"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 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.

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


- Ron ^*^