Excuse me????????????

wrote in message
oups.com...

Moon Shyne wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


snip

So would you move the system out of family court into civil court?

Oh yeah, joint custody and contractual rights and obligation pretty
much elimates child support, as you have stated.

Except for the cases of a parent who drops out of their children's
lives -
child support is pretty much a requirement at that point, wouldn't you
say?

If one parent drops out of the children's lives then they are liable
for their portion of the "contract." It would damages for breach of
contract. Damages have to be proven. Definitely unlike the current
system.

Ok, so riddle me this - in the case of a parent who has dropped out of
their children's lives.....

How do you prove damages? What damages do you need to prove?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:hGuhf.8733$dv.1404@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

OK, Chris, just for the fun of it: Man and woman marry, have
children,
andaer gloriously happy until thier youngest is 10 years old. At
that
point he gets the hots for his secretary. HE leaves his wife (who
has
been a SAHM for 15 years) to run off with Holly Hoohoos. HE does
not
want custody because Holly does not want children. Should HE pay
child
support?


By "does not want custody," do you mean that he has completely and
permanently severed his contact with the child so he can hang out
with
Holly?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I meant. And I'm aware that it is not
the
norm. I was just curious to see how far Chris would go in his constant
claim that *only* women are responsible for bringing children into the
world--even if a married couple both decide that they want kids.

I will go to the end. Married or not, STILL it is her choice.

chuckle I knew you would say that, Chris. I don't quite understand how
you parlay that into a married man who has been supporting his family for
a
decade or more having the right to walk out, leaving them high and dry any
time he wants to, though. Doesn't he have *any* responsibilities towards
his children?

NO, he does not. Responsibility rests with the one who made the choice. And
in this case it is the WOMAN who made such choice.
If I hand you a hundred dollars every week for 10 years, do I not have the
right to discontinue such charity?





If so, then this is the extremely rare "deadbeat dad" scenario
that the present child support system and it's supporters assume is
epidemic and representative of 99% of cases. In this case, I do
believe
that forced financial support -- at a rate linked to 50% of the
expenses
necessary for raising a child and with full accountability for those
expenses -- is justified. Forced payment of financial child support
should be reserved for only the most aggregious abandoners.

I absolutely agree with you. And I also feel that a woman who keeps
the
birth of a child secret from the father should NEVER get a penny of
support
for that child, and should certainly never get to be the "victim"
deserving
of arrearages.

What bearing does secrecy have on her SOLE choice?

Pay attention here, Chris. I believe that when a mom keeps the birth of a
child secret from the dad, the man should not have any responsibility for
the child, because the mother made the decision to be a single mother.
OK?

I sense a circle. Again, what difference does it make whether or not it's
kept secret as far as her sole choice to bring forth a child is concerned?
Are you paying attention?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:19:19 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

OK, Chris, just for the fun of it: Man and woman marry, have children,
andaer gloriously happy until thier youngest is 10 years old. At that
point he gets the hots for his secretary. HE leaves his wife (who has
been a SAHM for 15 years) to run off with Holly Hoohoos. HE does not
want custody because Holly does not want children. Should HE pay child
support?


By "does not want custody," do you mean that he has completely and
permanently severed his contact with the child so he can hang out with
Holly?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I meant. And I'm aware that it is not
the
norm. I was just curious to see how far Chris would go in his constant
claim that *only* women are responsible for bringing children into the
world--even if a married couple both decide that they want kids.

I will go to the end. Married or not, STILL it is her choice.



If so, then this is the extremely rare "deadbeat dad" scenario
that the present child support system and it's supporters assume is
epidemic and representative of 99% of cases. In this case, I do believe
that forced financial support -- at a rate linked to 50% of the expenses
necessary for raising a child and with full accountability for those
expenses -- is justified. Forced payment of financial child support
should be reserved for only the most aggregious abandoners.

I absolutely agree with you. And I also feel that a woman who keeps the
birth of a child secret from the father should NEVER get a penny of
support
for that child, and should certainly never get to be the "victim"
deserving
of arrearages.

What bearing does secrecy have on her SOLE choice?

I believe that there are states that will not allow a married woman to
abort without her spouse's agreement in writing. The form my ex and I
filled out when I had my tubal had language in it concerning abortion
(we didn't need to sign that part).




Howver, this is not the reality in most cases. Most fathers, even if
they
ran off with Holly Bigboobs, still want to DIRECTLY support their kids
and
would do so if the present system didn't make it nearly impossible in
the
presence of an uncooperative/greedy/vindictive CP mother.

Jay R.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:01:21 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:hGuhf.8733$dv.1404@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

OK, Chris, just for the fun of it: Man and woman marry, have
children,
andaer gloriously happy until thier youngest is 10 years old. At
that
point he gets the hots for his secretary. HE leaves his wife (who
has
been a SAHM for 15 years) to run off with Holly Hoohoos. HE does
not
want custody because Holly does not want children. Should HE pay
child
support?


By "does not want custody," do you mean that he has completely and
permanently severed his contact with the child so he can hang out
with
Holly?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I meant. And I'm aware that it is not
the
norm. I was just curious to see how far Chris would go in his constant
claim that *only* women are responsible for bringing children into the
world--even if a married couple both decide that they want kids.

I will go to the end. Married or not, STILL it is her choice.

chuckle I knew you would say that, Chris. I don't quite understand how
you parlay that into a married man who has been supporting his family for
a
decade or more having the right to walk out, leaving them high and dry any
time he wants to, though. Doesn't he have *any* responsibilities towards
his children?

NO, he does not. Responsibility rests with the one who made the choice. And
in this case it is the WOMAN who made such choice.
If I hand you a hundred dollars every week for 10 years, do I not have the
right to discontinue such charity?

Actually, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may negate your right to
discontinue such charity, especially if the recipient has made choices
that were dependent upon receiving such.

see http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/p...y_estoppel.htm






If so, then this is the extremely rare "deadbeat dad" scenario
that the present child support system and it's supporters assume is
epidemic and representative of 99% of cases. In this case, I do
believe
that forced financial support -- at a rate linked to 50% of the
expenses
necessary for raising a child and with full accountability for those
expenses -- is justified. Forced payment of financial child support
should be reserved for only the most aggregious abandoners.

I absolutely agree with you. And I also feel that a woman who keeps
the
birth of a child secret from the father should NEVER get a penny of
support
for that child, and should certainly never get to be the "victim"
deserving
of arrearages.

What bearing does secrecy have on her SOLE choice?

Pay attention here, Chris. I believe that when a mom keeps the birth of a
child secret from the dad, the man should not have any responsibility for
the child, because the mother made the decision to be a single mother.
OK?

I sense a circle. Again, what difference does it make whether or not it's
kept secret as far as her sole choice to bring forth a child is concerned?
Are you paying attention?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:fEvhf.8758$dv.992@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:509hf.8030$dv.1109@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


snip

So would you move the system out of family court into civil
court?

Oh yeah, joint custody and contractual rights and obligation
pretty
much elimates child support, as you have stated.

Except for the cases of a parent who drops out of their children's
lives -
child support is pretty much a requirement at that point, wouldn't
you
say?

Yup, that's why children have mothers.

They also have fathers.

They also have aunts and uncles. What's your point?

Somehow, I knew you wouldn't get it.

Hence my question. Again, what is your point?


You can go back under your rock, now.

The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect arbitrary
percent of income systems...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect arbitrary
percent of income systems...

You know no such thing.

For example - my ex hasn't called my 2 kids in nearly 3 years - hasn't had
an overnight with them in nearly 4 years, and hasn't seen them in person,
it'll be 3 years next month.

How does one calculate the damages to my children, that their father has
ignored them for all this time?

"Chris" wrote in message
news:%NGhf.9809$dv.1197@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:hGuhf.8733$dv.1404@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

OK, Chris, just for the fun of it: Man and woman marry, have
children,
andaer gloriously happy until thier youngest is 10 years old. At
that
point he gets the hots for his secretary. HE leaves his wife (who
has
been a SAHM for 15 years) to run off with Holly Hoohoos. HE does
not
want custody because Holly does not want children. Should HE pay
child
support?


By "does not want custody," do you mean that he has completely and
permanently severed his contact with the child so he can hang out
with
Holly?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I meant. And I'm aware that it is
not
the
norm. I was just curious to see how far Chris would go in his
constant
claim that *only* women are responsible for bringing children into the
world--even if a married couple both decide that they want kids.

I will go to the end. Married or not, STILL it is her choice.

chuckle I knew you would say that, Chris. I don't quite understand
how
you parlay that into a married man who has been supporting his family for
a
decade or more having the right to walk out, leaving them high and dry
any
time he wants to, though. Doesn't he have *any* responsibilities towards
his children?

NO, he does not. Responsibility rests with the one who made the choice.
And
in this case it is the WOMAN who made such choice.
If I hand you a hundred dollars every week for 10 years, do I not have the
right to discontinue such charity?

I'd be glad to join in this experiment with you, Chris. You go ahead and
send me $100 per week for 10 years, and then we will see if I am willing to
let you discontinue your charity. G

Do you really think that a father supporting his children is charity?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:%NGhf.9809$dv.1197@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:hGuhf.8733$dv.1404@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

OK, Chris, just for the fun of it: Man and woman marry, have
children,
andaer gloriously happy until thier youngest is 10 years old. At
that
point he gets the hots for his secretary. HE leaves his wife (who
has
been a SAHM for 15 years) to run off with Holly Hoohoos. HE does
not
want custody because Holly does not want children. Should HE pay
child
support?


By "does not want custody," do you mean that he has completely and
permanently severed his contact with the child so he can hang out
with
Holly?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I meant. And I'm aware that it is
not
the
norm. I was just curious to see how far Chris would go in his
constant
claim that *only* women are responsible for bringing children into
the
world--even if a married couple both decide that they want kids.

I will go to the end. Married or not, STILL it is her choice.

chuckle I knew you would say that, Chris. I don't quite understand
how
you parlay that into a married man who has been supporting his family
for
a
decade or more having the right to walk out, leaving them high and dry
any
time he wants to, though. Doesn't he have *any* responsibilities
towards
his children?

NO, he does not. Responsibility rests with the one who made the choice.
And
in this case it is the WOMAN who made such choice.
If I hand you a hundred dollars every week for 10 years, do I not have
the
right to discontinue such charity?

I'd be glad to join in this experiment with you, Chris. You go ahead and
send me $100 per week for 10 years, and then we will see if I am willing
to let you discontinue your charity. G

Do you really think that a father supporting his children is charity?



As well as anyone, TM, you know that paying child support has nothing to do
with supporting children. Paying child support is forced charity but not for
the children.
Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect arbitrary
percent of income systems...

You know no such thing.

For example - my ex hasn't called my 2 kids in nearly 3 years - hasn't had
an overnight with them in nearly 4 years, and hasn't seen them in person,
it'll be 3 years next month.

How does one calculate the damages to my children, that their father has
ignored them for all this time?


From the way the courts act when a father is notified that he has a nearly
grown child for which he owes back child support: it doesn't even figure
into the problem. It appears that purposely keeping children from their
father causes no punishable harm, ergo, it could not cause harm in the eyes
of the courts. Of course, when speaking of the current feministic courts,
anything is possible to be used against men but at the same time hold women
harmless.
Phil #3