New Magazine for Modern Divorced Men

I loved this part:
"In 2002, former California governor Gray Davis vetoed paternity fraud
legislation for his state, claiming that the state might not meet federal
requirements on collecting child-support payments, putting the state at risk
of losing $40 million in federal funds"

We just can't have the state losing money, even if we have to punish a few
innocent victims to get it. Gives a new meaning to the term "blood money".
Phil #3

"Jill" wrote in message
news
Feature article:

How Women Got Their Cake and are Eating It Too

Legal:

The Paternity Question: New Research, Increased Use of DNA Testing
Fueling Debate on Paternity
Fraud Laws

More at:

http://www.levingsdivorcemagazine.com/

"Phil #3" wrote in message
news
I loved this part:
"In 2002, former California governor Gray Davis vetoed paternity fraud
legislation for his state, claiming that the state might not meet federal
requirements on collecting child-support payments, putting the state at
risk
of losing $40 million in federal funds"

Former Governor Davis didn't get the memo instructing about the use of the
phrase: "In the best interest of the children."

Think how much better his veto would have sounded if he had used the right
terminology. "In 2002, former California Governor Gray Davis vetoed
paternity fraud legislation for his state, claiming he was acting in the
best interest of the state's children who were increasingly dependent on the
state's consistency in setting child support orders and the state and
federal government's coordinated child support collection efforts."

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
news
I loved this part:
"In 2002, former California governor Gray Davis vetoed paternity fraud
legislation for his state, claiming that the state might not meet
federal
requirements on collecting child-support payments, putting the state at
risk
of losing $40 million in federal funds"

Former Governor Davis didn't get the memo instructing about the use of the
phrase: "In the best interest of the children."

Think how much better his veto would have sounded if he had used the right
terminology. "In 2002, former California Governor Gray Davis vetoed
paternity fraud legislation for his state, claiming he was acting in the
best interest of the state's children who were increasingly dependent on
the
state's consistency in setting child support orders and the state and
federal government's coordinated child support collection efforts."

You can dress it up, even wrap it in a bow - but it's still robbery no
matter how nice they make it sound.

"Dusty" wrote in

You can dress it up, even wrap it in a bow - but it's still robbery no
matter how nice they make it sound.


Actually $40 Million in California is mere drop in the bucket, don't know
what he was worried about?
I see he lost his job anyway, actually fired more like it! :-)