A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old July 21st 07, 04:14 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.support.marriage,alt.support.divorce
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"John Larkin"


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:56:31 -0700, "teachrmama"

wrote:


"John Larkin"
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechno logyPART.com wrote in
message
news:k58r9314s5d0bpnn6tgndii8k5 ...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:38:32 -0700, "teachrmama"

wrote:


John, think about it. How would you feel in a
situation like that. (And
please don't go all preachy on me and tell me how you
would *never* behave
in such a way as to create such a problem)


I have no idea. I wouldn't get into a situation like
that.

How did I know that you were going to say that. So,
John, I would like a
bit of clarification from you. Do you feel that it is

ok
for a woman to
conceal from a man the fact that he is a father until

12
years have passed,
then demand current child support plus 12 years of back
support? Do you
feel that she is doing right by the child to deny that
child a father for 12
years so she can build herself a nice nest egg?


I'd prefer she didn't, but then if she has fed, housed,
and cared for
his kid for 12 years, don't you think he owes her
something? Even if
she collects $84K, that amounts to $7000 a year, about

80
cents an
hour, not to mention expenses like food and clothing

and
medical.

I would say that when the woman can give the man HIS

SHARE
of the hugs and kisses, the first steps and first sords,
the firts day of schools, the "let's paly ball, Dad's"

and
wrestling matches and dancing-on-Daddy's-feets, and all
the other wonderful growing up memories that dad's and
kids share, then and only then should he pay her "child
support" for all the years she stole from him and his
child. If SHE made the unilateral decision to be a

single
parent for 12 years (while keeping all the wonders of

the
child's growing and development for herself), she should
be not only willing, but obligated, to pay the price
herself.

If you gave your friend a lawnmower, and he mowed your
lawn for you for 5 years, but only did it while you were
at work, and never told you he was doing it, would you

be
willing to fork over several thousand dollars when he
demanded it at the end of 5 years?

Sorry, but I see too many men who abuse their children or
spouses to totally agree with you. To make my point, if
you gave your friend a lawnmower and he broke it while
doing your lawn.... should YOU have to pay for it?

Oh, I see. Because some men abuse their children, all men
should be handed the sh*tty end of the stick?
** I'm not saying that. You were making a genaralization

and
so was I. Each case is different.

That doesn't even begin to make sense, April.
Are you attempting to say that a woman who has a child
without informing the man that she is pregnant, then

demands
12 years of back child support plus ongoing support has

the
RIGHT to do that. because some men have been abusive?
**Nope, wasn't attempting.

No proof necessary that this particular man might become
abusive--just the woman's unilateral decision? I've known
some mothers who have abused their children--does that

mean
that it is ok with you that a father could take his child
and run off with the child, and 12 years later demand 12
years of back child support?
** My Mother left my father with me when I was 2, After 30
years, I finally found my father. My mother told me lies

all
my life. I WAS an abused child. Mentally, Physically and
Emotionally by her. My mother doesn't deserve anything. It
was her choice to keep me away from my father all those

years
and deprive me of having him in my formative years. (

doesn't
matter, come to find out I was always like him even when he
wasn't around lol) I'm just saying you were generalizing in
your post so I retorted doing the same. I don't totally
disagree with you but I don't totally agree either. There
are exceptions.

But, unfortunately, the current CS law does not recognize
that. It's "victim mommy" deserves the money becuase she
raised the child alone. I do not think that a mother who
purposely keeps a child from the father deserves a flipping
penny whe she finally proves paternity. IF she is doing
because of abuse, she needs to PROVE it!! But the system
doesn't care about anything except the almighty dollar. To
heck with a child's need to have 2 parents--only money
matters.



** Isn't that the way the world is with EVERYTHING? Sad I
know, but it's the truth. Money is the most important thing

to
most ppl anymore. Not values.. and certainly not morals.

So let's get this down to your personal opinion--not that it

is
any more important than mine or any other individual's when it
comes to the child support system. Do you, personally, think
that a woman should be able to have a child without informing
the father, raise that child for 12 years, then demand 12

years
of back child support and ongoing support? (Barring any sort

of
abuse, of course) Do you think this is right?


**No I don't. As I said it was her choice to keep the father
away from the child not his. Whay should he have to pay for

her
choice? Now, if the mother is prepared to allow the father
visitation and allow him to get to know his child. I think

from
that point on out he should pay child support. Hard to pay for
something you didn't even know you had.

Yes, that's my take on it also. Some places, however, still
charge a man back to the birth of the child, no matter what.
Other places have recognized the unfairness of using a man as a
savings account without his knowledge, and limit the amount of
time they charge for. Some have refused to charge any arrearages
at all in such situations.

From your experience growing up without your father, I can see
that you realize first hand how important it is for a child to
have his/ father in his/her life. I wish more people understood
that money will never replace a father. Nor can the hole in the
father's heart be healed by telling him "but you get to pay for
all the time you missed."

** Well, I had to leave my son's father. He was very abusive to

me
and was starting on our son. I could handle it, but you don't

beat
on a 1 1/2 year old because he won't stop crying because he

doesn't
want a nap. He had anxiety issues and was being medicated for

about
a month. Then he quit. He promised month after month to go back
but it never happened. AFter 3 months State troppers knock on my
door because my husband was caught on surveillance cameras

stealing
over 1200.00 for his job.( he worked retail). I couldn't handle
anymore. I gave him an easy choice. He could forego paying

support
by just signing him totally over to me. He refused. He paid

child
support. He couldn't keep a job,and was constantly behind on his
payments. In over 4 years, he never once tried to see his son yet
would tell me that the name is what's important ( mind you the
child knows nothing about the family name since his father never
saw him) and that he still loves him. I never will understand my
ex-husbands philosophy on all of this. But Alas, I have remarried
and Next month we all go downtown to swear in front of the judge
that my husband is adopting my son. his father finally.. (after

7
years) realizes that our son is better off having a father who

does
things with him and takes care of him. So I guess my story DOES
have a happy ending

I'm very glad to hear that a man who had no wish to be a father
stepped aside so that the man who wants to be the father is free

to
raise your child with you. It's too bad it took the bio dad so

long
to let go. If any child support arrearages have accrued, will you

be
signing a letter of satisfaction saying that they are paid in

full?

I wish you and your family the very best, April. It sounds like
things are working out well for all of you.
** to tell you the truth, he paid up all his back arrears and is

also
paying ofor the adoption. Lawyer's idea and I agree... on one hand
he could be paying the next 9 years of child support or the

$1200.00
for the adoption.. He opted for the latter.

Wait a second. You have a legal CS obligation too. How much have

you
been required to pay all along? Why are you so willing to sell out
your own CS obligation? Do you really think accepting $1200 lets

you
off the hook to support your child?

I don't quite understand what you are asking, Bob. April said her
child's bio father never wanted anything to do with the child, but
refused to sign away his rights. This last year, he said he would

sign
away his rights and let April's husband, who has been raising the

child
along with April, adopt him. He has agreed to pay the $1200 adoption
fee. Then he doesn't have to pay child support for 9 more years for

a
child he has never even attempted to have a relationship with. April
has been doing her part to support her son all along.

Well she has had a pretty sweet deal. She gets CS from the child's
father (he paid all arrears, right?), has a current husband helping to
support her kid, and she doesn't even acknowledge she had any CS
obligation of her own. Her comments have indicated three adults have
been paying to support this kid, but I suspect the people supporting

the
kid are the two men.

I'm asking her how much she was ordered to pay and if she paid it. If
she claims to have been providing her portion of support too then she
has one really well taken care of kid. And the adoption will reduce

the
amount of support from three adults to two adults and make the kid

worse
off. I suspect this is just another case where the CP mom is

shuffling
dollars around and claiming she has been paying her share of CS with

the
money she has been getting from two different men.

Well, Bob, it at least sounds as if everyone is ending up

satisfied--the
man who never wanted the child (just wanted the child to have his name
for a while) does not have to pay anything any more. The child has a
father who wants him enough to adopt him. And mom, dad, and kid are a
family unit. It's better than most of these cases work out. I don't

know
when April married the new husband, or if she worked outside the home.


Does this mean you are backing off on your prior conclusion that "April
has been doing her part to support her son all along"? I hope so. :-)

You know my point - When the money from CS received, support from
subsequent men in the mom's life, and whatever the mom actually
contributes gets mixed into a household budget there is no way to follow
the money. And the lack of accountability for how the CS dollars are
spent on the children is maddening when you know darn well it is being
used in ways far different than the nice, neat way the CS guidelines are
constructed and used to calculate required support.


Well, Bob, I know darn well you know how I feel about how CS is spent.

You
know that the mother of my husband's oldest daughter uses the CS money as
household money, and the lot of the child has not been bettered at all.
But, in reading April's posts, I did not get the impression that she went
from abusive ex to new husband. And she did try to give her ex an out, so
he would not have to pay child support at all.


Nonsense. She need not give him ANY out, as so-called "child support" is an
artificial debt in the first place.

I do think you may be
misreading her.


Actually, with all due respect, it is YOU who is misreading her. The truth,
you will find, is between the lines.







  #142  
Old July 21st 07, 04:15 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.support.marriage,alt.support.divorce
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"April" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"John Larkin"


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:56:31 -0700, "teachrmama"

wrote:


"John Larkin"


wrote in message
news:k58r9314s5d0bpnn6tgndii8k5tmpc ...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:38:32 -0700, "teachrmama"

wrote:


John, think about it. How would you feel in a

situation
like that. (And
please don't go all preachy on me and tell me how

you
would
*never* behave
in such a way as to create such a problem)


I have no idea. I wouldn't get into a situation

like
that.

How did I know that you were going to say that. So,

John,
I
would like a
bit of clarification from you. Do you feel that it

is
ok
for
a woman to
conceal from a man the fact that he is a father until
12
years have passed,
then demand current child support plus 12 years of

back
support? Do you
feel that she is doing right by the child to deny

that
child
a father for 12
years so she can build herself a nice nest egg?


I'd prefer she didn't, but then if she has fed,

housed,
and
cared for
his kid for 12 years, don't you think he owes her
something?
Even if
she collects $84K, that amounts to $7000 a year,

about
80
cents an
hour, not to mention expenses like food and clothing
and
medical.

I would say that when the woman can give the man HIS

SHARE
of
the hugs and kisses, the first steps and first sords,
the
firts day of schools, the "let's paly ball, Dad's" and
wrestling matches and dancing-on-Daddy's-feets, and

all
the
other wonderful growing up memories that dad's and

kids
share,
then and only then should he pay her "child support"

for
all
the years she stole from him and his child. If SHE

made
the
unilateral decision to be a single parent for 12 years
(while
keeping all the wonders of the child's growing and
development
for herself), she should be not only willing, but
obligated,
to pay the price herself.

If you gave your friend a lawnmower, and he mowed your

lawn
for you for 5 years, but only did it while you were at
work,
and never told you he was doing it, would you be

willing
to
fork over several thousand dollars when he demanded it
at
the
end of 5 years?

Sorry, but I see too many men who abuse their children

or
spouses to totally agree with you. To make my point,

if
you
gave your friend a lawnmower and he broke it while

doing
your
lawn.... should YOU have to pay for it?

Oh, I see. Because some men abuse their children, all

men
should be handed the sh*tty end of the stick?
** I'm not saying that. You were making a genaralization

and
so
was I. Each case is different.

That doesn't even begin to make sense, April.
Are you attempting to say that a woman who has a child
without
informing the man that she is pregnant, then demands 12

years
of
back child support plus ongoing support has the RIGHT to
do
that. because some men have been abusive?
**Nope, wasn't attempting.

No proof necessary that this particular man might become
abusive--just the woman's unilateral decision? I've

known
some
mothers who have abused their children--does that mean
that
it
is ok with you that a father could take his child and

run
off
with the child, and 12 years later demand 12 years of

back
child
support?
** My Mother left my father with me when I was 2, After

30
years,
I finally found my father. My mother told me lies all my
life.
I WAS an abused child. Mentally, Physically and

Emotionally
by
her. My mother doesn't deserve anything. It was her

choice
to
keep me away from my father all those years and deprive

me
of
having him in my formative years. ( doesn't matter, come

to
find
out I was always like him even when he wasn't around lol)

I'm
just saying you were generalizing in your post so I
retorted
doing the same. I don't totally disagree with you but I

don't
totally agree either. There are exceptions.

But, unfortunately, the current CS law does not recognize

that.
It's "victim mommy" deserves the money becuase she raised
the
child alone. I do not think that a mother who purposely
keeps

a
child from the father deserves a flipping penny whe she

finally
proves paternity. IF she is doing because of abuse, she
needs
to
PROVE it!! But the system doesn't care about anything

except
the
almighty dollar. To heck with a child's need to have 2
parents--only money matters.



** Isn't that the way the world is with EVERYTHING? Sad I

know,
but it's the truth. Money is the most important thing to
most
ppl
anymore. Not values.. and certainly not morals.

So let's get this down to your personal opinion--not that it
is
any
more important than mine or any other individual's when it

comes
to
the child support system. Do you, personally, think that a

woman
should be able to have a child without informing the father,
raise
that child for 12 years, then demand 12 years of back child
support
and ongoing support? (Barring any sort of abuse, of course)
Do
you
think this is right?


**No I don't. As I said it was her choice to keep the father

away
from the child not his. Whay should he have to pay for her
choice?
Now, if the mother is prepared to allow the father visitation

and
allow him to get to know his child. I think from that point

on
out
he should pay child support. Hard to pay for something you

didn't
even know you had.

Yes, that's my take on it also. Some places, however, still

charge
a
man back to the birth of the child, no matter what. Other
places
have
recognized the unfairness of using a man as a savings account
without
his knowledge, and limit the amount of time they charge for.

Some
have refused to charge any arrearages at all in such

situations.

From your experience growing up without your father, I can see

that
you realize first hand how important it is for a child to have

his/
father in his/her life. I wish more people understood that
money
will
never replace a father. Nor can the hole in the father's

heart
be
healed by telling him "but you get to pay for all the time you
missed."

** Well, I had to leave my son's father. He was very abusive

to
me
and
was starting on our son. I could handle it, but you don't beat
on

a
1
1/2 year old because he won't stop crying because he doesn't

want
a
nap. He had anxiety issues and was being medicated for about a
month.
Then he quit. He promised month after month to go back but it

never
happened. AFter 3 months State troppers knock on my door

because
my
husband was caught on surveillance cameras stealing over

1200.00
for
his job.( he worked retail). I couldn't handle anymore. I gave
him
an
easy choice. He could forego paying support by just signing

him
totally over to me. He refused. He paid child support. He
couldn't
keep a job,and was constantly behind on his payments. In over

4
years,
he never once tried to see his son yet would tell me that the
name
is
what's important ( mind you the child knows nothing about the

family
name since his father never saw him) and that he still loves

him.
I
never will understand my ex-husbands philosophy on all of this.

But
Alas, I have remarried and Next month we all go downtown to

swear
in
front of the judge that my husband is adopting my son. his
father
finally.. (after 7 years) realizes that our son is better off

having
a
father who does things with him and takes care of him. So I
guess
my
story DOES have a happy ending

I'm very glad to hear that a man who had no wish to be a father
stepped
aside so that the man who wants to be the father is free to

raise
your
child with you. It's too bad it took the bio dad so long to let

go.
If
any child support arrearages have accrued, will you be signing a
letter
of satisfaction saying that they are paid in full?

I wish you and your family the very best, April. It sounds like
things
are working out well for all of you.
** to tell you the truth, he paid up all his back arrears and is

also
paying ofor the adoption. Lawyer's idea and I agree... on one

hand
he
could be paying the next 9 years of child support or the $1200.00

for
the
adoption.. He opted for the latter.

Wait a second. You have a legal CS obligation too. How much have

you
been required to pay all along? Why are you so willing to sell

out
your
own CS obligation? Do you really think accepting $1200 lets you

off
the
hook to support your child?

I don't quite understand what you are asking, Bob. April said her
child's
bio father never wanted anything to do with the child, but refused

to
sign
away his rights.

Just curious: what exactly are these "rights"?

The right to be legally identified as the boy's father.


Translation: The right to have his money extorted from him.


It was HIS choice, Chris.


We're talking two different kinds of rights here; court appointed rights and
REAL rights. In his case it is the former, thus NOT his choice.

chuckle





  #143  
Old July 21st 07, 04:15 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.support.marriage,alt.support.divorce
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support


"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 19, 9:45 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message

...

Well, Bob, it at least sounds as if everyone is ending up

satisfied--the
man who never wanted the child (just wanted the child to have his name

for
a while) does not have to pay anything any more. The child has a

father
who wants him enough to adopt him. And mom, dad, and kid are a family
unit.


Change your opinion yet? She's a nutcase Women's Studies whacko who

hates
men and obviously drove her ex away from their son. Once she got her

sob
story challenged by a man she went into verbal abuse mode.


Pretty much, yes. If she were really a happy women who had done the
same
degree of her duties as she *kept to herself with her choices*, well,
she'd have
been able to say " I made my choices, and I'm covering their
consequences and
I didn't demand any Free Money from anyone who *I gave AbZero choice
in the
matter to*. "

But, she didn't say that, because she... CAN'T.

She just expects that her view that women get 100% of the choice and
can
then demand 50% of the $$$ from the man who had 0% of the choice is
the
" reasonable " one, and she is shocked into namecalling ( Yes, she
does
fight like a girl... ) when that sexist viewpoint is even questioned,
never mind
challenged.


Fair-minded folks fight for men's HALF of the pie, whereas feminazis fight
for the ENTIRE pie. No wonder the ball is always far to one side of the
field. Imagine the outcome of a football game where one team is pushing for
a goal while the opponent is attempting just to get to the 50 yard line.


Feh.

Andre




  #144  
Old July 21st 07, 04:15 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.support.marriage,alt.support.divorce
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Jul 20, 7:52 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message

snip for length


As for your scenario, well, the odds that you will run off with Danny
Dick are just a hair higher than your hubby will run off with Bertha
Big-
Boobs ( Once again, CF Braver ). How about a word for the millions
of *men* disenfranchised from their families over that reason ?

It's wrong, wrong, wrong. I cannot imagine what my life sould have

been
like without my father. I cannot imagine how much poorer my girls

lives
would be without their Daddy--and I don't mean financially.


Consider that you answered my question about empathy for such MEN by
talking about your life, and what it cost YOU. Now, try that again,
and
place those men *first*...

Children
DESERVE to have BOTH parents in their lives--not just a mommy and a
checkbook.


Absolutely. But think about the present system of forcing men to
become
liable for cash parents with NO choice in either aspect of their life
status. That *positively encourages* MORE OF what you just decried.

One cannot get some Good by subsidizing Bad. That subsidy WILL and
HAS created a LOT of Bad. Like April... Who Just Doesn't Get It.


I can't do any more than say that I agree with you that the system has
created unfais inewuities, abased fathers to the point that they are not
more than wallets, and harmed children by denying them a father who gets

to
BE a father. I'm with you on default 50/50 custody, no money changing

hands
except if a person WANTS to provide money. It should not be required.
(Although I do have to say that I feel that in cases of long term

marriages
where both parties agreed that one would be a stay-at-home parent, and the
other would be the breadwinner--if the breadwinner decides to leave, there
needs to be some financial help getting the stay-at-home parent

established.
If the SAH decides to leave, they are on their own) CHILDREN deserve both
parents.


But the "family" court people say differently. Hence, the reason why they
are doing their level best to eliminate fathers from children's lives. And
their batting average is approaching a perfect score.

Both parents deserve to be PARENTS!!





  #145  
Old July 21st 07, 04:15 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.support.marriage,alt.support.divorce
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support


"April" wrote in message
...
** Well, I had to leave my son's father. He was very abusive

to
me and was starting on our son. I could handle it, but you

don't
beat on a 1 1/2 year old because he won't stop crying because

he
doesn't want a nap. He had anxiety issues and was being

medicated
for about a month. Then he quit. He promised month after month
to go back but it never happened. AFter 3 months State troppers
knock on my door because my husband was caught on surveillance
cameras stealing over 1200.00 for his job.( he worked retail).

I
couldn't handle anymore. I gave him an easy choice. He could
forego paying support by just signing him totally over to me.

He
refused. He paid child support. He couldn't keep a job,and was
constantly behind on his payments. In over 4 years, he never

once
tried to see his son yet would tell me that the name is what's
important ( mind you the child knows nothing about the family
name since his father never saw him) and that he still loves

him.
I never will understand my ex-husbands philosophy on all of

this.
But Alas, I have remarried and Next month we all go downtown to
swear in front of the judge that my husband is adopting my son.
his father finally.. (after 7 years) realizes that our son is
better off having a father who does things with him and takes
care of him. So I guess my story DOES have a happy ending

I'm very glad to hear that a man who had no wish to be a father
stepped aside so that the man who wants to be the father is free
to raise your child with you. It's too bad it took the bio dad

so
long to let go. If any child support arrearages have accrued,

will
you be signing a letter of satisfaction saying that they are

paid
in full?

I wish you and your family the very best, April. It sounds like
things are working out well for all of you.
** to tell you the truth, he paid up all his back arrears and is
also paying ofor the adoption. Lawyer's idea and I agree... on

one
hand he could be paying the next 9 years of child support or the
$1200.00 for the adoption.. He opted for the latter.

Wait a second. You have a legal CS obligation too. How much have
you been required to pay all along? Why are you so willing to

sell
out your own CS obligation? Do you really think accepting $1200
lets you off the hook to support your child?

I don't quite understand what you are asking, Bob. April said her
child's bio father never wanted anything to do with the child, but
refused to sign away his rights. This last year, he said he would
sign away his rights and let April's husband, who has been raising
the child along with April, adopt him. He has agreed to pay the
$1200 adoption fee. Then he doesn't have to pay child support for

9
more years for a child he has never even attempted to have a
relationship with. April has been doing her part to support her

son
all along.

Well she has had a pretty sweet deal. She gets CS from the child's
father (he paid all arrears, right?), has a current husband helping

to
support her kid, and she doesn't even acknowledge she had any CS
obligation of her own. Her comments have indicated three adults have
been paying to support this kid, but I suspect the people supporting
the kid are the two men.

I'm asking her how much she was ordered to pay and if she paid it.

If
she claims to have been providing her portion of support too then

she
has one really well taken care of kid. And the adoption will reduce
the amount of support from three adults to two adults and make the

kid
worse off. I suspect this is just another case where the CP mom is
shuffling dollars around and claiming she has been paying her share

of
CS with the money she has been getting from two different men.
** for your information, All of the money I have gotten from the
bio-father has gone into a savings acct for him. The money was for

him
and it will remain so. I have worked upwards of 3 jobs at one time

to
take care of my son on my own. I have paid ALL medical bills, ALL

food
bills, ALL clothing. 70.00 a week doesn't cover **** when you have a
chilld. hence why it all went into a bank acct. Perhaps , you sir,
should get your ****in facts straight before you go off in directions
you have NO comapss for.

Here are the facts. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the mean CS
award for all custodial mothers is currently $5176 per year. The
average custodial mother has 1.6 children. That means the average CS
award per child is $3235 per year, or $270 per month. Your award of

$70
per week is equal to $303 per month. This money is tax free. You

have
a slightly above average CS award. You acknowledge receiving 100% of
what was owed.

In addition, you are eligible to receive the Income Tax Exemption, the
Earned Income Credit, any Education Tax Credits, and use at a minimum
Head of Household filing status. These tax savings further subsidize
your costs to raise your child. Making it sound like you don't

receive
enough money to support your son is not believable.
** I NEVER once said that I had a hard time supporting my son.. Not

once.
My ex-husband WANTED to pay the CS. I NEVER kept him from seeing his
son, he , obviously, didn't care to. Are you telling me that because I
had NO problems taking care of my son, that I shouldn't have taken his
father for CS?!?! And BTW: I never did get EIC on my tax returns.. I
made too much.


Based on your most recent posts showing the extreme anger and hostility
you feel toward men, and your foul language and aggressive attitude

toward
men, I find it normal for your ex-husband to not want to have any

contact
with you or your son. No wonder he is willing to take your deal to get
out of the abuse cycle.

If you are willing to talk the way you have when addressing a total
stranger, it is not a far stretch to assume you put your ex-husband
through some significant verbal abuse. Why would he want to come around
you and your son to take the abuse? Your son will figure it out in the
long term.

** you take my hostility as a sign to all men? lmao. that's funny. I

take
offense to someone oblivious and close minded. That fact right there is

the
decline of our civilization, thank you for being the subject and showing
your true colors. I grow tired of you and your mindless banter... go ..
away with you.. I desire no more mind numbing ramblings.


With all due respect, your mind was "numb" before your first posting.






  #146  
Old July 23rd 07, 08:39 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.support.marriage,alt.support.divorce
Andre Lieven[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support

On Jul 21, 4:23 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message

ps.com... On Jul 20, 7:52 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message


snip for length

As for your scenario, well, the odds that you will run off with

Danny
Dick are just a hair higher than your hubby will run off with Bertha
Big- Boobs ( Once again, CF Braver ). How about a word for the millions
of *men* disenfranchised from their families over that reason ?


It's wrong, wrong, wrong. I cannot imagine what my life sould have been
like without my father. I cannot imagine how much poorer my girls lives
would be without their Daddy--and I don't mean financially.


Consider that you answered my question about empathy for such MEN by
talking about your life, and what it cost YOU. Now, try that again,
and place those men *first*...


Children
DESERVE to have BOTH parents in their lives--not just a mommy and a
checkbook.


Absolutely. But think about the present system of forcing men to
become liable for cash parents with NO choice in either aspect of their life
status. That *positively encourages* MORE OF what you just decried.


One cannot get some Good by subsidizing Bad. That subsidy WILL and
HAS created a LOT of Bad. Like April... Who Just Doesn't Get It.


I can't do any more than say that I agree with you that the system has
created unfais inewuities,


I'll presume that that was " unfair inequalities "... Which is, of
course, true.

abased fathers to the point that they are not
more than wallets, and harmed children by denying them a father who gets to
BE a father. I'm with you on default 50/50 custody, no money changing hands
except if a person WANTS to provide money. It should not be required.
(Although I do have to say that I feel that in cases of long term marriages
where both parties agreed that one would be a stay-at-home parent, and the
other would be the breadwinner--if the breadwinner decides to leave, there
needs to be some financial help getting the stay-at-home parent established.


Why ? If one party to a contract gets the stay at home vacation part
of the
gig, that does't maan that there is any justification for The Gravy
Train Just For
Being to live one second longer than the marriage.

Hell, the party who was supported all that time morally should
recompense the
person who worked to support THEM for as long as they did.

Especially when the likelyhood of the one who decides to destroy the
marriage
is more than 70% of the time the SAH wife... No where else does one
get a
cash *reward* for ending a contractual relationship with NO cause...

If the SAH decides to leave, they are on their own) CHILDREN deserve both
parents. Both parents deserve to be PARENTS!!


But, ONLY the woman gets to decide if there will BE a baby ?

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility* ! " Her wallet.

If a woman wants a man's money, she owes in return, an equal place
at the Decision Table.

Andre

  #147  
Old July 23rd 07, 08:49 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.support.marriage,alt.support.divorce
Andre Lieven[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support

On Jul 21, 7:01 am, "Chris" wrote:
"Atalanta arctos" wrote in message

oups.com... On Jul 19, 12:53 pm, wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:25 am, "teachrmama" wrote:


"Avenger" wrote in message


news:SXBmi.4020$fj5.590@trnddc08...


teachrmama" wrote in message
...


"John Larkin" wrote in
messagenews:n9dl93hmsada667t1sf6pjgvpnqpr1t3hp@4ax .com...
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:46:06 GMT, "Avenger"




wrote:


What probably happened in this case is that he didn't have any
money 20 years ago which is why the bitch didn't go after him before,
and may have
only made or come into some recently. The sneaky bitch found out
about it and in her greed tried to get her
hands on it. But why would she need it now? The kid is grown,
so obviously they survived and had the money to survive.
Besides, what's a 40 yo bitch doing having a kid anyway and
ruining
the best years of a man's life when he should be enjoying his
youth. Well one
good thing about this is at least he won't have to pay the money
and will have plenty to spend in prison )


He wouldn't pay 200 a month to help support his own child?


Was there a DNA test? Was none 20 years ago so this Ho may be lying.
In 80% of these cases the man isn't even the father.


Maybe he didn't have it at the time. Who knows? The best I've

been able
to find out is that they were never married, and that the woman

refused
to let him have a relationship with the child. I haven't been able

to
find out when the order was issued, whether or not it was ongoing

support
from the birth of the child, or support assigned when the child was

15,
and ordered back to the birth of the child, leaving him at the

starting
gate with a staggering arrearage. The most I've found is that the

child
was born sometime in the 80s, maybe. I would certainly like to

know way
more about this story. As the wife of aman-who-
found-out-he-had-a-child-just-before-said-child-turned-13, I can

tell you
that the blow to ones financial well-being is substantial. And my
husband, due to current laws, only had to pay 2 years of instant
arrearages. It used to be that arrearages were assigned back to

the
birth of the child, including pregnancy and birth expenses--well
padded, of course.


Why would amanhave to pay birth expenses lol


Ya got me, but that is tacked nicely onto child support orders! When

the
first "you owe child support" order came in, the arrearages were

staggering,
and included pregnancy and birth expenses. He requested a paternity

test,
got the blood drawn, and she refused to bring the child in for the

test.
After more than a year of trying to force her to do so, the judge

finally
dismissed the case. Several years later, the next demand for child

support
came in (same mom, same kid, different state), he again requested

proof of
paternity and took the blood test. This time mom took the kid in for

the
test, and he was the father. (The child was almost 13 by this time)

But the
law, by this point in time, only permitted arrearages to be

assessed two
years back from proof of paternity


I don't think there should be any arrearages in that situation
whatsoever.


It's simple. As a mother, if you want child support, then find the
father. It's not that hard, especially given that the government will
use its resources to find him for you. If you choose not to, then you
don't get the support. You shouldn't get to show up 5 years later,
having completely deprived the father of any chance at a relationship
with his child, and then demand full financial support for the whole
time you were keeping the kid from him. And even the woman honestly
doesn't know who the father is, that doesn't change anything. I mean,
if you'reso irresponsible that you don't even know who the father of
your children is, and don't figure it out until 5 or 10 years later,
then tough luck.


That's the way I see it, anyway.


I feel like fathers should be able to request receipts and/or an
itemized accounting of how their money is spent to be sure that the
child really is getting the support money and the woman isn't just
using it to get herself some new shoes. Why does the mother get
government agencies to force the father to pay "in the interests of
the child" and then there is absolutely no accounting to make that
she's even serving the interests of the child at all? Seems
completely unfair to me. But I suppose that's another subject.


I agree with you about the timeliness factor.


But the first thing I would have put on my accounting list - to my X -
would have been "babysitting" and "practical nursing care" - in his
absence. Since he did not have any custody of them to speak of (he
was supposed to have then 25% of the time, but wished not to), he
needed (all along) to compensate me for their care. He wanted those
kids as much as I did - and he decided childcare wasn't his gig (at
all). Well, it's hard work. In fact, just the bills for the nursing
care spent on injuries acquired while in his custody (accidents and so
forth) - at the rates that visiting nurses provide for round-the-clock
care would have averaged out to a good chunk of change, annually.


So ? YOU chose to make a *baby*, so the bills are YOURS, too.

Sheesh.

He provided no services to the children. I'm a professional who
charges an hourly rate (so is he). Had I charged him half my hourly
rate (he's still family), he would have had to pay way more in CS than
he did.


Thats the modern misandrist me,me,me female. Its all about " Pay
me for what *I* wanted to do ! ".

Disgusting. You should not have custody of a goldfish, much less
a child.

In other words - that money isn't about stuff or shoes. It's about a
caretaker cutting down on other sources of money in order to provide
topnotch care for children - at least that's how I see it. A woman
who isn't providing care for the kids shouldn't be using the money to
buy shoes.


But, taxiing the kids to private school, tutoring them from time to
time, taking them to the doctor (the MediVan chsrges $20 one way to go
to the doctor - our daughters went for allergy treatments 2X a week
each - that's $160 per week right there, had he wanted to purchase
that service on the open market).


Or - he could have provided some of those services himself. It was
way, way cheaper to pay me to do it. One view is that he needed to
either care for them half the time - or compensate me for my time for
doing so. For example, I had to have medical treatments myself
(surgery) and had to hire childcare for the kids while I went for
MRI's and X-rays. What my X signed onto - when he married me and when
he said he wanted kids - was supporting me and helping me, the mother
of his kids.


And what did YOU sign onto when you married him?


You noticed that, eh ? This Atalanta whore is all about the MONEY for
what SHE alone choice to create.

As I said, disgusting.

Fortunately, my X was of the same mind as I was about this - he knew
his limitations in terms of actually being around the tots or caring
for them in the middle of the night - and he knew he'd have had to
hire someone to take them his 25% had he chosen to exercise his
custodial rights. Since he didn't have to pay a penny more (one way
or another) to me, regardless of how many hours I had the kids, it was
a good deal for him. It worked out to minimum wage or less (after
deducting, of course, the kids' share of the rent, utilities,
clothing, etc.) I always felt (just as the CS order stated) that we
were to share those things 50/50 -


How about sharing the CHOICE to MAKE a BABY ? That one you wanted
and kept 100% to yourself.

Well: " YOUR body, YOUR choice... YOUR *responsibility* ! "

but it was never he who went and
bought the presents at Christmas time or procured the birthday party
favors or the cake - or any of that. Merely paying half the cost of
getting that stuff is not the point.

..
Laughs No, its exactly your point. Like a whore, you want to be paid
for having a vagina that YOU chose to use.

Disgusting.

Andre


  #148  
Old July 23rd 07, 08:54 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.support.marriage,alt.support.divorce
Andre Lieven[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support

On Jul 21, 11:15 am, "Chris" wrote:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jul 19, 9:45 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message


...


Well, Bob, it at least sounds as if everyone is ending up
satisfied--the man who never wanted the child (just wanted the
child to have his name for a while) does not have to pay
anything any more. The child has a father who wants him
enough to adopt him. And mom, dad, and kid are a family
unit.


Change your opinion yet? She's a nutcase Women's Studies whacko who

hates
men and obviously drove her ex away from their son. Once she got her
sob story challenged by a man she went into verbal abuse mode.


Pretty much, yes. If she were really a happy women who had done the
same degree of her duties as she *kept to herself with her choices*, well,
she'd have been able to say " I made my choices, and I'm covering their
consequences and I didn't demand any Free Money from anyone who
*I gave AbZero choice in the matter to*. "


But, she didn't say that, because she... CAN'T.


She just expects that her view that women get 100% of the choice and
can then demand 50% of the $$$ from the man who had 0% of the choice
is the " reasonable " one, and she is shocked into namecalling ( Yes, she
does fight like a girl... ) when that sexist viewpoint is even questioned,
never mind challenged.


Fair-minded folks fight for men's HALF of the pie, whereas feminazis fight
for the ENTIRE pie. No wonder the ball is always far to one side of the
field. Imagine the outcome of a football game where one team is pushing for
a goal while the opponent is attempting just to get to the 50 yard line.


Truth. WomenFirsters demand it ALL, and treat men as non people, who
exist only to serve women. That makes the term FemiNazi quite
accurate.

For instance, if we are to allow women NON medical and NON biological
LEGAL rights to POST coitally void parenthood, then it is nothing
other
than misandrous sexism to deny men Equal LEGAL Rights.

Feh.


Andre


  #149  
Old July 31st 07, 08:38 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support
J. Keeper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support

There's only so much abuse a man can take before reacting. And
this is the kind of man that pushes back, violently.


If the state is not going to protect the rights of men, it is no
surprise that men take the law into their own hands.

  #150  
Old August 1st 07, 06:04 AM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.thebird.copwatch
Avenger[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support


"J. Keeper" wrote in message
oups.com...
There's only so much abuse a man can take before reacting. And
this is the kind of man that pushes back, violently.


If the state is not going to protect the rights of men, it is no
surprise that men take the law into their own hands.

It's a pity he didn't whack the judge and a few cops as well )


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Per the CSE office of Texas, a parent ONLY has a duty to support children... whatamess Child Support 0 May 4th 07 08:38 PM
VIRGINIA: State Senate kills bill to allow fathers to prepay child support obligations [email protected] Child Support 0 February 21st 06 03:17 AM
US Office of Child Support Enforcement Statistics Patrick Lee Child Support 2 November 15th 05 02:30 AM
Man who owed child support crashes truck through office doors Don Child Support 33 August 29th 04 05:46 AM
OHIO Child-support office tried to hide $17,000 overpayment Dave Briggman Child Support 18 April 28th 04 11:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.