View Single Post
  #293  
Old October 12th 06, 08:40 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 80
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

"Phil" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Phil" ) writes:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
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, hospital 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 suppor 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.

Andre

Absolutely true. I was intimating that even if "dad" had received
permission from "mom" to drop the baby off, she can still change her
mind, retrieve the baby and sue for child support from the 'drop-off
dad'.


Exactly. In spite of the fact that this area is neither biological
to women, nor medical to women, thus leaving no good reason why it
should ONLY be offered to women, it is mere misandrous sexism.

No matter what, it is NOT gender neutral because it only applies
to fathers if and only as long as he has the mother's permission.


Indeed.

Mothers do not need anyone's permission or approval.


Exactly. Only when a man is allowed to sign a legal form by which
he revokes all of his legal rights and responsibilities to a child,
this area of law will stay misandrously sexist.

Andre