Tracy wrote:

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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


Moon Shyne wrote:

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


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 believe it's called paranoia based on past experiences. Although some
child-support awards are high, it doesn't mean that mothers are not
financially responsible for their children.

The wording on the document (I am quoting from memory here because their
cloak-and-dagger rules wouldn't let me take a blank copy home with me)
went something like this: "I agree to assume responsibility for the
financial expenses of the child."

Note that it doesn't say partial responsibility, or my share of the
responsibility, or responsibility for my portion of the financial
expenses of the child. The implication is that I am the only one
financially responsible for the child.

You are right in that there is some amount of paranoia from past
experiences. I am the type to simply sign off on the usual contract
without giving it more than a cursory read. That comes from a basic
trust in our human systems that they aren't going to go off and do
something unreasonable because they "gotcha" on a technicality.

A system gets one chance there. When it screws you over on a
technicality, it's pretty easy for it to win -- but you never, ever,
ever trust them again, not any further than you can toss them. This
document was written by lawyers working for CSE, and I have no interest
in signing anything that passed through their slippery tentacles unless
I have read it with a very critical eye and am satisfied with every jot
and tittle of the document.

I am not satisfied with this document. What I am being told is that I
will have no legal recognition as a parent unless I sign it. This is
unjust. No amount of hemming and hawing is going to make it just. The
excuse that "you'll have to fight city hall to change it, so you might
as well give in" is not acceptable.


Ron - I agree with Bob. It's a matter if you wish your name to be on your
child's birth certificate or not. Signing the document, or not signing it,
won't stop the mother from going after you for child-support at any time in
the future. I believe most people in this group can testify that promises
can be broken, and regardless of what the mother said - you never know what
she may do any time in the future.

I agree that it is a minor quibble in the grand scheme of things, and
that if she were to go off the deep end and get on Welfare I'd be
screwed whether or not I signed the document. However, I feel...
unclean... participating in such a blatantly sexist policy.

It is just like my analogy about Blacks being forced to sign a document
agreeing not to shoplift before being allowed into the mall, and the
mall using the excuse that it is a fair practice because Whites will be
prosecuted for shoplifting if they get caught, too. Can you imagine the
outrage if this were to happen? Can you imagine ANYONE standing up and
telling angered Black people that they should just give in and sign the
document, because it "wasn't a big deal" and "didn't really change
anything"?

I think that Black people, and any other group, would be completely
justified in feeling outrage at being treated in such a manner. And
this is only for being allowed to shop in the mall! Here, we are
talking about basic human rights, like being legally recognized as
parent of your own child.

- Ron ^*^