drop. A tremendous drop can not be
determined
without much more study. Was it a covenant marriage state? What were the
other
things that would have assisted in the big drop?

No.



Assuming one parent can leave and
live off 33% of the other parents salary?

It allows
women to escape financial responsibility for their sole and
unilateral
choices.

Most single mothers work and I find that it appauling that you
generalize
women and state that they are eluding responsibility.

Women have the AAA unilateral choices. They can abort, adopt, or
abandon
without the approval or consent of the father. Yet they are NOT solely
financially responsible for those sole and unilateral choices they make.
There is no generalizations.....just a statement of FACT.


We do have choices , we ahem, women....
You sound like you have been burnt seriously and these "unilateral triple
choices" you speak of are a sore spot. Do not generalize women like this
and
I won't consider my run in with you as a predetermination that all men are
asswipes.

YAWN.....in other words you cannot refute the FACT that women have sole and
unilateral choices that they are not soley financially responsible for.

And ASSuming anything about me will just make you look foolish






It irks me when people so blindly accept it as 'the way it should
be'



It irks me when people take what is best for the children and twist
it
to
appear like the non custodial parent is going without to support
some
gold
diggin' biatch or bassard that he or she injected sperm or casted
out an
egg
for.
Come on. Do you really believe this is how it truly is?

You just don't get it do you?


V







Obviously you don't get "it" either. Literally!
I am done with you.

YAWN......if you can't take the heat......................


V

"Bebe lestrnge" wrote in message
...

Hello, way long sorry.....

Group: alt.support.single-parents Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 7:19am From:
(Paul Fritz)
"Bebe lestrnge" wrote in message
...
Hello, way long sorry.....
Group: alt.support.single-parents Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 4:33pm From:
(P.Fritz)
Paul wrote:

Nope, you just don't want to hear opiniions that you don't
agree with.

Well so what, do I have to agree with your opinion ? I don't agree
......Oh Well .

Paul wrote:
Did you read the enabling drivel before you posted it?

Yep I did

and you sit around and wonder why she is in the situation that she is?

Nope I don't

You are dooming her and your grandchild to repeat the same cycle.

How ?

You are how old and making 22k a year.

Well I am a 42 year old woman no college education . I cook for 6o
elderly folks in a small nursing home in Pennsylvania.
22k isn't too shabby for no education. But I am a damn good cook !

You have a live in 'partner'
Some role model


Yes I have a live in partner..........
should I be ashamed that we are not married? Well the guvment denies me
that right Or is it that I am a lesbian Paul?
I have dealt with this before and before you or anyone else wants to
judge me
for who or how I love let me assure you that My children lost their
other mother to death and they grieve just like any other child that
lost a parent.....that you can not deny, judge or condemn . **** off

Some role model Just more evidence that it is all about YOU and not the
kids.


There is no wondering about you.

'Kate wrote in message ...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:04:31 -0500, "Paul Fritz"


"V" wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

Child support is the guvmint mandating what ONE parent spends on
their
child, without ANY accounting of how that money is spent by the
other
parent. It further sets a different for NCP's vs. ALL other
types
of
parents. It is patently unconstitutional,

Then why did the Appellate Court of Florida rule in Bennett v.
Bennett?

And that has what bearing on the other 49 states?......whatever the
decision was.


but since it is so PC, it is
allowed to continue. It has also further eroded the stability of
marriage
in this country, as well as encourages out of wedlock births.

You can not blame out of marriage births on child support.

Wanna bet?

How can it erode the stability of marriage?

States that have instituted a default joint physical custody have
experienced a drop in the significant drop in the divorce rate. Combined
with the fact that 70-80% of divorces are the initiated by women. When
mom
doesn't get automatic custody and CS, the divorce rate drops.

Assuming one parent can leave and
live off 33% of the other parents salary?

It allows
women to escape financial responsibility for their sole and
unilateral
choices.

Most single mothers work and I find that it appauling that you
generalize
women and state that they are eluding responsibility.

Women have the AAA unilateral choices. They can abort, adopt, or
abandon
without the approval or consent of the father. Yet they are NOT solely
financially responsible for those sole and unilateral choices they make.
There is no generalizations.....just a statement of FACT.


It irks me when people so blindly accept it as 'the way it should
be'



It irks me when people take what is best for the children and twist
it
to
appear like the non custodial parent is going without to support some
gold
diggin' biatch or bassard that he or she injected sperm or casted out
an
egg
for.
Come on. Do you really believe this is how it truly is?

You just don't get it do you?

Oh boo hoo. Life sucks. Then you pick yourself up, get over it, and
move on. Staying stuck in the same old pit that has neither increased
or decreased will get you nowhere.

The pit keeps increasing, just the majority of those not in IT turn a
blind eye until they fall in IT themsleves......which of course is too late.



The Anti-Father Police State

by Stephen Baskerville

Columnist Cathy Young is known for her even-handed attempts to cut
through the pretensions of both the left and right. She has also shown
considerable courage by delving into what for many journalists is a
no-go zone: divorce and fathers' rights.

So it is a little awkward to find myself cast as one of her combatants,
with my own views and others' whom I typify characterized as "extreme."
In the December issue of Reason magazine, Young sorts out, with her
customary balance, a debate between proponents of Clinton-Bush family
engineering schemes and those of us who take a more laissez-faire
attitude toward government intervention in family life.

Actually, it is not my positions that are extreme but my "rhetoric" -
specifically, the words I use to describe how government is
systematically destroying families and fathers. "Political speech and
writing are largely the defense of the indefensible," wrote George
Orwell. "Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism."
If my language seems direct, it may be because euphemism currently
obfuscates the most indefensible politics of our time.

That a writer as informed and astute as Young has difficulty grasping
the larger trend at work here validates Orwell's observation about the
power of language. Clichés about "divorce" and "custody" do not begin to
convey the civil liberties disaster taking place. We are facing
questions of who has primary authority over children, their parents or
the state, and whether the state's penal apparatus can seize control
over both the children and the private lives of citizens who have done
nothing wrong. Rephrased, the question is, Is there any private sphere
of life that remains off-limits to state intervention? Bryce Christensen
of Southern Utah University (and not a fathers' rights activist, extreme
or otherwise) has characterized fatherhood policies as creating a
"police state."

Developments in only the last few days amount to government admissions
of Christensen's charge. Under pressure from the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), a Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, judge has
just freed some 100 prisoners who had been incarcerated without due
process for allegedly failing to pay child support. The fathers were
sentenced with no notice given of their hearings and no opportunity to
obtain legal representation. Fathers relate that hearings typically last
between 30 seconds and two minutes, during which they are sentenced to
months in prison. ACLU lawyer Malia Brink says courts across
Pennsylvania routinely jail such men for civil contempt without proper
notice or in time for them to get lawyers. Lawrence County was
apparently jailing fathers with no hearings at all. Nothing indicates
that Pennsylvania is unusual. After a decade of hysteria over "deadbeat
dads," one hundred such prisoners in each of the America's 3,500
counties is by no means unlikely.

Also last week, a federal appeals court finally ruled unconstitutional
the Elizabeth Morgan Act, a textbook bill of attainder whereby Congress
legislatively separated father and child and "branded" as "a criminal
child abuser" a father against whom no evidence was ever presented.
"Congress violated the constitutional prohibition against bills of
attainder by singling out plaintiff for legislative punishment," the
court said. The very fact that a bill of attainder was used at all
indicates something truly extreme is taking place. Bills of attainder
are rare, draconian measures used for one purpose: to convict
politically those who cannot be convicted with evidence.

So do these decisions demonstrate that justice eventually prevails?
Hardly. In both cases, the damage is done. Foretich's daughter has been
irreparably robbed of her childhood and estranged from her father.
Moreover, millions of fathers continue to be permanently separated from
their children and presumed guilty, even when no evidence exists against
them.

The Pennsylvania men will fare worse. For many, the incarceration has
already cost them their jobs and thus their ability to pay future child
support. As a result, they will be returned to the penal system, from
which they are unlikely ever to escape. Permanently insolvent, they are
farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns, where they work
14-16 hour days. Most of their earnings are confiscated for child
support, the costs of their incarceration, and mandatory drug testing.

This gulag recalls the description of the Soviet forced-labor system,
described by Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in their classic
study of totalitarianism: "Not infrequently the secret police hired out
its prisoners to local agencies for the purpose of carrying out some
local project.. Elaborate contracts were drawn up.specifying all the
details and setting the rates at which the secret police is to be paid.
At the conclusion of their task, the prisoners, or more correctly the
slaves, were returned to the custody of the secret police."

New repressive measures against fathers are enacted almost daily. Last
week, Staten Island joined a nationwide trend when it opened a new
"integrated domestic violence court." The purpose of these courts, says
Chief Judge Judith Kaye, is not to dispense justice as such but to "make
batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions." In other
words, to declare men guilty.

Anyone who doubts this need only look to Canada, where domestic violence
courts are already empowered to seize the property, including the homes,
of men accused of domestic violence, even though they are not
necessarily convicted or even formally charged. Moreover, they may do so
"ex parte," without the men being present to defend themselves. "This
bill is classic police-state legislation," writes Robert Martin, of the
University of Western Ontario. Walter Fox, a Toronto lawyer, describes
these courts as "pre-fascist," and editor Dave Brown writes in the
Ottawa Citizen, "Domestic violence courts.are designed to get around the
protections of the Criminal Code. The burden of proof is reduced or
removed, and there's no presumption of innocence."

Special courts to try special crimes that can only be committed by
certain people are a familiar device totalitarian regimes adopted to
replace established standards of justice with ideological justice. New
courts created during the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror
and were consciously imitated in the Soviet Union. In Hitler's dreaded
Volksgerichte or "people's courts," write Friedrich and Brzezinski,
"only expediency in terms of National Socialist standards served as a
basis for judgment."

Even more astounding, legislation announced in Britain will require the
police to consider fathers guilty of domestic violence, even after they
have been acquitted in court. Fathers found "not guilty" are to be kept
away from their children and treated as if they are guilty. As Melanie
Phillips writes in the Daily Mail, "This measure will destroy the very
concept of innocence itself."

These are only the most recent developments. Young herself has written
eloquently on the practice of extracting coerced confessions from
fathers like Massachusetts minister Harry Stewart. In Warren County,
Pennsylvania, fathers like Robert Pessia are told they will be jailed
unless they sign confessions stating, "I have physically and emotionally
battered my partner." The father must then describe the violence, even
if he insists he committed none. The documents require him to state, "I
am responsible for the violence I used. My behavior was not provoked."
Again, the words of Friedrich and Brzezinski are apposite: "Confessions
are the key to this psychic coercion. The inmate is subjected to a
constant barrage of propaganda and ever-repeated demands that he
'confess his sins,' that he 'admit his shame.'"

G.K. Chesterton argued that the most enduring check on government
tyranny is the family. Ideological correctness notwithstanding, little
imagination is required to comprehend that the household member most
likely to defend the family against the state is the father. Yet as
Margaret Mead once pointed out, the father is also the family's weakest
link. The easiest and surest way to destroy the family, therefore, is to
remove the father. Is it extreme to wonder if government is quietly
engaged in a search-and-destroy operation against the principal obstacle
to the expansion of its power?



December 23, 2003



Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., [send him mail], teaches political science
at Howard University.

Copyright © 2003 Stephen Baskerville


'Kate

'Kate wrote in message ...
snip for brevity:

applied to
the Family Therapy professional psych program. I want to know what it
takes to build stronger families so that they won't become a statistic.
snip

'Kate


Kate: I did not know that! Well wishes and I hope you get in!
Keep us posted.
V

'Kate wrote in message ...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:54:23 -0500, "P.Fritz"


The pit keeps increasing, just the majority of those not in IT turn a
blind eye until they fall in IT themsleves......which of course is too
late.

So you can keep reading the type of articles that inflame you or you can
do something about it, something that is real. The reaction that you've
received here is, by and large, an understanding of the issues.



We know
what is going on. The assumption of the number of people affected is a
common bias.

?????????...............It goes much further than just NCP fathers BTW

The facts you are posting are confounded in that way and in
many others.

My bottom line is that you can post whatever you want but it's affect on
you concerns me. I'd like to see you move past this and be happy,
content, and feel like you've done something tangible about the state of
families in the US.

Now who is making assumptions?

That, BTW, is one of the reasons why I applied to
the Family Therapy professional psych program. I want to know what it
takes to build stronger families so that they won't become a statistic.
Improve the lives of families, improve marital relationships, and
divorce will not happen. That's the real issue.

'Kate

"V" wrote in message
...

"Bebe lestrnge" wrote in message
...

Hello, way long sorry.....

Group: alt.support.single-parents Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 7:19am From:
(Paul Fritz)
"Bebe lestrnge" wrote in message
...
Hello, way long sorry.....
Group: alt.support.single-parents Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 4:33pm From:
(P.Fritz)
Paul wrote:

Nope, you just don't want to hear opiniions that you don't
agree with.

Well so what, do I have to agree with your opinion ? I don't agree
.....Oh Well .

Paul wrote:
Did you read the enabling drivel before you posted it?

Yep I did

and you sit around and wonder why she is in the situation that she is?

Nope I don't

You are dooming her and your grandchild to repeat the same cycle.

How ?

You are how old and making 22k a year.

Well I am a 42 year old woman no college education . I cook for 6o
elderly folks in a small nursing home in Pennsylvania.
22k isn't too shabby for no education. But I am a damn good cook !

You have a live in 'partner'
Some role model


Yes I have a live in partner..........
should I be ashamed that we are not married? Well the guvment denies me
that right Or is it that I am a lesbian Paul?

V wrote:
Well if you are, I am glad gays and lesbians are allowed to get married.
In
the 50's it was interracial marriages or marriage with "foriegners" were
taboo
and it is accepted now.

Apples and oranges.


I am thinking it will lower insurance premiums for
family coverage because there will be more in my pool.
My aunt did not marry her live in partner, who is a male, because she
would
lose some type of social security benefits. I think people personally
should
not cohabitate, for reasons such as the low committment level, persons in
and
out of the home, possibly hurting the child....monetary reasons, etc.
but if it is a loving long term relationship, that is a bit different.
Just my two cents.


snip the rest for brevity

'Kate wrote in message ...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:54:23 -0500, "P.Fritz"


The pit keeps increasing, just the majority of those not in IT turn a
blind eye until they fall in IT themsleves......which of course is too
late.

So you can keep reading the type of articles that inflame you or you can
do something about it, something that is real. The reaction that you've
received here is, by and large, an understanding of the issues. We know
what is going on. The assumption of the number of people affected is a
common bias. The facts you are posting are confounded in that way and in
many others.

And the pit gets deeper

Child-support claim of daughter, now 21, reaches back to birth
February 17, 2004, 7:38 PM


GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) -- The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld a
lower court's ruling that a local pharmacist owes a lump-sum child-support
payment to a 21-year-old daughter he never has met and, until a little more
than five years ago, did not know he had fathered.

A Grand Rapids lawyer representing the father, Kent Balliet, said her
client could end up owing the woman more than $100,000.

"This is going to turn paternity cases on their heads," attorney Amy
Rademaker said.

Balliet, 41, said his daughter, Heather Clough, resulted from a brief
college fling in spring 1982. He said he did not know she was his child
until her maternal grandparents, who also are her legal guardians, sued him
from Florida in August 1998.

"I can't even tell you the color of her eyes," Balliet told The Grand
Rapids Press for a story published Tuesday. He lives near Bailey, a hamlet
about 23 miles northwest of Grand Rapids.

After a blood test confirmed that he was her biological father,
Balliet made weekly child-support payments of $200 to $250 until Clough
graduated from Fort Myers (Fla.) North High School in 2001.

Then, Clough turned 18 and sued Balliet on her own, claiming that he
owed her support dating to the day of her birth in January 1983.

Last week, the state appeals court affirmed a decision by Kent County
Circuit Judge Paul Sullivan in favor of the daughter's claim. The issue of
how much money Balliet must pay Clough probably will be determined at a
hearing in Kent County Family Court.

"Now, a mom can say, "I'm not going to deal with dad, with parenting
time or any other of those troubling issues until my kid turns 18,' and she
can file a lawsuit for the total amount in bulk," Rademaker said. "It will
plunge unsuspecting men into debt. This is a crushing blow because of what
it means statewide. It's huge."

The law usually does not allow responsibility for child support to go
on forever, said Kristine Mullendore, an associate professor of legal
studies at Grand Valley State University and a former assistant Kent County
prosecutor.

Under paternity laws, the statute of limitations generally caps claims
at 6 years. But the window of opportunity for the daughter to make her claim
as a new adult was one year after turning 18, which Clough met, according to
the Court of Appeals.

The daughter said she is not interested in setting a legal precedent.

"I'd much rather have had a relationship with my father, but sometimes
it can't be that way," said Clough, who now lives in a Fort Myers duplex
near her grandparents' home. "I've never seen him, not even a picture of
him."

She was raised by grandparents Larry and Suzane Clough from age 5,
when her mother was declared mentally disabled. Becky Sue Clough was
diagnosed with schizophrenia and made a ward of her parents, her daughter
said.

Heather Clough said she discovered her father's address on the
Internet four years ago and briefly exchanged e-mail messages with him. She
said it appeared for a time he was interested in meeting her.

Then Balliet wrote her to say their conversations had been a mistake,
she said. That was when her grandparents filed for child support.

"I have a father who didn't want anything to do with me," Clough said.
"My mother had told me that's how it was, but I had my family who loved me.
I'm not a bitter person. Life is too short."





My bottom line is that you can post whatever you want but it's affect on
you concerns me. I'd like to see you move past this and be happy,
content, and feel like you've done something tangible about the state of
families in the US. That, BTW, is one of the reasons why I applied to
the Family Therapy professional psych program. I want to know what it
takes to build stronger families so that they won't become a statistic.
Improve the lives of families, improve marital relationships, and
divorce will not happen. That's the real issue.

'Kate

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:33:33 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


'Kate wrote in message ...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:54:23 -0500, "P.Fritz"


The pit keeps increasing, just the majority of those not in IT turn a
blind eye until they fall in IT themsleves......which of course is too
late.

So you can keep reading the type of articles that inflame you or you can
do something about it, something that is real. The reaction that you've
received here is, by and large, an understanding of the issues. We know
what is going on. The assumption of the number of people affected is a
common bias. The facts you are posting are confounded in that way and in
many others.

And the pit gets deeper

Child-support claim of daughter, now 21, reaches back to birth
February 17, 2004, 7:38 PM


GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) -- The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld a
lower court's ruling that a local pharmacist owes a lump-sum child-support
payment to a 21-year-old daughter he never has met and, until a little more
than five years ago, did not know he had fathered.

A Grand Rapids lawyer representing the father, Kent Balliet, said her
client could end up owing the woman more than $100,000.

"This is going to turn paternity cases on their heads," attorney Amy
Rademaker said.

Balliet, 41, said his daughter, Heather Clough, resulted from a brief
college fling in spring 1982. He said he did not know she was his child
until her maternal grandparents, who also are her legal guardians, sued him
from Florida in August 1998.

"I can't even tell you the color of her eyes," Balliet told The Grand
Rapids Press for a story published Tuesday. He lives near Bailey, a hamlet
about 23 miles northwest of Grand Rapids.

After a blood test confirmed that he was her biological father,
Balliet made weekly child-support payments of $200 to $250 until Clough
graduated from Fort Myers (Fla.) North High School in 2001.

Then, Clough turned 18 and sued Balliet on her own, claiming that he
owed her support dating to the day of her birth in January 1983.

Last week, the state appeals court affirmed a decision by Kent County
Circuit Judge Paul Sullivan in favor of the daughter's claim. The issue of
how much money Balliet must pay Clough probably will be determined at a
hearing in Kent County Family Court.

"Now, a mom can say, "I'm not going to deal with dad, with parenting
time or any other of those troubling issues until my kid turns 18,' and she
can file a lawsuit for the total amount in bulk," Rademaker said. "It will
plunge unsuspecting men into debt. This is a crushing blow because of what
it means statewide. It's huge."

The law usually does not allow responsibility for child support to go
on forever, said Kristine Mullendore, an associate professor of legal
studies at Grand Valley State University and a former assistant Kent County
prosecutor.

Under paternity laws, the statute of limitations generally caps claims
at 6 years. But the window of opportunity for the daughter to make her claim
as a new adult was one year after turning 18, which Clough met, according to
the Court of Appeals.

The daughter said she is not interested in setting a legal precedent.

"I'd much rather have had a relationship with my father, but sometimes
it can't be that way," said Clough, who now lives in a Fort Myers duplex
near her grandparents' home. "I've never seen him, not even a picture of
him."

She was raised by grandparents Larry and Suzane Clough from age 5,
when her mother was declared mentally disabled. Becky Sue Clough was
diagnosed with schizophrenia and made a ward of her parents, her daughter
said.

Heather Clough said she discovered her father's address on the
Internet four years ago and briefly exchanged e-mail messages with him. She
said it appeared for a time he was interested in meeting her.

Then Balliet wrote her to say their conversations had been a mistake,
she said. That was when her grandparents filed for child support.

"I have a father who didn't want anything to do with me," Clough said.
"My mother had told me that's how it was, but I had my family who loved me.
I'm not a bitter person. Life is too short."

Yowza! If she's going to sue anyone, it ought to be grammy and gramps,
for not letting her know about her father. Good Gracious!

lm

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:55:09 GMT, lm
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:33:33 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


'Kate wrote in message ...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:54:23 -0500, "P.Fritz"


The pit keeps increasing, just the majority of those not in IT turn a
blind eye until they fall in IT themsleves......which of course is too
late.

So you can keep reading the type of articles that inflame you or you can
do something about it, something that is real. The reaction that you've
received here is, by and large, an understanding of the issues. We know
what is going on. The assumption of the number of people affected is a
common bias. The facts you are posting are confounded in that way and in
many others.

And the pit gets deeper

Child-support claim of daughter, now 21, reaches back to birth
February 17, 2004, 7:38 PM


GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) -- The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld a
lower court's ruling that a local pharmacist owes a lump-sum child-support
payment to a 21-year-old daughter he never has met and, until a little more
than five years ago, did not know he had fathered.

A Grand Rapids lawyer representing the father, Kent Balliet, said her
client could end up owing the woman more than $100,000.

"This is going to turn paternity cases on their heads," attorney Amy
Rademaker said.

Balliet, 41, said his daughter, Heather Clough, resulted from a brief
college fling in spring 1982. He said he did not know she was his child
until her maternal grandparents, who also are her legal guardians, sued him
from Florida in August 1998.

"I can't even tell you the color of her eyes," Balliet told The Grand
Rapids Press for a story published Tuesday. He lives near Bailey, a hamlet
about 23 miles northwest of Grand Rapids.

After a blood test confirmed that he was her biological father,
Balliet made weekly child-support payments of $200 to $250 until Clough
graduated from Fort Myers (Fla.) North High School in 2001.

Then, Clough turned 18 and sued Balliet on her own, claiming that he
owed her support dating to the day of her birth in January 1983.

Last week, the state appeals court affirmed a decision by Kent County
Circuit Judge Paul Sullivan in favor of the daughter's claim. The issue of
how much money Balliet must pay Clough probably will be determined at a
hearing in Kent County Family Court.

"Now, a mom can say, "I'm not going to deal with dad, with parenting
time or any other of those troubling issues until my kid turns 18,' and she
can file a lawsuit for the total amount in bulk," Rademaker said. "It will
plunge unsuspecting men into debt. This is a crushing blow because of what
it means statewide. It's huge."

The law usually does not allow responsibility for child support to go
on forever, said Kristine Mullendore, an associate professor of legal
studies at Grand Valley State University and a former assistant Kent County
prosecutor.

Under paternity laws, the statute of limitations generally caps claims
at 6 years. But the window of opportunity for the daughter to make her claim
as a new adult was one year after turning 18, which Clough met, according to
the Court of Appeals.

The daughter said she is not interested in setting a legal precedent.

"I'd much rather have had a relationship with my father, but sometimes
it can't be that way," said Clough, who now lives in a Fort Myers duplex
near her grandparents' home. "I've never seen him, not even a picture of
him."

She was raised by grandparents Larry and Suzane Clough from age 5,
when her mother was declared mentally disabled. Becky Sue Clough was
diagnosed with schizophrenia and made a ward of her parents, her daughter
said.

Heather Clough said she discovered her father's address on the
Internet four years ago and briefly exchanged e-mail messages with him. She
said it appeared for a time he was interested in meeting her.

Then Balliet wrote her to say their conversations had been a mistake,
she said. That was when her grandparents filed for child support.

"I have a father who didn't want anything to do with me," Clough said.
"My mother had told me that's how it was, but I had my family who loved me.
I'm not a bitter person. Life is too short."

Yowza! If she's going to sue anyone, it ought to be grammy and gramps,
for not letting her know about her father. Good Gracious!

lm

On second thought, maybe he ought to counter-sue for not being told
about his daughter. Who sounds like a peach.

lm