View Single Post
Old October 12th 06, 07:57 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,
Ken Chaddock
external usenet poster
Posts: 53
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Andre Lieven wrote:

"Phil" ) writes:

"teachrmama" wrote in message

"Fred" wrote in message

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Fred wrote:

Gini wrote:

"Fred" wrote

I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another
attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine
of informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen
hither and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof
because those consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's
"inconvenient" as in financially inconvenient, because at the end
of the day it's always about the money with y'all.

It's disgusting, really.

Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does
the same, such as abortion, baby dropoff?

What's "baby dropoff"?

[sanctimony deleted]

...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an
infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws or
"hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven" laws
with more in progress.
All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off
point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some
used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office,
or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most case
they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are absolutely
NO legal consequences...note that in all but two states this
provision is NOT available to the father and those two they
*require* that he provide identification...for future child support
no doubt...
If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's
plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that
you can read yourself...

Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose.

The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother." Maybe
that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than a
parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little
disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped
off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the
firehouse. How about you?

So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a
daddy to take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk away,
no questions asked?

IF, and it's a big IF, the mother is in favor, it is likely that it will
happen just like she dropped the baby off. Otherwise, and it has
happened, that the father can drop the baby off, mother retrieves the
baby and then the father winds up in the clutches of CSE to pay the
expenses of the baby, including arrearages.
In effect, only mothers can drop the baby without penalty. Fathers are
always in danger of later being brought into 'family court', perhaps
even decades later.

Theres one issue about these Legal Abandon Laws you've missed.

Its that, how does a father get custody of an infant, in time to use
a Legal Abandon Law ? Since new born infants tend to be with the mother,
because they just popped out of the mother, it logically follows that
any law that mandates use only for new born infants, een if it is
written in " gender neutral " language, can only be used by te person
who just physiclaly birthed the child: mommy.

In order for dad to use Legal Abandon Laws, first dad would have to
win legal custody, and the time needed to do that ( Assuming that he
has great legal cause to win with, a situation that misandrous family
kourts make greatly unlikely ), which would take the infant past the
new born status that such drop offs are limited to.

Yes, Andre, you've hit upon the obvious (to us perhaps) "devil in the
details"...the man is virtually *never* in a position to take advantage
of such laws and even if he is there is that pesky question of "custody"
which, at birth, generally defaults to the mother...