Proposed Tool for the CS Battle: 1st Trimester/Pre-Birth Disclosure Statement

[PapaPolarbear]

I've been listening to many of you as I ruffle the feathers and wonder if
the following would be doable.

Proposed Rule of Law to establish rights of Child Support/Access

Upon discovery of pregnancy the mother must inform the father by any
provable means that will establish the father's responsibility for the
child. If the father is not located by the time of birth, newspaper ads may
be placed in no less than 3 major newspapers. The ads must run for 30-days
or until the father responds, whichever is less. If no response is offered
the father is assumed to have been notified and is at that point responsible
for support. The father may contest this if he can establish all atempts to
notify him had failed and he was not evasive in manner.

If the father is found before the assumption of responsibility he must
choose to accept responsibility for support or recommend either the
termination of the pregancy(where and when applicable) or adoption, thereby
ceasing his obligation to the child for support. The mother may follow the
recommendation but the choice remains hers. The father is no longer afforded
any rights to the child.

If the father later requests access, beyond a casual visit, the mother may
choose to request back support for the timeframe that the father has been
absent and establish on-going support. The father cannot then abandon the
child a second time financially. The mother may chose to deny access and
this will be supported by the courts, denial of access will deny any pursuit
of support.

If the mother fails to notify the father, the father may reject his parental
responsibility for the child if it is discovered later in life. If the
mother does not pursue notification of the father after first knowledge of
the pregnancy she waives any right to pursue the father for support. If he
does not reject his responsibility upon this discovery, his support will
proceed from the date of this discovery. In this scenario no support can be
claimed if the child is over the age of 18.

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

There are loopholes to this. I'm not sure how to plug them but any ideas are
welcome.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > I've been listening to many of you as I ruffle the feathers and wonder
if
> > the following would be doable.
> >
> > Proposed Rule of Law to establish rights of Child Support/Access
> >
> > Upon discovery of pregnancy the mother must inform the father by any
> > provable means that will establish the father's responsibility for the
> > child. If the father is not located by the time of birth, newspaper ads
> may
> > be placed in no less than 3 major newspapers. The ads must run for
30-days
> > or until the father responds, whichever is less. If no response is
offered
> > the father is assumed to have been notified and is at that point
> responsible
> > for support. The father may contest this if he can establish all atempts
> to
> > notify him had failed and he was not evasive in manner.
> >
> > If the father is found before the assumption of responsibility he must
> > choose to accept responsibility for support or recommend either the
> > termination of the pregancy(where and when applicable) or adoption,
> thereby
> > ceasing his obligation to the child for support. The mother may follow
the
> > recommendation but the choice remains hers. The father is no longer
> afforded
> > any rights to the child.
> >
> > If the father later requests access, beyond a casual visit, the mother
may
> > choose to request back support for the timeframe that the father has
been
> > absent and establish on-going support. The father cannot then abandon
the
> > child a second time financially. The mother may chose to deny access and
> > this will be supported by the courts, denial of access will deny any
> pursuit
> > of support.
> >
> > If the mother fails to notify the father, the father may reject his
> parental
> > responsibility for the child if it is discovered later in life. If the
> > mother does not pursue notification of the father after first knowledge
of
> > the pregnancy she waives any right to pursue the father for support. If
he
> > does not reject his responsibility upon this discovery, his support will
> > proceed from the date of this discovery. In this scenario no support can
> be
> > claimed if the child is over the age of 18.
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > There are loopholes to this.
> ==
> A few.
> ==
> >I'm not sure how to plug them but any ideas are
> > welcome.
> ==
> You forgot the child.

Really? How did I forget the child? I didn't give the child rights in the
process... Hmmm.

Can you suggest something for the child?

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > I've been listening to many of you as I ruffle the feathers and wonder
if
> > the following would be doable.
> >
> > Proposed Rule of Law to establish rights of Child Support/Access
> >
> > Upon discovery of pregnancy the mother must inform the father by any
> > provable means that will establish the father's responsibility for the
> > child. If the father is not located by the time of birth, newspaper ads
> may
> > be placed in no less than 3 major newspapers. The ads must run for
30-days
> > or until the father responds, whichever is less. If no response is
offered
> > the father is assumed to have been notified and is at that point
> responsible
> > for support. The father may contest this if he can establish all atempts
> to
> > notify him had failed and he was not evasive in manner.
> >
> > If the father is found before the assumption of responsibility he must
> > choose to accept responsibility for support or recommend either the
> > termination of the pregancy(where and when applicable) or adoption,
> thereby
> > ceasing his obligation to the child for support. The mother may follow
the
> > recommendation but the choice remains hers. The father is no longer
> afforded
> > any rights to the child.
> >
> > If the father later requests access, beyond a casual visit, the mother
may
> > choose to request back support for the timeframe that the father has
been
> > absent and establish on-going support. The father cannot then abandon
the
> > child a second time financially. The mother may chose to deny access and
> > this will be supported by the courts, denial of access will deny any
> pursuit
> > of support.
> >
> > If the mother fails to notify the father, the father may reject his
> parental
> > responsibility for the child if it is discovered later in life. If the
> > mother does not pursue notification of the father after first knowledge
of
> > the pregnancy she waives any right to pursue the father for support. If
he
> > does not reject his responsibility upon this discovery, his support will
> > proceed from the date of this discovery. In this scenario no support can
> be
> > claimed if the child is over the age of 18.
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > There are loopholes to this.
> ==
> A few.
> ==
> >I'm not sure how to plug them but any ideas are
> > welcome.
> ==
> You forgot the child.

Really? How did I forget the child? I didn't give the child rights in the
process... Hmmm.

Can you suggest something for the child?

Papa

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > I've been listening to many of you as I ruffle the feathers and wonder
> if
> > > the following would be doable.
> > >
> > > Proposed Rule of Law to establish rights of Child Support/Access
> > >
> > > Upon discovery of pregnancy the mother must inform the father by any
> > > provable means that will establish the father's responsibility for the
> > > child. If the father is not located by the time of birth, newspaper
ads
> > may
> > > be placed in no less than 3 major newspapers. The ads must run for
> 30-days
> > > or until the father responds, whichever is less. If no response is
> offered
> > > the father is assumed to have been notified and is at that point
> > responsible
> > > for support. The father may contest this if he can establish all
atempts
> > to
> > > notify him had failed and he was not evasive in manner.
> > >
> > > If the father is found before the assumption of responsibility he must
> > > choose to accept responsibility for support or recommend either the
> > > termination of the pregancy(where and when applicable) or adoption,
> > thereby
> > > ceasing his obligation to the child for support. The mother may follow
> the
> > > recommendation but the choice remains hers. The father is no longer
> > afforded
> > > any rights to the child.
> > >
> > > If the father later requests access, beyond a casual visit, the mother
> may
> > > choose to request back support for the timeframe that the father has
> been
> > > absent and establish on-going support. The father cannot then abandon
> the
> > > child a second time financially. The mother may chose to deny access
and
> > > this will be supported by the courts, denial of access will deny any
> > pursuit
> > > of support.
> > >
> > > If the mother fails to notify the father, the father may reject his
> > parental
> > > responsibility for the child if it is discovered later in life. If the
> > > mother does not pursue notification of the father after first
knowledge
> of
> > > the pregnancy she waives any right to pursue the father for support.
If
> he
> > > does not reject his responsibility upon this discovery, his support
will
> > > proceed from the date of this discovery. In this scenario no support
can
> > be
> > > claimed if the child is over the age of 18.
> > >
> > > ------------
> > >
> > > There are loopholes to this.
> > ==
> > A few.
> > ==
> > >I'm not sure how to plug them but any ideas are
> > > welcome.
> > ==
> > You forgot the child.
>
> Really? How did I forget the child? I didn't give the child rights in the
> process... Hmmm.
==
It's really a no-brainer. It's one of the fundamentals.
Your ego impedes your ability to comprehend the basics.
==
>
> Can you suggest something for the child?
==
Anyone here can. Everyone here except you (and Clarke) understands
the relevance and role of the child. You believe yourself a great sayer
in family law reform but you devise a "Rule of Law" that has totally ignored
the child (Clarke did the same thing with his custody "model.") I am not
here
to discuss elementals. If I were a college professor, I would not expect to
teach freshmen how to write complete sentences. I will
continue to engage dialogue on the more complex issues and theories of
family law
with others in the group but, until you can participate on that level, I
will disregard your posts.
(Counter-arrogance intended)
==
==
>
> Papa
>
>

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > I've been listening to many of you as I ruffle the feathers and wonder
> if
> > > the following would be doable.
> > >
> > > Proposed Rule of Law to establish rights of Child Support/Access
> > >
> > > Upon discovery of pregnancy the mother must inform the father by any
> > > provable means that will establish the father's responsibility for the
> > > child. If the father is not located by the time of birth, newspaper
ads
> > may
> > > be placed in no less than 3 major newspapers. The ads must run for
> 30-days
> > > or until the father responds, whichever is less. If no response is
> offered
> > > the father is assumed to have been notified and is at that point
> > responsible
> > > for support. The father may contest this if he can establish all
atempts
> > to
> > > notify him had failed and he was not evasive in manner.
> > >
> > > If the father is found before the assumption of responsibility he must
> > > choose to accept responsibility for support or recommend either the
> > > termination of the pregancy(where and when applicable) or adoption,
> > thereby
> > > ceasing his obligation to the child for support. The mother may follow
> the
> > > recommendation but the choice remains hers. The father is no longer
> > afforded
> > > any rights to the child.
> > >
> > > If the father later requests access, beyond a casual visit, the mother
> may
> > > choose to request back support for the timeframe that the father has
> been
> > > absent and establish on-going support. The father cannot then abandon
> the
> > > child a second time financially. The mother may chose to deny access
and
> > > this will be supported by the courts, denial of access will deny any
> > pursuit
> > > of support.
> > >
> > > If the mother fails to notify the father, the father may reject his
> > parental
> > > responsibility for the child if it is discovered later in life. If the
> > > mother does not pursue notification of the father after first
knowledge
> of
> > > the pregnancy she waives any right to pursue the father for support.
If
> he
> > > does not reject his responsibility upon this discovery, his support
will
> > > proceed from the date of this discovery. In this scenario no support
can
> > be
> > > claimed if the child is over the age of 18.
> > >
> > > ------------
> > >
> > > There are loopholes to this.
> > ==
> > A few.
> > ==
> > >I'm not sure how to plug them but any ideas are
> > > welcome.
> > ==
> > You forgot the child.
>
> Really? How did I forget the child? I didn't give the child rights in the
> process... Hmmm.
==
It's really a no-brainer. It's one of the fundamentals.
Your ego impedes your ability to comprehend the basics.
==
>
> Can you suggest something for the child?
==
Anyone here can. Everyone here except you (and Clarke) understands
the relevance and role of the child. You believe yourself a great sayer
in family law reform but you devise a "Rule of Law" that has totally ignored
the child (Clarke did the same thing with his custody "model.") I am not
here
to discuss elementals. If I were a college professor, I would not expect to
teach freshmen how to write complete sentences. I will
continue to engage dialogue on the more complex issues and theories of
family law
with others in the group but, until you can participate on that level, I
will disregard your posts.
(Counter-arrogance intended)
==
==
>
> Papa
>
>

[bluefields]

gini52 wrote:

> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > I've been listening to many of you as I ruffle the feathers and wonder if
> > the following would be doable.
> >
> > Proposed Rule of Law to establish rights of Child Support/Access
> >
> > Upon discovery of pregnancy the mother must inform the father by any
> > provable means that will establish the father's responsibility for the
> > child. If the father is not located by the time of birth, newspaper ads
> may
> > be placed in no less than 3 major newspapers. The ads must run for 30-days
> > or until the father responds, whichever is less. If no response is offered
> > the father is assumed to have been notified and is at that point
> responsible
> > for support. The father may contest this if he can establish all atempts
> to
> > notify him had failed and he was not evasive in manner.
> >
> > If the father is found before the assumption of responsibility he must
> > choose to accept responsibility for support or recommend either the
> > termination of the pregancy(where and when applicable) or adoption,
> thereby
> > ceasing his obligation to the child for support. The mother may follow the
> > recommendation but the choice remains hers. The father is no longer
> afforded
> > any rights to the child.
> >
> > If the father later requests access, beyond a casual visit, the mother may
> > choose to request back support for the timeframe that the father has been
> > absent and establish on-going support. The father cannot then abandon the
> > child a second time financially. The mother may chose to deny access and
> > this will be supported by the courts, denial of access will deny any
> pursuit
> > of support.
> >
> > If the mother fails to notify the father, the father may reject his
> parental
> > responsibility for the child if it is discovered later in life. If the
> > mother does not pursue notification of the father after first knowledge of
> > the pregnancy she waives any right to pursue the father for support. If he
> > does not reject his responsibility upon this discovery, his support will
> > proceed from the date of this discovery. In this scenario no support can
> be
> > claimed if the child is over the age of 18.
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > There are loopholes to this.
> ==
> A few.
> ==
> >I'm not sure how to plug them but any ideas are
> > welcome.
> ==
> You forgot the child.
> ==
> ==
> >
> > Papa
> >After I stopped laughing I thought the same thing.

>
> >
> >
> >

[bluefields]

gini52 wrote:

> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > I've been listening to many of you as I ruffle the feathers and wonder if
> > the following would be doable.
> >
> > Proposed Rule of Law to establish rights of Child Support/Access
> >
> > Upon discovery of pregnancy the mother must inform the father by any
> > provable means that will establish the father's responsibility for the
> > child. If the father is not located by the time of birth, newspaper ads
> may
> > be placed in no less than 3 major newspapers. The ads must run for 30-days
> > or until the father responds, whichever is less. If no response is offered
> > the father is assumed to have been notified and is at that point
> responsible
> > for support. The father may contest this if he can establish all atempts
> to
> > notify him had failed and he was not evasive in manner.
> >
> > If the father is found before the assumption of responsibility he must
> > choose to accept responsibility for support or recommend either the
> > termination of the pregancy(where and when applicable) or adoption,
> thereby
> > ceasing his obligation to the child for support. The mother may follow the
> > recommendation but the choice remains hers. The father is no longer
> afforded
> > any rights to the child.
> >
> > If the father later requests access, beyond a casual visit, the mother may
> > choose to request back support for the timeframe that the father has been
> > absent and establish on-going support. The father cannot then abandon the
> > child a second time financially. The mother may chose to deny access and
> > this will be supported by the courts, denial of access will deny any
> pursuit
> > of support.
> >
> > If the mother fails to notify the father, the father may reject his
> parental
> > responsibility for the child if it is discovered later in life. If the
> > mother does not pursue notification of the father after first knowledge of
> > the pregnancy she waives any right to pursue the father for support. If he
> > does not reject his responsibility upon this discovery, his support will
> > proceed from the date of this discovery. In this scenario no support can
> be
> > claimed if the child is over the age of 18.
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > There are loopholes to this.
> ==
> A few.
> ==
> >I'm not sure how to plug them but any ideas are
> > welcome.
> ==
> You forgot the child.
> ==
> ==
> >
> > Papa
> >After I stopped laughing I thought the same thing.

>
> >
> >
> >

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
> > Really? How did I forget the child? I didn't give the child rights in
the
> > process... Hmmm.
> ==
> It's really a no-brainer. It's one of the fundamentals.
> Your ego impedes your ability to comprehend the basics.

Gini, you're all talk no ideas. This sort of response is just a waste of
time It makes you feel better because you have some idea of what I'm not.

The role of the child... hmmm. when the child is an infant they aren't
terribly interactive.

It doesn't ignore the child. The child's future is determined by the
parents. They have complete control.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
> > Really? How did I forget the child? I didn't give the child rights in
the
> > process... Hmmm.
> ==
> It's really a no-brainer. It's one of the fundamentals.
> Your ego impedes your ability to comprehend the basics.

Gini, you're all talk no ideas. This sort of response is just a waste of
time It makes you feel better because you have some idea of what I'm not.

The role of the child... hmmm. when the child is an infant they aren't
terribly interactive.

It doesn't ignore the child. The child's future is determined by the
parents. They have complete control.

Papa

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Really? How did I forget the child? I didn't give the child rights in
> the
> > > process... Hmmm.
> > ==
> > It's really a no-brainer. It's one of the fundamentals.
> > Your ego impedes your ability to comprehend the basics.
>
> Gini, you're all talk no ideas. This sort of response is just a waste of
> time It makes you feel better because you have some idea of what I'm not.
>
> The role of the child... hmmm. when the child is an infant they aren't
> terribly interactive.
==
*Light Bulb*--They Grow!!
==
>
> It doesn't ignore the child. The child's future is determined by the
> parents. They have complete control.
==
It totally ignores the child. Where does it not ignore the child?
Most fathers, mothers, courts, judges and legislators would disagree
with raising children this way. Another fine example of why your ideas are
worthless. Instead of chastizing everyone, why doesn't it *ever* occur to
you that they might be
know more than you do and they might be right? You sound more like Clark
with every post.
Coincidence, I suppose. No matter. You have now met all the requirements of
trolling so enjoy yourself.
You are a total waste of time.
==
==
>
> Papa
==

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Really? How did I forget the child? I didn't give the child rights in
> the
> > > process... Hmmm.
> > ==
> > It's really a no-brainer. It's one of the fundamentals.
> > Your ego impedes your ability to comprehend the basics.
>
> Gini, you're all talk no ideas. This sort of response is just a waste of
> time It makes you feel better because you have some idea of what I'm not.
>
> The role of the child... hmmm. when the child is an infant they aren't
> terribly interactive.
==
*Light Bulb*--They Grow!!
==
>
> It doesn't ignore the child. The child's future is determined by the
> parents. They have complete control.
==
It totally ignores the child. Where does it not ignore the child?
Most fathers, mothers, courts, judges and legislators would disagree
with raising children this way. Another fine example of why your ideas are
worthless. Instead of chastizing everyone, why doesn't it *ever* occur to
you that they might be
know more than you do and they might be right? You sound more like Clark
with every post.
Coincidence, I suppose. No matter. You have now met all the requirements of
trolling so enjoy yourself.
You are a total waste of time.
==
==
>
> Papa
==

[PapaPolarBear]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .

http://forfairchildsupport.netfirms.com/

New Target GINI, TM...

Have fun!

[PapaPolarBear]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .

http://forfairchildsupport.netfirms.com/

New Target GINI, TM...

Have fun!

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarBear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> http://forfairchildsupport.netfirms.com/
>
> New Target GINI, TM...
>
> Have fun!

Did someone paint a target on your backside while you were sleeping?

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarBear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> http://forfairchildsupport.netfirms.com/
>
> New Target GINI, TM...
>
> Have fun!

Did someone paint a target on your backside while you were sleeping?