i pay support, what if i pass away? what happens to my family?

On May 1, 1:50�pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message

ups.com...
On Apr 27, 12:19?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:





"Relayer" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 26, 3:30?pm, "Gini" wrote:
"harcrelc" wrote

I am paid a salary of 50k a year.
I have arranged with my ex to pay her $1200 a month.
We have two babies.
That's the set arrangement. In the last 7 months I've sent her over
$10k.
It's still not the best- it's hard to work when you are the sole
provider
for 2 infants.
I used to be all whiny about paying- that it was too high- that
it was impossible. And it is. I work long hours. But my ex works
longer
hours.
I think when we realize this is about the kids- and not the ex-
things
can
become more clear- you can let go of resentment.

Recently a friend's friend's ex.. passed away. And the guy was
paying
support. It brought to my mind a question..

What would be their situation if something were to happen to me?
Would wellfare/fed support them? Fill in a gap?

==
Some states allow judges discretion to order life insurance to secure
support.
You could surely do this without a court order. BTW, that is a lot of
support
for a 50k salary. Still, it is refreshing to hear of parents who are
able to
put aside their
emotions and focus on the kids' needs. My ex and I had no CS or
custody
orders because
we found it unacceptable/odd to turn control of our kids over to the
state.
I still can't fathom that.
Our kids are now mid/late 20s and my ex and I still communicate about
whatever kid issues arise.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have to have a life insurance policy. It's court ordered.

My state has a law allowing judges to order life insurance in divorce
decrees to guarantee future payments when CS is ordered. The appeals court
ruled the courts have no authority to tell a life insurance holder who
they
can designate as their beneficiaries. So the judges get around the appeals
court ruling by giving the obligor the option of providing life insurance
in
the amount set by the court, or the court will reserve the right to create
an irrevocable trust against assets in the event of the obligor's death.

When you think about it, these types of court orders are designed to
punish
a father for remarrying. The children from a marriage are given
preferential treatment over a subsequent wife. In essence, a subsequent
wife has her claim to a fathers assets reduced by the amount of CS
guarantee
set by the court.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, it borders on violating equal protection under the law (or
something). It assures one group of people something and ignores
another equal group. In addition, CS (and things like medical/dental/
school expenses) are gaurenteed to childrenof divorce but not to
children in intact homes. What gaurentee is there that my kids would
of had braces? They is no law saying I HAVE to get my kids braces.
Well, actually, once I was divorced, there was, but if I hadnt
divorced, I could of told my kid "Live with your buck teeth" and not a
single thing would be said or done. If I didn't divorce, I could of
spent the $200 a month life insurance premium on vodka and cigarettes
and died poor, leaving the kids and wife nothing and no one would
think much about it. But since I am divorced, well...you get the idea.

--------------------

Equal Protection is one of the most frequently misunderstood Constitutional
Rights. *It has nothing to do with discrimination between two groups of
citizens. *What is does cover is the government being barred from providing
special privledges and immunities TO particular class rather than
discrimination AGAINST a particular class.

But I do agree with your sentiments above. *I have always thought the way to
challenge the Constitutionality of CS laws is to have lawsuits brought by
children in intact marriages claiming the government is providing
privileges to children of divorced or never married parents.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hehe Bob, 6 of one..1/2 dozen of the other..you know what I mean. I
don't misunderstand the right, I'm just saying the right is wrong (did
I just say that??) Well, you know what I mean. You are right though.
My sentiment wasn't against the children of divorce but rather in
favor of those from intact families. Can you imagine the guy next
door, who earns $35K a year and is still married, having a judgment
entered against him and money garnshied from his bank account because
he didn't pay for his kids college? Or refused to get them braces? Or
didn't enroll them in a 9 week soccer camp? etc etc...

I am waiting with baited breath for that to happen. Why doesn't it?
Why are kids of divorce special?

"Relayer" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 1, 1:50?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message

ups.com...
On Apr 27, 12:19?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:





"Relayer" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 26, 3:30?pm, "Gini" wrote:
"harcrelc" wrote

I am paid a salary of 50k a year.
I have arranged with my ex to pay her $1200 a month.
We have two babies.
That's the set arrangement. In the last 7 months I've sent her
over
$10k.
It's still not the best- it's hard to work when you are the sole
provider
for 2 infants.
I used to be all whiny about paying- that it was too high- that
it was impossible. And it is. I work long hours. But my ex works
longer
hours.
I think when we realize this is about the kids- and not the ex-
things
can
become more clear- you can let go of resentment.

Recently a friend's friend's ex.. passed away. And the guy was
paying
support. It brought to my mind a question..

What would be their situation if something were to happen to me?
Would wellfare/fed support them? Fill in a gap?

==
Some states allow judges discretion to order life insurance to
secure
support.
You could surely do this without a court order. BTW, that is a lot
of
support
for a 50k salary. Still, it is refreshing to hear of parents who are
able to
put aside their
emotions and focus on the kids' needs. My ex and I had no CS or
custody
orders because
we found it unacceptable/odd to turn control of our kids over to the
state.
I still can't fathom that.
Our kids are now mid/late 20s and my ex and I still communicate
about
whatever kid issues arise.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have to have a life insurance policy. It's court ordered.

My state has a law allowing judges to order life insurance in divorce
decrees to guarantee future payments when CS is ordered. The appeals
court
ruled the courts have no authority to tell a life insurance holder who
they
can designate as their beneficiaries. So the judges get around the
appeals
court ruling by giving the obligor the option of providing life
insurance
in
the amount set by the court, or the court will reserve the right to
create
an irrevocable trust against assets in the event of the obligor's death.

When you think about it, these types of court orders are designed to
punish
a father for remarrying. The children from a marriage are given
preferential treatment over a subsequent wife. In essence, a subsequent
wife has her claim to a fathers assets reduced by the amount of CS
guarantee
set by the court.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, it borders on violating equal protection under the law (or
something). It assures one group of people something and ignores
another equal group. In addition, CS (and things like medical/dental/
school expenses) are gaurenteed to childrenof divorce but not to
children in intact homes. What gaurentee is there that my kids would
of had braces? They is no law saying I HAVE to get my kids braces.
Well, actually, once I was divorced, there was, but if I hadnt
divorced, I could of told my kid "Live with your buck teeth" and not a
single thing would be said or done. If I didn't divorce, I could of
spent the $200 a month life insurance premium on vodka and cigarettes
and died poor, leaving the kids and wife nothing and no one would
think much about it. But since I am divorced, well...you get the idea.

--------------------

Equal Protection is one of the most frequently misunderstood
Constitutional
Rights. It has nothing to do with discrimination between two groups of
citizens. What is does cover is the government being barred from providing
special privledges and immunities TO particular class rather than
discrimination AGAINST a particular class.

But I do agree with your sentiments above. I have always thought the way
to
challenge the Constitutionality of CS laws is to have lawsuits brought by
children in intact marriages claiming the government is providing
privileges to children of divorced or never married parents.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

hehe Bob, 6 of one..1/2 dozen of the other..you know what I mean. I
don't misunderstand the right, I'm just saying the right is wrong (did
I just say that??) Well, you know what I mean. You are right though.
My sentiment wasn't against the children of divorce but rather in
favor of those from intact families. Can you imagine the guy next
door, who earns $35K a year and is still married, having a judgment
entered against him and money garnshied from his bank account because
he didn't pay for his kids college? Or refused to get them braces? Or
didn't enroll them in a 9 week soccer camp? etc etc...

I am waiting with baited breath for that to happen. Why doesn't it?
Why are kids of divorce special?

-----------------

The legal mumbo-jumbo coming out of the appeals cases in my state says
children of divorce are special for two reasons. First, the legislature had
a rational basis for making a distinction between children of divorce and
children with cohabiting married parents. And second, the legislature's
rational basis for stepping in where parents do not live together to allow
judicial assistance suggests the legislature believed parents not living
together cannot work together to make decisions for their children.

Now from my personal experience I have never felt the courts were giving me
any form of "assistance". What they did always felt like the courts decided
my role in parental decision-making was no longer to be trusted or
considered as valid parenting.

--






"Chris" wrote in message
...

"GREEN MONSTER" wrote in message ...
Its income to someone who happens to be the mother OF YOUR CHILD, too
support said child, you idiot. If you don't want to pay child support
then
don't have said child. Get a snip job, wear a condom, or better yet,
keep
it in your pants.

Exactly how does a man "have said child"?


--

You get said woman preggers. then yo and her have said child. YOu do know
about sex do yo u not???

"harcrelc" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:39:43 -0500, Dusty Steenbock wrote:


"harcrelc" wrote in message
news
[quoted text muted]
1200 a month? And she puts forward her 1200 a month to the kids too
right?
2400 a month for two kids. Wish I ws those kids, I'd be living large!

Maybe it sounds like a lot. In a way it is. It's hard as hell- I am
careful what I spend.
And I don't claim either child for taxes, this year I owed $3k to the fed.
I almost had a heart attack.

Still.
It's a buttload of money. but..
She is living alone. She has to pay $750 or so rent.
The kids are now 3 and 2.
Until they are both going to school, she can't work unless someone is
taking care of them.
Her mom will only take care of the kids at most 3 days a week.
She works as a rent-a-teacher/ as a sub for public schools. That doesn't
make much.

She needs that money.

I am a single male. I still have money to smoke, drink beer, rent movies,
buy a pair of pants so I can look decent at work.
And I have all the time in the world.

She still has the short end of the stick.
That's what so hard for us as men to see.
When things were ok, I had my family, and I learned about taking care of
babies. I think if I hadn't known- I would never have appreciated how
impossibly hard it is- and what a complete total absolute sacrifice of
your own life it is.
And alone? I think she does it because she has to. If I had to raise my
two kids alone, I would without blinking. If I had to imagine it ahead of
time, I'd cry in fear.

You ought to lay off that pipe.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Relayer" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 1, 1:50?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message

ups.com...
On Apr 27, 12:19?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:





"Relayer" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 26, 3:30?pm, "Gini" wrote:
"harcrelc" wrote

I am paid a salary of 50k a year.
I have arranged with my ex to pay her $1200 a month.
We have two babies.
That's the set arrangement. In the last 7 months I've sent her
over
$10k.
It's still not the best- it's hard to work when you are the sole
provider
for 2 infants.
I used to be all whiny about paying- that it was too high- that
it was impossible. And it is. I work long hours. But my ex works
longer
hours.
I think when we realize this is about the kids- and not the ex-
things
can
become more clear- you can let go of resentment.

Recently a friend's friend's ex.. passed away. And the guy was
paying
support. It brought to my mind a question..

What would be their situation if something were to happen to me?
Would wellfare/fed support them? Fill in a gap?

==
Some states allow judges discretion to order life insurance to
secure
support.
You could surely do this without a court order. BTW, that is a lot
of
support
for a 50k salary. Still, it is refreshing to hear of parents who
are
able to
put aside their
emotions and focus on the kids' needs. My ex and I had no CS or
custody
orders because
we found it unacceptable/odd to turn control of our kids over to
the
state.
I still can't fathom that.
Our kids are now mid/late 20s and my ex and I still communicate
about
whatever kid issues arise.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have to have a life insurance policy. It's court ordered.

My state has a law allowing judges to order life insurance in divorce
decrees to guarantee future payments when CS is ordered. The appeals
court
ruled the courts have no authority to tell a life insurance holder who
they
can designate as their beneficiaries. So the judges get around the
appeals
court ruling by giving the obligor the option of providing life
insurance
in
the amount set by the court, or the court will reserve the right to
create
an irrevocable trust against assets in the event of the obligor's
death.

When you think about it, these types of court orders are designed to
punish
a father for remarrying. The children from a marriage are given
preferential treatment over a subsequent wife. In essence, a
subsequent
wife has her claim to a fathers assets reduced by the amount of CS
guarantee
set by the court.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, it borders on violating equal protection under the law (or
something). It assures one group of people something and ignores
another equal group. In addition, CS (and things like medical/dental/
school expenses) are gaurenteed to childrenof divorce but not to
children in intact homes. What gaurentee is there that my kids would
of had braces? They is no law saying I HAVE to get my kids braces.
Well, actually, once I was divorced, there was, but if I hadnt
divorced, I could of told my kid "Live with your buck teeth" and not a
single thing would be said or done. If I didn't divorce, I could of
spent the $200 a month life insurance premium on vodka and cigarettes
and died poor, leaving the kids and wife nothing and no one would
think much about it. But since I am divorced, well...you get the idea.

--------------------

Equal Protection is one of the most frequently misunderstood
Constitutional
Rights. It has nothing to do with discrimination between two groups of
citizens. What is does cover is the government being barred from
providing
special privledges and immunities TO particular class rather than
discrimination AGAINST a particular class.

But I do agree with your sentiments above. I have always thought the way
to
challenge the Constitutionality of CS laws is to have lawsuits brought
by
children in intact marriages claiming the government is providing
privileges to children of divorced or never married parents.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

hehe Bob, 6 of one..1/2 dozen of the other..you know what I mean. I
don't misunderstand the right, I'm just saying the right is wrong (did
I just say that??) Well, you know what I mean. You are right though.
My sentiment wasn't against the children of divorce but rather in
favor of those from intact families. Can you imagine the guy next
door, who earns $35K a year and is still married, having a judgment
entered against him and money garnshied from his bank account because
he didn't pay for his kids college? Or refused to get them braces? Or
didn't enroll them in a 9 week soccer camp? etc etc...

I am waiting with baited breath for that to happen. Why doesn't it?
Why are kids of divorce special?

-----------------

The legal mumbo-jumbo coming out of the appeals cases in my state says
children of divorce are special for two reasons. First, the legislature
had
a rational basis for making a distinction between children of divorce and
children with cohabiting married parents. And second, the legislature's
rational basis for stepping in where parents do not live together to allow
judicial assistance suggests the legislature believed parents not living
together cannot work together to make decisions for their children.

Now from my personal experience I have never felt the courts were giving
me
any form of "assistance". What they did always felt like the courts
decided
my role in parental decision-making was no longer to be trusted or
considered as valid parenting.

Indeed! And the reason children of married parents don't file discrimination
lawsuits is because they are well aware of the corruption and immorality
which plagues the "child support" industry/legal system. They simply will
have no part of it. Can ya blame 'em?

"GREEN MONSTER" wrote in message ...


--






"Chris" wrote in message
...

"GREEN MONSTER" wrote in message
...
Its income to someone who happens to be the mother OF YOUR CHILD, too
support said child, you idiot. If you don't want to pay child support
then
don't have said child. Get a snip job, wear a condom, or better yet,
keep
it in your pants.

Exactly how does a man "have said child"?


--

You get said woman preggers. then yo and her have said child. YOu do
know
about sex do yo u not???

I sure do; and I also know about circular reasoning which is just what you
are doing. You can't support an argument when your conclusion is also your
premise. So I will ask you again, exactly how does a man "have said child"?
In other words, specifically what does a man do that qualifies him as
"have[ing] said child"?

"Chris" wrote in

Indeed! And the reason children of married parents don't file
discrimination
lawsuits is because they are well aware of the corruption and immorality
which plagues the "child support" industry/legal system. They simply will
have no part of it. Can ya blame 'em?

Actually if kids of married homes knew the benefits of a Divorced home, they
would be doing everything in their power to make sure their parents split
up. Why not just have a direct deposit into the kids account for $800/mth
and let them feed and cloth themselves. Just think, new jeans every month
and pizza till you drop!

And can't, or won't support any children you father. You whine and whimper
and blame the female involved for having a child. She did not conceive the
child by herself. She had a sperm donor, who is equally responsible for
supporting the child he helped create. Once again, if you do not want to
support a child, then do not get a female pregnant with yours. Do not
sidetrack your irresponsibility with semantics as to who actually gives
birth to the child. The female gives birth, but both she and the sperm
donor "have a child". You apparently cannot grasp this simple fact. I
truly feel sorry for you as you cannot seem to learn from past mistakes.

_________________________________________________
http://www.gg-ads.com/pages/index.php?refid=tracy
http://www.gainpay.com/pages/index.php?refid=tracy
http://adpaid.com/ptr/pages/index.php?refid=tracy
_________________________________________________

I sure do; and I also know about circular reasoning which is just what you
are doing. You can't support an argument when your conclusion is also your
premise. So I will ask you again, exactly how does a man "have said child"?
In other words, specifically what does a man do that qualifies him as
"have[ing] said child"?

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"GREEN MONSTER" wrote in message ...


--






"Chris" wrote in message
...

"GREEN MONSTER" wrote in message
...
Its income to someone who happens to be the mother OF YOUR CHILD, too
support said child, you idiot. If you don't want to pay child
support
then
don't have said child. Get a snip job, wear a condom, or better yet,
keep
it in your pants.

Exactly how does a man "have said child"?


--

You get said woman preggers. then yo and her have said child. YOu do
know
about sex do yo u not???

I sure do; and I also know about circular reasoning which is just what you
are doing. You can't support an argument when your conclusion is also your
premise. So I will ask you again, exactly how does a man "have said
child"?
In other words, specifically what does a man do that qualifies him as
"have[ing] said child"?

We all know the femwit answer to your question. They equate having sex with
having children because they believe so strongly in protecting women from
the consequences of their own behavior.

When a man has sex with a woman he is consenting to being a father,
providing prenatal medical coverage, and paying the mother CS for 18+ years.

When a woman has sex with a man she is just out to have a good time. If she
happens to get pregnant she can take a Plan B type drug, get a medical
abortion, give the child up for adoption, abandon the child at a baby
drop-off point, or stick the father with paying her CS for 18+ years.

Bottom line - For men sex is consent to a lifetime of financial
responsibility. For women sex is just the starting point for her to
exercise one of her many options to avoid responsibility.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

Bottom line - For men sex is consent to a lifetime of financial
responsibility. For women sex is just the starting point for her to
exercise one of her many options to avoid responsibility.

In a worst case scenario for women with an unwanted child, they might have
to depend on Food stamps to feed their child that they alone decided to give
life to. Worst case scenario for a man that cannot afford to support said
child, he loses everything including his freedom, dignity and independence.


Bottom line, women have nothing to lose, men have everything to lose!