Police: Man faked death to avoid child support

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

* US * wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:12:41 -0800, "garbageteachr"

wrote:

...It does not seem as if ...

The response to the ignorant misperception that men
would somehow not be able to manage paternities with
personal responsibility is to point out that it's erroneous.

I said: "Chris said "..the problem is that you are creating a fantasy
discussion.
How? By clipping
a few words from the previous post and responding to an out of context
issue."

US responded " No one else is forcing you to lie. Take responsibility
for
yourself."

Hmmmmmmm. It does not seem as if US responded to what Chris actually
said.
I wonder why?"

US responded: "...It does not seem as if ...

The response to the ignorant misperception that men
would somehow not be able to manage paternities with
personal responsibility is to point out that it's erroneous."


Hmmmmmmmmmm......It does not seem as if US responded to what I actually
said.
I wonder why?"


My opinion: US is one of those who lack the intelligence to shut their
mouth
when a bird ****s in their face.
Phil #3

My guess is that it's actually a computer generated response, hence the "no
rhyme or reason" characteristics of the post. You know how it is when your
computer has glitches; it seems to have a mind of its own.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

On the contrary, I know exactly how he is counted. He was assigned 2
years
of arrearages from the moment paternity was proved--even though he did
not
know the child existed. Every monthly payment is counted as late because
it
is garnished on the 1st AND due on the first. Our house has a lien on
it,
even though he has not missed a single payment in over 4 years, and the
arrearage is almost paid off. Our income tax refund this year will
nearly
wipe it out. The CS arreearage is on his credit report--even though he
has
never missed a payment. And guess what else. Although our income tax
refund was grabbed every year for last 4 years, they never counted it.
Never took it off the arrearage. We had to file several demands before
they
even looked into it. They were fixing on assigning an additional amount
of
money garnished from his wages to GET THE MONEY THEY HAD ALREADY TAKEN!!
Such a kind, sweet agency you are defending!

[snipped for brevity]

Timing of wage garnishments is a payroll department problem. I've had
garnishments for child support come across my desk in the course of my
employment as an accountant and can see the problem clearly,
especially if the employee is paid monthly (as my company does).

I'd receive a court ordered garnishment on, say, the 15th of the month
for an order signed on the, say, 6th which states payment is due on/by
the 1st of the month from the date of the order. By this time, the
next payroll check I can withhold money from won't HAPPEN until the
1st of the month. By the employee's point of view, he paid on the 1st
and has not missed a payment. However, the employer (at least in my
state) has 7 days in which to remit the funds withheld. But even
immediate remittance is not processed by child support enforcement the
second the money is withheld. It can take a day even with a bank to
bank transfer making the payment late as of the 2nd of the month.
Hence, what the employer needs to do in the beginning is to withhold
the statutory limit until that first month is paid and remaining
remittances will arrive on/before the 1st. The problem is that the
first opportunity to withhold makes payment lag a month in perpetuity.
I counsel my garnished employees on this so they can avoid the
nastiness for years to come. Many payroll clerks simply send what
the order states regardless of timing because they don't understand
and/or don't care what effect this can have in the long run.
Unfortunately, garnishment laws have no consequence on the employer
for stupidity.

So, basically, what I am saying is that the date money is withheld is
not the payment date... the date it is received by child support
enforcement is the payment date. This makes it feel like one is
paying a month ahead and one is, essentially, in order to beat the
deadline. Sad, but true.

[snipped for brevity]

Really? And the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT
COUNTED
as paid on time. It's just a matter of how the payments are recorded.
Last
spring, the social worked who deals with the mother of his child called
and
asked when the current month's child support would be paid. He told her
it
has been garnished from his wages as always. But it hadn't arrived. It
got
there 2 months late! AND it is recorded as 2 months late on his CSE
account. Even though it was garnished and sent in the same as every
other
month!

All too common and no resolution in sight. I've been threatened by an
ex-wife when the money we garnished and sent got "misplaced" in the
system due to her own negligence. She was so eager to get her hands
on the child support that she inadvertently had more than one case
open at child support enforcement. When the money arrived, it could
not be determined to which case to apply it (they bore identical court
case numbers) so child support enforcement simply held it. Now that
we determined the problem (of her own making), I can only assume that
she gets the payments regularly since I haven't had to listen to her
monthly rant. When last I spoke to her, I put some "crow" on a fork
and shoved it up her.... . I hope she got it.

When I was first hit with payroll withholding many years ago it was done
through a Garnishment By Attorney. My ex wanted to make sure it got in
place quickly. My employer had a payroll department policy they would not
discuss any employee's payroll records with anyone from outside the company.
My ex called and got turned away. Her attorney called and got turned away
too. The attorney threaten legal action but got nowhere. Every time either
one of them called, the payroll manager gave me a heads up and told me what
they were trying to do to manipulate the process.

The problem? The withholding garnishment cited the 50% maximum for
withholding and by filing the Garnishment By Attorney the amount of support
I paid went down from the nearly 60% I had been paying before the
withholding order. The withholding order actually caused an arrearage to be
created.

"teachrmama" wrote
...........................

Only a couple of years left--we've made it this far, so 2 years looks
short.
==
We're gonna have to have a party. I'll bring the beer.
==

"Gini" wrote in message
news:UWcDf.4761$J81.4195@trndny01...

"teachrmama" wrote
..........................

Only a couple of years left--we've made it this far, so 2 years looks
short.
==
We're gonna have to have a party. I'll bring the beer.
==

Absolutely!!!! =cD

* US * wrote in message news
...responsibility ...

A concept foreign to you.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:07:26 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a quote

I have attributed all quotes correctly.

Learn to locate attributions if you can.

Then learn not to lie about irrelevancies,
and perhaps you'll earn respect someday.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:30:13 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

You are attributing words to me that are not even mine.

You are mistaken.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:53:00 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Translation: lack of funds = stupidity.

Apparently you aren't proficient with language.

Those who don't have enough money to support kids
don't need to have any.

Those who can't figure out what it costs shouldn't.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:08:26 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

... the best you could do ...

I'm not the one having kids I can't afford to raise.

...She has a
choice.
He does not...

You are clueless. Any man who doesn't want to deal
with paternity can get fixed, use contraception, or
keep it in his pants.

Nobody else owes any man management of paternity.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:42:51 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

...I assumed ...

You thus make an ass of yourself.

No one forces a man to undertake fatherhood.

When he does so, he becomes responsible for it.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:27:56 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Umm...It was the mother (with assistance of the state) whose methods
caused

She raped a man and forbade his use of birth control?

Oh, do tell.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:40:44 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager
DOTnet wrote:

Yawn

So you're an idiot due to oxygen deprivation.

Thanks for the confirmation.

If only women were held to that standard.

So you hate women and want to try to blame
them for not managing _paternities_.

You're not merely misogynist, but stupid.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:49:20 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager
DOTnet wrote:

Yet another clueless boob.

You must be, if you can't even understand that
responsible adults don't have kids they can't
afford to raise.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary partner
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

"teachrmama" wrote in

I consider a woman who expects someone else to pay for 100% of not only
her children's food, clothing, and shelter, but also 100% of her own food,
clothing, and shelter to be derelict in her duties as a parent.

No better than a Bum looking for a handout!

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:50:40 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

Intelligent people who marry and have children often choose to divorce.
Have you seen the divorce rate in this country? Do you think that all people
who divorce ae unintelligent?

Only the ones who have kids when they don't intend to support them ...

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:16:01 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...mistaken ..

Of course you a you are unaware of how
intelligent people manage parenthood.

Impossible for a man to predict what a woman will
be willing to do...

Nonsense: intelligent people discuss such things,
and don't have sex without doing so.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:18:48 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

When a woman separates a father from his child, there exists no paternity to
manage...

You are mistaken: the man who manages paternity
only has children with a woman he knows will be
willing to promote the child's relationship with
the father.

You may believe that men are just helpless irresponsible
dupes, but you're not real cognizant of reality.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:06:19 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... I believe he was referring
to NOT interfering with paternity management as opposed to providing such
management.

No woman can interfere with any man's management
of his paternity: it's his responsibility, not hers. Hers
is maternity.

The specific role in human reproduction of a woman, according to your
government, is making the SOLE decision whether or not to create a child.

That's untrue. No woman can force any man to father
a child if he truly doesn't want to do so.


On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:40:03 GMT, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:

Mothers owe their children the right to paternity management.

No, mothers owe their children the right to maternity management.

Fathers owe their children the right to paternity management.

Do your very best to learn the difference between men and women,
and their specific roles in human reproduction, if you possibly can.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:15:17 -0500, "Pathetic Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote:

... a brainn damaged troller ...

That explains your abject failure to address the aspect
of reality in which no man is ever forced into fatherhood.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:08:26 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

... the best you could do ...

I'm not the one having kids I can't afford to raise.

...She has a
choice.
He does not...

You are clueless. Any man who doesn't want to deal
with paternity can get fixed, use contraception, or
keep it in his pants.

Nobody else owes any man management of paternity.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:42:51 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

...I assumed ...

You thus make an ass of yourself.

No one forces a man to undertake fatherhood.

When he does so, he becomes responsible for it.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:27:56 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Umm...It was the mother (with assistance of the state) whose methods caused

She raped a man and forbade his use of birth control?

Oh, do tell.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:40:44 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote:

Yawn

So you're an idiot due to oxygen deprivation.

Thanks for the confirmation.

If only women were held to that standard.

So you hate women and want to try to blame
them for not managing _paternities_.

You're not merely misogynist, but stupid.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:49:20 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote:

Yet another clueless boob.

You must be, if you can't even understand that
responsible adults don't have kids they can't
afford to raise.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary partner
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:55:28 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

...what I actually
said.

You blather a lot of bull**** about how men
would somehow be unable to determine
whether or not they have kids.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:12:41 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

...It does not seem as if ...

The response to the ignorant misperception that men
would somehow not be able to manage paternities with
personal responsibility is to point out that it's erroneous.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:08:10 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a fictitious
discussion.

No one else is forcing you to lie.

Take responsibility for yourself.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:37:28 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Believe it ...

Mere 'belief' is not a fitting substitute for reasoning.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:50:25 GMT, "DB" wrote:

VERY GOOD POINT!!!!

How would you know?

What was the point to all this again?

You're not expected to know.

The gist is that those who have sex without
contraception are thereby agreeing to support
any children born as a result.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:50:40 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

Intelligent people who marry and have children often choose to divorce.
Have you seen the divorce rate in this country? Do you think that all people
who divorce ae unintelligent?

Only the ones who have kids when they don't intend to support them ...

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:16:01 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...mistaken ..

Of course you a you are unaware of how
intelligent people manage parenthood.

Impossible for a man to predict what a woman will
be willing to do...

Nonsense: intelligent people discuss such things,
and don't have sex without doing so.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:18:48 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

When a woman separates a father from his child, there exists no paternity to
manage...

You are mistaken: the man who manages paternity
only has children with a woman he knows will be
willing to promote the child's relationship with
the father.

You may believe that men are just helpless irresponsible
dupes, but you're not real cognizant of reality.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:06:19 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... I believe he was referring
to NOT interfering with paternity management as opposed to providing such
management.

No woman can interfere with any man's management
of his paternity: it's his responsibility, not hers. Hers
is maternity.

The specific role in human reproduction of a woman, according to your
government, is making the SOLE decision whether or not to create a child.

That's untrue. No woman can force any man to father
a child if he truly doesn't want to do so.


On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:40:03 GMT, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:

Mothers owe their children the right to paternity management.

No, mothers owe their children the right to maternity management.

Fathers owe their children the right to paternity management.

Do your very best to learn the difference between men and women,
and their specific roles in human reproduction, if you possibly can.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:15:17 -0500, "Pathetic Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote:

... a brainn damaged troller ...

That explains your abject failure to address the aspect
of reality in which no man is ever forced into fatherhood.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:08:26 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

... the best you could do ...

I'm not the one having kids I can't afford to raise.

...She has a
choice.
He does not...

You are clueless. Any man who doesn't want to deal
with paternity can get fixed, use contraception, or
keep it in his pants.

Nobody else owes any man management of paternity.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:42:51 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

...I assumed ...

You thus make an ass of yourself.

No one forces a man to undertake fatherhood.

When he does so, he becomes responsible for it.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:27:56 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Umm...It was the mother (with assistance of the state) whose methods caused

She raped a man and forbade his use of birth control?

Oh, do tell.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:40:44 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote:

Yawn

So you're an idiot due to oxygen deprivation.

Thanks for the confirmation.

If only women were held to that standard.

So you hate women and want to try to blame
them for not managing _paternities_.

You're not merely misogynist, but stupid.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:49:20 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote:

Yet another clueless boob.

You must be, if you can't even understand that
responsible adults don't have kids they can't
afford to raise.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary partner
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:31:54 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

I know ...

You don't know enough if you don't realize
that men can avoid unwanted fatherhoods
by using contraception.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:31:02 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Let alone raising someone ELSE'S children.

That's what we taxpayers end up doing when those
of you who don't take responsibility for yourselves
fail to use birth control.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:07:49 GMT, "Phil #3" wrote:

... a hate-filled feminist (I ...

Well something has you convinced that men
are unable to be responsible for their own
sexuality, and while you are hateful due to
a lack of ability to control yourself, the
rest is probably your ignorance.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:12:39 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

...Do you believe ...

I prefer to learn facts, not indulge in belief.

... never work ...

What's changing diapers?

Why do you hate women and wish to devalue
to nothing the genuine effort required to raise
children? They'd get paid for it if they had to
work a daycare center.

Are you mathematically incapable?

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:53:25 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Perhaps, in thie [sic] case, a proctologist

Why do you prefer to fantasize about that orifice
rather than avoid making yourself look like one in
public on newsgroups?

Getting back to the actual subject:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:55:46 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Yet they deem EVERY child to be irrelevant.

Well, those who have unprotected sex without the
specific consensual desire to procreate do, anyway.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:03:27 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

... it might be nice if the mother took a stab at it...

Are you claiming that she has abandoned the child?

... our children are irrelevant...

To the matter of precedent responsibilities, they are.

It's your own problem if you didn't determine that
your temporary sexual liaison had a history of
careless profligacy.

Silly child--I

You seem prone to abuse of those you believe
to be children. I hope you are supervised with
all due diligence in any interactions with them.

that mean old alcohol

Apparently you aren't well-enough educated to
realize that alcoholism, as a drug addiction, is
a health problem.

It's quite inhumane, hate-filled, and spiteful of
you to want to punish sick people.

...grumpy mood...

I'm sorry you suffer such so severely that you
project it where it is inapplicable.

I pity you.

I pity your poor children even more.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:16:58 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

I bet

You shouldn't gamble.

You can't calculate the odds well enough.

You don't even dimly sense that when you attempt
to insist that someone else should shoulder the sole
responsibility for the actions of two people you
should at least first do so yourself.

overinflated ego ...

So that's why you believe others would owe you
compensation for your failures.

Thanks for the confirmation.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.