Subsequent Children Protected after the Death of their Father.

Did you know....that in the State of Oklahoma.... in Child Support
Cases, Subsequent Children of a man are labeled as "Irrelevant" by the
court, and entitled to NO financial support of their father....but in
Chapter 2 of their Death and Estate Laws it states that if a man has
had a subsequent child after he has written his last will, and dies
without including that Subsequent Child...that child IS entitled to an
Equal Share of the man's Estate, unless he has been specifically
excluded in the man's Will.....reasoning: ALL CHILDREN OF A MAN ARE
CONSIDERED EQUAL. But...in their child support guidelines enacted in
1986....Subsequent Children of a man ARE NOT ENTITLED to his financial
support and ARE NOT CONSIDERED EQUAL. So which is it? Does the state
Consider them Equal or Not? Why is it that they are only equal after a
man's death, and not in his lifetime? Something sound screwed up here
or what?

We were told by the court that our children were irrelevant unless I
divorced my husband--then I would get CS for our 2 children that was less
than half of what he pays for his older daughter. Great system, isn't it?

"Erin" wrote in message
ups.com...
Did you know....that in the State of Oklahoma.... in Child Support
Cases, Subsequent Children of a man are labeled as "Irrelevant" by the
court, and entitled to NO financial support of their father....but in
Chapter 2 of their Death and Estate Laws it states that if a man has
had a subsequent child after he has written his last will, and dies
without including that Subsequent Child...that child IS entitled to an
Equal Share of the man's Estate, unless he has been specifically
excluded in the man's Will.....reasoning: ALL CHILDREN OF A MAN ARE
CONSIDERED EQUAL. But...in their child support guidelines enacted in
1986....Subsequent Children of a man ARE NOT ENTITLED to his financial
support and ARE NOT CONSIDERED EQUAL. So which is it? Does the state
Consider them Equal or Not? Why is it that they are only equal after a
man's death, and not in his lifetime? Something sound screwed up here
or what?



--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
We were told by the court that our children were irrelevant unless I
divorced my husband--then I would get CS for our 2 children that was less
than half of what he pays for his older daughter. Great system, isn't it?
dth

Why not work the idiot system and get divorced so you can pay yourselves and
reduce the amount to the first child's mother who is nothing better than a
slug on society?

"DB" wrote in message
et...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
We were told by the court that our children were irrelevant unless I
divorced my husband--then I would get CS for our 2 children that was less
than half of what he pays for his older daughter. Great system, isn't
it?
dth

Why not work the idiot system and get divorced so you can pay yourselves
and reduce the amount to the first child's mother who is nothing better
than a slug on society?

Because it wouldn't reduce what she is getting at all. It would just give
him an additional amount to pay!




--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

She's right...Subsequent children are still Subsequent Children! Only
the first born children are entitled to the majority of the
income...actually a mother with two subsequent children will recieve
less than half of the child support that a mother with one child will
get if she has the "first born" child.....DISCRIMINATION

"Erin" wrote in message
oups.com...
She's right...Subsequent children are still Subsequent Children! Only
the first born children are entitled to the majority of the
income...actually a mother with two subsequent children will recieve
less than half of the child support that a mother with one child will
get if she has the "first born" child.....DISCRIMINATION

And what is really awful about it is that my husband had no idea that he had
a child! The gubmint waltzed her in just before she turned 13 and told us
that our children counted for nothing! It wasn't as if we chose to have
children knowing he had an obligation to this other child. But "rules are
rules"--somehow that poor mommy is a "victim" of a deadbeat dad--he should
have known!!


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"Erin" wrote
She's right...Subsequent children are still Subsequent Children! Only
the first born children are entitled to the majority of the
income...actually a mother with two subsequent children will recieve
less than half of the child support that a mother with one child will
get if she has the "first born" child.....DISCRIMINATION
==
Actually this is state specific. PA attempts to equalize lifestyle among all
the children and does
adjust a prior order. Fl
simply doesn't give a damn about the younger ones. Judge told my DH to get a
second
job if he couldn't afford the 1200. a month CS. Not only did the judge not
give a damn if our
kids' financial needs were met, but he didn't give a damn whether they had a
relationship with
their dad. That "best interest of the children" crap still makes me wanna
gag.
==

Gini wrote:
"Erin" wrote

She's right...Subsequent children are still Subsequent Children! Only
the first born children are entitled to the majority of the
income...actually a mother with two subsequent children will recieve
less than half of the child support that a mother with one child will
get if she has the "first born" child.....DISCRIMINATION

==
Actually this is state specific. PA attempts to equalize lifestyle among all
the children and does
adjust a prior order. Fl
simply doesn't give a damn about the younger ones. Judge told my DH to get a
second
job if he couldn't afford the 1200. a month CS. Not only did the judge not
give a damn if our
kids' financial needs were met, but he didn't give a damn whether they had a
relationship with
their dad. That "best interest of the children" crap still makes me wanna
gag.
==

Working as a teacher in the public school system, I can assure you that
a good 80% of the time that a government official tells you that
something is "in the best interests of the children", it's really all
about something else entirely. If you're lucky, it doesn't *screw* with
the children.

It should come as no surprise that kids who have parents that are less
likely to organize and make themselves heard (immigrant children, for
example) are consistently dumped on when policy decisions are made.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in

Working as a teacher in the public school system, I can assure you that a
good 80% of the time that a government official tells you that something
is "in the best interests of the children", it's really all about
something else entirely.


There can be no doubt it is for the best interest of the politician!

If politicians were really any good at their elected job, you wouldn't see
the price of gas where it stands now and is heading. That is more of threat
to the American economy than any poor NCP's debt to his child.