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."

"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."

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"

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

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"

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?

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."
==

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?

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).

"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.