If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Child Support Gold Diggers
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/05/...-gold-diggers/
Child Support Gold Diggers April 05, 2006 BullsEye By Carey Roberts Laws that protect the fairer sex from rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment all rest on a simple assumption: women who claim to be victims are almost always telling the truth. Maybe it's time to revisit that belief. Three weeks ago the National Center for Men filed a lawsuit on behalf of Matt Dubay, 25, who claims his girlfriend repeatedly assured him that she was unable to get pregnant. When she later bore a child, the state of Michigan went after Mr. Dubay for child support. That's what people used to call entrapment. But chivalrous pundits rose to defend the honor of this damsel in distress, dubbing Mr. Dubay a "sexual predator," "deadbeat dad," and - horrors! - a "weasel." And if you happen to believe that men should be shouldered with the responsibilities and women enjoy all the rights, their criticisms certainly ring true. Recently That's Life! magazine polled 5,000 women and asked them if they would lie to get pregnant. Two-fifths of the women - 42% to be exact - said "yes," according to NCM's Kingsley Morse. Yikes! But that was just a hypothetical survey. Women would never stick it to a man they actually knew. Or would they? Consider the paternity scam. Here's how it works: Find any dim-witted man to get you pregnant. Then look up the name of some unsuspecting Joe who's got a steady job - it doesn't matter that you never met the poor bloke. Put his name on the baby's birth certificate. Now cross your fingers and hope the man is out of town when the sheriff delivers the papers. In California, such default judgments account for 70% of paternity decisions, according to a 2003 study by the Urban Institute. Or defraud one of your previous boyfriends, assuming he's a good breadwinner, of course. That's what happened to Carnell Smith of Georgia, who willingly assumed financial responsibility for a child, shelling out more than $40,000 in child support over an 11-year period. But when the mother went to court to up the payments, Smith requested genetic testing. That's when he learned, to his great surprise, that he wasn't the girl's father. Stung by the injustice, Mr. Smith founded Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, [http://paternityfraud.com/pf_fight_back.html] a group that works to protect men from being cheated by these modern-day Welfare Queens. Last year Michael Gilding, sociology professor at Swinburne University in Australia, reviewed studies from around the world, and concluded that 1-3% of children were fathered by someone other than the man who believes he's the daddy. Let's run the math. Four million children are born in the United States each year. Using the mid-range 2% figure, that means 80,000 men become victims of paternity fraud. Yikes again! Ready for the next scam? This one involves false allegations of domestic violence. Each year, one million restraining orders are issued that serve to evict a person - usually a man - from his own home. Restraining orders have become so commonplace that family lawyers refer to them as silver bullets, slam-dunks, or simply, "divorce planning." It has been estimated that one-third of those orders are requested as a legal ploy in the middle of a divorce proceeding. Not only are the orders easy to get, in many states a restraining order automatically bans a father from gaining joint custody of his children. [http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-...-Families.pdf] So the restraining order granted on the flimsy grounds that he caused "emotional distress" becomes the woman's meal ticket to many years of child support payments. Prosecutors never go after persons who commit perjury, anyway. And state welfare agencies don't get upset either, because the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement reimburses 66% of the costs of states' child support enforcement activities. Think of it as a bounty payment for deleting daddies. So let's see . . . 42% of women admit they would lie to get pregnant. Each year 80,000 non-biological fathers become victims of paternity fraud. And about 300,000 restraining orders are issued in the middle of a divorce. Assume a father so defrauded finds himself on the hook for $250 a month for each of his children. Over an 18-year period, that comes out to a cushy $54,000, all legally-enforceable, tax-free, and no strings attached. In the past the American legal system was guided by the rule, "No person shall benefit from their own wrong-doing." But now, hundreds of thousands of women replace that dictum with the self-indulgent excuse: "Get while the getting is good." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Child Support Gold Diggers
"Dusty" wrote in message ... http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/05/...-gold-diggers/ Child Support Gold Diggers April 05, 2006 BullsEye By Carey Roberts Laws that protect the fairer sex from rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment all rest on a simple assumption: women who claim to be victims are almost always telling the truth. Maybe it's time to revisit that belief. Three weeks ago the National Center for Men filed a lawsuit on behalf of Matt Dubay, 25, who claims his girlfriend repeatedly assured him that she was unable to get pregnant. When she later bore a child, the state of Michigan went after Mr. Dubay for child support. That's what people used to call entrapment. But chivalrous pundits rose to defend the honor of this damsel in distress, dubbing Mr. Dubay a "sexual predator," "deadbeat dad," and - horrors! - a "weasel." And if you happen to believe that men should be shouldered with the responsibilities and women enjoy all the rights, their criticisms certainly ring true. Recently That's Life! magazine polled 5,000 women and asked them if they would lie to get pregnant. Two-fifths of the women - 42% to be exact - said "yes," according to NCM's Kingsley Morse. Yikes! But that was just a hypothetical survey. Women would never stick it to a man they actually knew. Or would they? Consider the paternity scam. Here's how it works: Find any dim-witted man to get you pregnant. Then look up the name of some unsuspecting Joe who's got a steady job - it doesn't matter that you never met the poor bloke. Put his name on the baby's birth certificate. Now cross your fingers and hope the man is out of town when the sheriff delivers the papers. In California, such default judgments account for 70% of paternity decisions, according to a 2003 study by the Urban Institute. Or defraud one of your previous boyfriends, assuming he's a good breadwinner, of course. That's what happened to Carnell Smith of Georgia, who willingly assumed financial responsibility for a child, shelling out more than $40,000 in child support over an 11-year period. But when the mother went to court to up the payments, Smith requested genetic testing. That's when he learned, to his great surprise, that he wasn't the girl's father. Stung by the injustice, Mr. Smith founded Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, [http://paternityfraud.com/pf_fight_back.html] a group that works to protect men from being cheated by these modern-day Welfare Queens. Last year Michael Gilding, sociology professor at Swinburne University in Australia, reviewed studies from around the world, and concluded that 1-3% of children were fathered by someone other than the man who believes he's the daddy. Let's run the math. Four million children are born in the United States each year. Using the mid-range 2% figure, that means 80,000 men become victims of paternity fraud. Yikes again! Ready for the next scam? This one involves false allegations of domestic violence. Each year, one million restraining orders are issued that serve to evict a person - usually a man - from his own home. Restraining orders have become so commonplace that family lawyers refer to them as silver bullets, slam-dunks, or simply, "divorce planning." It has been estimated that one-third of those orders are requested as a legal ploy in the middle of a divorce proceeding. Not only are the orders easy to get, in many states a restraining order automatically bans a father from gaining joint custody of his children. I was informed by a reputable attorney that restraining orders are automatic in divorce cases; that it's simply standard procedure. Well, just like marriage, the government people have also trashed the purpose of restraining orders. [http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-...-Families.pdf] So the restraining order granted on the flimsy grounds that he caused "emotional distress" becomes the woman's meal ticket to many years of child support payments. Prosecutors never go after persons who commit perjury, anyway. And state welfare agencies don't get upset either, because the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement reimburses 66% of the costs of states' child support enforcement activities. Think of it as a bounty payment for deleting daddies. So let's see . . . 42% of women admit they would lie to get pregnant. Each year 80,000 non-biological fathers become victims of paternity fraud. And about 300,000 restraining orders are issued in the middle of a divorce. Assume a father so defrauded finds himself on the hook for $250 a month for each of his children. Over an 18-year period, that comes out to a cushy $54,000, all legally-enforceable, tax-free, and no strings attached. In the past the American legal system was guided by the rule, "No person shall benefit from their own wrong-doing." But now, hundreds of thousands of women replace that dictum with the self-indulgent excuse: "Get while the getting is good." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Child Support Gold Diggers
This is going to sound strange...but, I am a woman...and I totally
agree with you on every aspect of this post. My husband and I have been married for four years...and were together for a year and a half before that. I knew that my ex husband, had a girlfriend before me that screamed "pregnant" to him...well...he did the right thing, took her to the doctor, and was ready to live up to his responsibility....when the next day...the bomb hit....she told him that she had been sleeping around, and the kid wasn't his anyway...but someone else's. Well, that was the end of that relationship...Then one week before the kid's 1st birthday...there was the ex standing on his front door step holding this little boy that looked exactly like him...claiming that it was his son and that she needed money to support him.......he was stunned...she even asked him to move her and the child in with him....my husband was so confuesed, and distraught that he gave her money?!? Then we found out that she was recieving childsupport payments from another man. So...who's kid is this anyway? Well, We asked the court to demand a paternity test, against the mother's wishes....Well, it was my husbands son. We talked things over...immediatly got married....and filed for custody. The judge itatally said that there was no way that he was going to grant custody to a man who hadn't even been in his child's life. Well....excuse me if the woman lied about who's kid it was....anyway....he ended up winning joint custody....and now pays child support....even though the child resides with us for fifty precent of the year....the other man refuses to sue her for the two years of child support he paid her, when it wasn't even his child....then...this gets better.....child support in our state is income based!!! My husband was ordered by a judge to claim more income than he actually makes, because he made fifty dollars umpiring one ball game in the previous year. So the judge added fifty dollars a month to his income...and allowed the mother to claim that she only works two days a week at minimum wage....I think that income based childsupport calculations are another way that gold diggers can stick it to a man. The less they work...to support their own child....the more the man who does work, is ordered to pay in child support. And you are right about the amount of money it costs....we were ordered to pay back plus interest the child support from the day the child was born, even during the two years that another man made child support payments to her. The little boy is now six years old....and we have paid 28,800 to the mother as of todays date....and are expecting to pay out another 57,600 before the child reaches the age of 18. That only includes actual child support (for her to only support the child half of the time...the other half of the time, that he resides with us, also comes out of our pocket) Now, I am sure that I sound horriable....so don't get me wrong....this little boy has become our pride and joy! We love him very much, and would do anything and everything for him....we just have a problem with his mother living in a 200,000 dollar home, but only works two days a week at minimum wage....and he still has to support his two "legitament" children....but, can not claim them as a deduction for childsupport...as they are "afterborn children" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Child Support Gold Diggers
wrote in message oups.com... This is going to sound strange...but, I am a woman...and I totally agree with you on every aspect of this post. My husband and I have been married for four years...and were together for a year and a half before that. I knew that my ex husband, had a girlfriend before me that screamed "pregnant" to him...well...he did the right thing, took her to the doctor, and was ready to live up to his responsibility....when the next day...the bomb hit....she told him that she had been sleeping around, and the kid wasn't his anyway...but someone else's. Well, that was the end of that relationship...Then one week before the kid's 1st birthday...there was the ex standing on his front door step holding this little boy that looked exactly like him...claiming that it was his son and that she needed money to support him.......he was stunned...she even asked him to move her and the child in with him....my husband was so confuesed, and distraught that he gave her money?!? Then we found out that she was recieving childsupport payments from another man. So...who's kid is this anyway? Well, We asked the court to demand a paternity test, against the mother's wishes....Well, it was my husbands son. We talked things over...immediatly got married....and filed for custody. The judge itatally said that there was no way that he was going to grant custody to a man who hadn't even been in his child's life. Well....excuse me if the woman lied about who's kid it was....anyway....he ended up winning joint custody....and now pays child support....even though the child resides with us for fifty precent of the year....the other man refuses to sue her for the two years of child support he paid her, when it wasn't even his child....then...this gets better.....child support in our state is income based!!! My husband was ordered by a judge to claim more income than he actually makes, because he made fifty dollars umpiring one ball game in the previous year. So the judge added fifty dollars a month to his income...and allowed the mother to claim that she only works two days a week at minimum wage....I think that income based childsupport calculations are another way that gold diggers can stick it to a man. The less they work...to support their own child....the more the man who does work, is ordered to pay in child support. And you are right about the amount of money it costs....we were ordered to pay back plus interest the child support from the day the child was born, even during the two years that another man made child support payments to her. The little boy is now six years old....and we have paid 28,800 to the mother as of todays date....and are expecting to pay out another 57,600 before the child reaches the age of 18. That only includes actual child support (for her to only support the child half of the time...the other half of the time, that he resides with us, also comes out of our pocket) Now, I am sure that I sound horriable....so don't get me wrong....this little boy has become our pride and joy! We love him very much, and would do anything and everything for him....we just have a problem with his mother living in a 200,000 dollar home, but only works two days a week at minimum wage....and he still has to support his two "legitament" children....but, can not claim them as a deduction for childsupport...as they are "afterborn children" Hey--you want to talk about afterborn children!! My husband found out several years ago that he was the father of an almost-13-year-old girl, product of a one night stand. Dear, sweet. innocent mom never bothered to tell him because she felt that her place at the public trough was bringing in more than child support would. Meanwhile, we met, married, and had 2 beautiful children of our own--they were 8 amd 9 when we found out about the other child. But the judge told us that our children are irrelevant. IRRELEVANT! That only the other child counts in figuring child support! This system that claims to operate only in the best interests of the children also claims that certain children are irrelevant! And tramps that have never wprked a day in their lives get supported by taxpayers and also given first dibs on the salaries of hardworking men, no questions asked. It is a disgusting system!! -- NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Child Support Gold Diggers
wrote in message oups.com... This is going to sound strange...but, I am a woman...and I totally agree with you on every aspect of this post. It only sounds strange to foolish people. Such people believe that this is a gender issue. They could not be FURTHER from the truth. This is, and always has been, an issue between right and wrong. Your testimony below only confirms this fact. My husband and I have been married for four years...and were together for a year and a half before that. I knew that my ex husband, had a girlfriend before me that screamed "pregnant" to him...well...he did the right thing, took her to the doctor, and was ready to live up to his responsibility....when the next day...the bomb hit....she told him that she had been sleeping around, and the kid wasn't his anyway...but someone else's. Well, that was the end of that relationship...Then one week before the kid's 1st birthday...there was the ex standing on his front door step holding this little boy that looked exactly like him...claiming that it was his son and that she needed money to support him.......he was stunned...she even asked him to move her and the child in with him....my husband was so confuesed, and distraught that he gave her money?!? Then we found out that she was recieving childsupport payments from another man. So...who's kid is this anyway? Well, We asked the court to demand a paternity test, against the mother's wishes....Well, it was my husbands son. We talked things over...immediatly got married....and filed for custody. The judge itatally said that there was no way that he was going to grant custody to a man who hadn't even been in his child's life. Well....excuse me if the woman lied about who's kid it was....anyway....he ended up winning joint custody....and now pays child support....even though the child resides with us for fifty precent of the year....the other man refuses to sue her for the two years of child support he paid her, when it wasn't even his child....then...this gets better.....child support in our state is income based!!! My husband was ordered by a judge to claim more income than he actually makes, because he made fifty dollars umpiring one ball game in the previous year. So the judge added fifty dollars a month to his income...and allowed the mother to claim that she only works two days a week at minimum wage....I think that income based childsupport calculations are another way that gold diggers can stick it to a man. The less they work...to support their own child....the more the man who does work, is ordered to pay in child support. And you are right about the amount of money it costs....we were ordered to pay back plus interest the child support from the day the child was born, even during the two years that another man made child support payments to her. The little boy is now six years old....and we have paid 28,800 to the mother as of todays date....and are expecting to pay out another 57,600 before the child reaches the age of 18. That only includes actual child support (for her to only support the child half of the time...the other half of the time, that he resides with us, also comes out of our pocket) Now, I am sure that I sound horriable....so don't get me wrong....this little boy has become our pride and joy! We love him very much, and would do anything and everything for him....we just have a problem with his mother living in a 200,000 dollar home, but only works two days a week at minimum wage....and he still has to support his two "legitament" children....but, can not claim them as a deduction for childsupport...as they are "afterborn children" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Child Support Gold Diggers
Yep, same here...my two children with him (that he is also responsible
to support) were labeled "afterborn children" and are considered by the court to be "irrevelant"....unless of course, I divorce my husband, and file for child support myself. Then, and only then, will they be considered as people that he is "financially responsible for", and the Judge will review the support case regarding the other child. The funny part is....they are the ones that often have to do without, because their brother's mother won't go get a real job....so we have to pay her 400 dollars per month to have the child 15 days in that month, pay for 100% of his health insurance and medical costs, and....still pay all of the cost to support him for the other 15 days a month....meanwhile, my children have to be on medicaide, because there is just not enough money left to pay for their insurance, too. I find it funny that this woman only showed up on the door step after my husband went to work for a major gas and oil company....when he was just a mechanic.....it was supposedly someone else's kid....I am also apuled that a judge can actually make someone claim more income than they are actually making....just because the mother had proof that he made $50.00 extra one time in his life. I also think that the minimum amount that a mother should be able to claim as income is at least 40 hours a week at minimum wage....16 hours a week at minimum wage, just doesn't cut it....she's not even a student!!! There is no reason she can't work 40 hours a week just like the rest of us....but then....if she made more....she would get less child support....since of course it all gets spent on her child in that 15 days a month that he is with her....isn't life great for some people....only have to be a parent for half of the time....and still get paid....Joint custody, should in my opinion...leave each parent to support that child during the half of the time that they have the child.....isn't that fair? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Child Support Gold Diggers
wrote .................................. Joint custody, should in my opinion...leave each parent to support that child during the half of the time that they have the child.....isn't that fair? == Fair, yes but not profitable to the states. If there is no transfer of money, the state doesn't get federal funds. If the system were about fairness, there would be accountability for CS paid, support of children would be equal to the support requirements of parents in intact relationships and custodial parents, tax credits would go to the parent who contributes the greater share of support, subsequent children would have equal financial standing with "children of the order." == |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Child Support Gold Diggers
wrote in message oups.com... Yep, same here...my two children with him (that he is also responsible to support) were labeled "afterborn children" and are considered by the court to be "irrevelant"....unless of course, I divorce my husband, and file for child support myself. Then, and only then, will they be considered as people that he is "financially responsible for", and the Judge will review the support case regarding the other child. The funny part is....they are the ones that often have to do without, because their brother's mother won't go get a real job....so we have to pay her 400 dollars per month to have the child 15 days in that month, pay for 100% of his health insurance and medical costs, and....still pay all of the cost to support him for the other 15 days a month....meanwhile, my children have to be on medicaide, because there is just not enough money left to pay for their insurance, too. Family coverage covers all the children. I find it funny that this woman only showed up on the door step after my husband went to work for a major gas and oil company....when he was just a mechanic.....it was supposedly someone else's kid....I am also apuled that a judge can actually make someone claim more income than they are actually making....just because the mother had proof that he made $50.00 extra one time in his life. I also think that the minimum amount that a mother should be able to claim as income is at least 40 hours a week at minimum wage....16 hours a week at minimum wage, just doesn't cut it....she's not even a student!!! There is no reason she can't work 40 hours a week just like the rest of us....but then....if she made more....she would get less child support....since of course it all gets spent on her child in that 15 days a month that he is with her....isn't life great for some people....only have to be a parent for half of the time....and still get paid....Joint custody, should in my opinion...leave each parent to support that child during the half of the time that they have the child.....isn't that fair? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Child Support Gold Diggers (Long)
wrote ..................... Joint custody, should in my opinion...leave each parent to support that child during the half of the time that they have the child.....isn't that fair? === I haven't posted this for awhile, but I'm sure it will interest you. The opinion below is from a dissenting judge of the 5th District appellate court in Florida, when the court considered the question of financial responsibilities for subsequent children. A lower court refused to reduce the support of the NCP because of subsequent children. The majority agreed with the lower court, but Judge Harris wrote this compelling dissenting opinion on the matter. It is long but very well worth the read. I think it is the most poignant statement ever written on behalf of subsequent children. Unfortunately, it wasn't a majority opinion: (From POHLMANN v. POHLMANN, 703 So.2d 1121 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 1997) "It is our obligation, under the constitution of this state, to determine whether the state has the right under any circumstance (even if recommended by a commission) to discriminate between children born to the same parent. There is no doubt that if parents are required to support their children by a second marriage to the same extent that they must support their children from an earlier marriage, the standard of living of all of the children will be affected. But so too will the standard of living of the first-born child in an intact marriage be affected by the birth of the second child and this adjusted standard of living will be further affected by the birth of the third child and this adjusted standard of living will again be affected by the birth of the fourth child and so on. The living standard of children will always be affected when the parent's finite income is required to be shared with additional siblings. But each child should be able to expect that the law (the state) will not intervene in order to treat him or her unfairly in the allocation of the parent's income which is available for support. If the court so intervenes, the children of the second marriage will see the court as the neighborhood bully who steals their candy to give to their half-siblings. The fact of a divorce should not be justification for the state to prefer some of the siblings over others. It is not appropriate for the state to punish the children of a second marriage because their parent was involved in a previous divorce. Although the state should not involve itself with the divorced parent's decision regarding remarriage, our statute is designed to discourage a parent from having a second family unless he or she is willing to support the second family at a lesser standard. But even though the statute is not an exercise of legitimate state interest, since it is presumed that the parent is aware of this provision it is not as unfair to enforce the provisions of the statute against the parent in the event of a second family as it is to enforce it against the children born of the second marriage. At least the parent has assumed the risk of state discrimination. But the children of the later marriage were not aware of the statutory provision nor did they consent to be born into state-mandated poverty. The United States Supreme Court,[fn1] in considering whether a state could refuse to educate the children of illegal immigrants, rejected the state's effort: Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice. "[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual - as well as unjust - way of deterring the parent." (Citation omitted). Throughout this discussion, we should keep in mind that we are not here dealing with state funds. The state is mandating a disproportionate allocation of the parent's income. It is demanding that parents, from Page 1128 their income, support some of their children better than they support the others. And the state is wrong. The state does have a legitimate interest in seeing that a noncustodial parent does not discriminate against the children of the first marriage by supporting them at a lesser level than subsequently born children in that parent's custody. And in supplying this protection, the court should consider not only any additional income earned by the parent since the divorce but also any support contribution that might be made by the new spouse. But the state should not attempt to meet this obligation, as it has by this statute, by throwing the subsequent children to the wolves. The state's current approach is Cinderellian - it makes noncustodial parents appear as wicked stepparents to their own children by requiring them to provide new ball gowns for their first born while supplying hand-me-downs to their later children. The dissent in Feltman asks the question: "Are the children of a second marriage children of a lesser god'?" It also asks whether such children are lesser under the United States Constitution; are they less hungry or less naked without their parent's support? It finally asks whether we should weep for the children of a second marriage when they are born instead of when they die? The dissent in Feltman's response to these questions is that all children of the parent should be considered equal. The dissent asserts, as do I, that the mere fact that discrimination is in the guidelines or in the statute does not make it right, nor does it make it constitutional. Nor does the fact that it is designed by some committee make it so. Even though it is a discomforting topic, perhaps we should consider the fairness issue. Suppose it were the mother who was required to pay support to the children of her first marriage. And assume that upon remarriage she elects to have additional children. By doing so, she has voluntarily become unemployed rendering further child support problematic. Assume further that she elects to become a stay-at-home mother to raise her new children. The court would not, could not, and should not intervene. And there is a good reason. The children of the first marriage simply have no more veto power over the noncustodial parent's future reproductive decisions than a child of an intact marriage has over his parents' decision to have additional children. And such children of the first marriage, at least in my view, have no vested right to a higher standard of living based on an allocation of a greater percentage of their parent's income than do the children of a second marriage. Because the state has no business discriminating between children based solely on the fact of a divorce, there is no legitimate state purpose in requiring a parent to allocate his or her income more to one child than another. The state's attempt to do so is state-mandated, court-enforced child abuse; it is not only cruel discrimination, it is unconstitutional. [fn1] Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 220, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2396, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (U.S.Tex. 1982), rehearing denied, 458 U.S. 1131, 103 S.Ct. 14, 73 L.Ed.2d 1401 (1982). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Child Support Gold Diggers (Long)
"Gini" wrote in message news:CjWZf.1165$rm3.647@trndny06... wrote .................... Joint custody, should in my opinion...leave each parent to support that child during the half of the time that they have the child.....isn't that fair? === I haven't posted this for awhile, but I'm sure it will interest you. The opinion below is from a dissenting judge of the 5th District appellate court in Florida, when the court considered the question of financial responsibilities for subsequent children. A lower court refused to reduce the support of the NCP because of subsequent children. The majority agreed with the lower court, but Judge Harris wrote this compelling dissenting opinion on the matter. It is long but very well worth the read. I think it is the most poignant statement ever written on behalf of subsequent children. Unfortunately, it wasn't a majority opinion: Thanks for posting this again. There are similar arguments being advanced regarding the illegal alien debate. Why should a non-citizen illegal alien child be charged in-state tuition for state schools at a rate lower than a legal citizen child who is a resident of another state? It's the same logic as the wise judge articulated - children are treated differently by state mandated laws based on their birth and place of residence which are issues over which they have no control. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AL: Court issues history-making decision in child custody case | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | August 3rd 05 01:07 AM |
OT The "Child's" Point Of View | Pop | Foster Parents | 7 | June 20th 05 03:13 AM |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 03:47 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |