Schwarzenegger's propaganda

"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of a
child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established in
most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do you
think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though the wife
is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace! ONLY in
matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start the
paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the "benefit of
the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such process; and secondly,
what man in his right mind would voluntarily start a process that will
extort his money/freedom?

Ya gotta just LOVE the propaganda .............

http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Resources...1/Default.aspx

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of
a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established
in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do
you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though the
wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace! ONLY
in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the "benefit
of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such process; and
secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily start a process
that will extort his money/freedom?

Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or hiding
her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed births the
mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no idea who the
father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state where
the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is born. Even
then the child can be adopted out for money without the father's knowledge.

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of
a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established
in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do
you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though
the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace!
ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the
"benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily start
a process that will extort his money/freedom?

Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or hiding
her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed births the
mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no idea who the
father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
father's knowledge.

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since the
mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with the
state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father
of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically
established in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity
establishment is not automatic and the process should be started by both
parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do
you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though
the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace!
ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the
"benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
start a process that will extort his money/freedom?

Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or
hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed
births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no
idea who the father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
father's knowledge.

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?

The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?

The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.

OK, I hip with that, but in what way does this help if mom decides to keep
the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage the
prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs.

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
om...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?

The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.

OK, I hip with that, but in what way does this help if mom decides to keep
the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage the
prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs.

The only advantage to the man in registering as the child's
father is the possibility that he will be able to have some kind of
relationship with the child, even if the mother doesn't want this.
However, I very much doubt whether this is worth much. The system is
notoriously lax about enforcing visitation, by contrast with the huge
amount of resources devoted to enforcing "child support."

I've seen comments from CS officials indicating that the
father registration provision is nothing more than a deliberate trap
for the unwary. The idea is that, immediately after a child is born,
the man who thinks he is the father will be inordinately proud of his
situation, and will want to be identified as the father. But the
bottom line is that he is only making it easier for the mother to get
18+ years of "child support" from him.

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father
of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically
established in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity
establishment is not automatic and the process should be started by
both parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed,
do you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even
though the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast
furnace! ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the
"benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
start a process that will extort his money/freedom?

Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or
hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed
births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no
idea who the father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
father's knowledge.

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?

The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.

And then you woke up.

1. The only "parental" right is mother's right.
2. That a mother has to take ANY action to avoid paying "child support" is a
ridiculous concept.
3. A CP father is about as common as a three-legged chicken.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father
of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically
established in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity
establishment is not automatic and the process should be started by
both parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child
is biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was
reversed, do you think "maternity" would be "automatically
established" even though the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's
chance in a blast furnace! ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should
start the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for
the "benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
start a process that will extort his money/freedom?

Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until
that point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion
or hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of
unwed births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she
has no idea who the father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
father's knowledge.

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?

The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.

And then you woke up.

1. The only "parental" right is mother's right.
2. That a mother has to take ANY action to avoid paying "child support" is
a ridiculous concept.
3. A CP father is about as common as a three-legged chicken.

I think some of the commenters above have made the mistake of confusing
adoption laws and paternity laws. Adoption laws have nothing to do with
establishing CS orders. In fact, when an adoption occurs no CS is paid by
either parent.

A putative father registering with a state's database never obligates him
for CS. It is the legal process used to establish paternity that drives the
CS obligation. And in the case of voluntary paternity acknowledgement the
declaration can be challenged for up to 12 months depending on state statute
limitations.

BTW - I was a CP father. Several of the other posters here were CP fathers
too. The problem fathers have regarding CP status is the initial court
orders are biased against them. It is not uncommon for a father to be the
CP parent for older children, particularly boys.

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of
a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established
in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
possible for the benefit of the child."

snip

Something I noticed is that when someone makes a Will they state something
like "I ___ Being of sound mind...". I would think the purpose of being of
sound mind is that you knew what you were doing when you made the will. On
the opposite side, when a man signs a paper establishing paternity, they
don't make sure he is informed that if DNA tests prove the child isn't his
that he will still have to pay support for the child that isn't his. So, by
that definition, most of the time the man didn't sign the paper "being of
sound mind" or at least he maybe didn't realize a signature was more
important than scientific facts. It seems like, in my non-legal opinion,
someone not knowing what they were doing by signing, by not realizing how
crooked the law is, should be grounds to nullify their signature, for the
purpose, they weren't of "sound mind".

RogerN