--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rudy" wrote in message
. ..
Your economic stimulus payment WILL be intercepted for back child
support!

Thank GOD the Federal Government can do what the deadbeats
refuse
to do.
Support their kids.



First, most "deadbeats" don't "refuse", they simply CAN'T pay the
exorbitant C$ amounts;
Second, paying the mother is NOT supporting a child.

The first thing to realize is that "child support" does not have
the
same meaning as "supporting a child".

Child support is money paid from one parent to the other under the
pretense that it will be used for the betterment of the child in
question.

I always like to add the CP's pro-rata share of the total CS
obligation is part of the calculation even though the money does
not
change hands and there is no tracking of whether it is paid or not.

So the question becomes - If the CP is not providing their share of
the total CS obligation, should their economic stimulus package be
seized too? Why should the CP get both parent's refund?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to support the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no presumption. Whether or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when it comes to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a legal way to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption." (on the part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that the mother will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even if she must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't matter that she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long as the child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not provide from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP for the damages.

Which proves my point (to which you disagre).

This brings up another problem with "equality" in that the NCP is never
qualified to receive state funding to help him support his child but the
CP is and often does.

That's because ONLY women deserve state funded (mother) support.





Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below that
equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide "child
care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as for children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are they allowed
to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then again, a
twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Excellent point.
You know the answer: Options for women (and underage girls) without
responsibility.
Phil #3