Pa's New 50-50 Custody Legislation

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
ink.net...

Johnson (LBJ, not Andrew)

We've only had the one Johnson, the one you may have been thinking of was
Andrew Jackson.

Close, but no cigar.

What about the president after Abraham Lincoln? I'm thinking that was
Andrew Johnson--who almost got impeached.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
ink.net...

Johnson (LBJ, not Andrew)

We've only had the one Johnson, the one you may have been thinking of
was
Andrew Jackson.

Close, but no cigar.

What about the president after Abraham Lincoln? I'm thinking that was
Andrew Johnson--who almost got impeached.

Dang, forgot about him (grumble, grumble). Seventeenth President, 1865 -
1869.
He was tried by the Senate in the spring of 1868 and acquitted by one vote.

How did I miss that??

"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article . net, Phil #3
says...


"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article et, Phil
#3
says...

I'd be anxious about it myself. Is C$ to be assigned according to time
or
does this mean even more plainly that NCPs get to support their children
AND
the ex because he'll have to pay while also directly supporting the
children?
====
This bill, if passed, will undoubtedly require a change in the CS
guidelines as
it specifically acknowledges that both parents will have to maintain a
family
home. The bill now has the support of 34+ legislators and has a chance
of
passing. That this comes out of PA is no surprise as it has been
historically
one of the most, if not the most, father-friendly state. Even if the
bill
doesn't pass this go-round, the legislators will gain a much better
awareness of
father issues which will boost the national dialog similar to the
"no-college"/post minority support judges upheld years ago. Too, it
gives
dads
in other states a pretty good idea of the kinds of legislation they can
present
to their legislators. There really is not a bad side to this--pass or
fail
(Sorry Bob and Phil :-). BTW, the entire text can be found by Googling
"Pennsylvania House Bill 888" or some such.
====

Perhaps you have no doubts but for myself, when it comes to the
government,
any government, I have nothing *but* doubts.
===
So then any legislation the states make to protect the rights of fathers
is
unacceptable to you? I've been in this ballgame long enough to be very
skeptical, but I certainly will support and encourage the right kind of
legislation. If one cannot do that, they might as well lie down and die or
join
the likes of NOW as that is about how useful they will be to any
progressive
movement.
===
===

No, I didn't say it was unacceptable, what I attempted to say was that I am
very suspicious, even skeptical. I do not trust mobs even when they call
themselves "the government".
A better solution, IMO would be to start backing the government out of
personal lives and homes. Legislation such as this (and I admit I haven't
read it yet) seems to simply keep the government as lord and master over
individual's lives, "in the best interests..." while doing nothing about the
problem. IOW, treating the symptoms instead of the disease.
If nothing is done to prevent one parent from having to pay the lion's share
of "support" and if nothing is done to insure "support" is for the children,
nothing has changed except perhaps allowing dad to play dad more often and
for longer while still supporting the child full-time.
Let me read the legislation for a better understanding and I'll try to get
back to you on it.
Phil #3