"Werebat" wrote in message
news:Sm1qe.28764$iU.2037@lakeread05...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...


I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is
the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if
Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get
her name on the birth certificate


Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because
the child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses.
Therefore, there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's
quite obvious she is the mother.

It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child
is considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is.

Oh, I just recognized the handle. That explains a lot.

Moon, you aren't paying attention. I'm not upset that Mom doesn't have
to claim maternity. Obviously that would be silly.

Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary"
affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the
ONLY one financially responsible for the child.


As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the
child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception.

I just asked my GF if she ever had to sign a document claming that she
agreed to be financially responsible for the child (without mention of
anyone else) in order to get her name on our son's birth certificate. She
told me that she did not. Do you get it yet?

She signed the birth certirficate. Get it yet?


That you can play ring-around-the-legal-rosie and formulate some
hypothesis of how she is financially responsible for our son is irrelevant
and untrue. We all know she could drop him off at the local fire station
and never have to pay one further red cent towards his upkeep. And THAT
is the law, in actuality.

Yet she still signed that birth certificate, didn't she.



I suppose that might seem paranoid to you -- and I would have thought so,
too, before I had my dealings with CSE and the Family Court System. Their
manner of dealing with fathers breeds paranoia. That's a consequence of
their attitudes and actions that we will ALL have to deal with until some
changes are made.


Then again, perhaps the paranoia is all yours. I've had dealings with
CSE and the Family court system as well - and watched while my ex ignored
court orders on any number of topics, without so much as a slap on the
wrist - he's stopped paying child support and never put in jail, nor even
threatened with it.

Moon, the list of my abuses at the hands of CSE is long enough to begin
looking unbelievable. I've never missed a payment, and yet I have been
jailed... Told that a judge would order 90% of the standard award for a
child I have exactly as many hours of the week that his mother does...
Threatened with severe punitive actions (loss of license, passport, and
license to teach) if I did not pay the state close to $500 in money that I
never owed and that to this day no one at CSE has ever been able to
explain how or why I owed... Had a $100 per month "obligation" to CSE (in
addition to the amount agreed on between my ex and myself, to be paid
directly to my ex) tacked on by CSE's lawyer to a judge's decree that the
judge never ordered... All of this and more.

But Moon, your previous discussions in this forum reveal your true colors,
and I realize going into this with you that you have made up your mind and
have no interest in changing it. Enjoy.

Raising my kids? I do enjoy it, thanks!



So........... all of this Chicken Little "the sky is falling" ain't
necessarily so.

If chicken little had had large chunks of the firmament plummeting down to
smack him in his head, he'd have had a case no matter who stood on the
sidelines and heckled him.

- Ron ^*^