A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Things to think of before you get married again..



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #221  
Old October 11th 06, 10:56 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote
Gini wrote:
"Fred" wrote

.................................

Instead of responding with substance, you respond with a sleazy cheap
shot.

==
"Sleazy?" "Cheap shot?" You don't get out much, do you Fred?
==
If you are going to play cheap, sleazy games, I won't deal with you.

Now then, what's "baby dropoff"?

And don't refer me to Andre's screed. I want a substantive description
that differentiates between whatever y'all are talking about and
adoption.

Now get to work or go away.

==
Do your own work. (You can't afford to hire me. )
See, I already know what it means so I don't have to look it up.


Then we have nothing further to discuss.

==
Don't forget your ball, Fred.


  #222  
Old October 11th 06, 11:12 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote
.............................

BTW, how do you feel about the implication made by OP that using child
support money to help pay the mortgage on the house in which the child
lives is somehow not in the child's interest?

==
You use the child support to pay your mortgage?


  #223  
Old October 11th 06, 12:54 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Ken Chaddock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Fred wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote:

Update, with a little further research I've discovered that
apparently there are now 47 states with "safe haven" laws and, wonder
of all wonders, a couple of them will also accept an infant from a man
without asking questions...but only a couple...
...and NO Fred, this ISN'T adoption...



So tell me, what are the differences? And more importantly, what is it
about adoption that caused 47 state legislatures to feel it necessary to
pass these "safe haven" laws? There must be something ...


You know Fred, I know a fair bit about "safe haven" laws in the US
(also called "safe drop-off" in some states and "hatchery" laws in Europe.
I gained this knowledge with a little judicious *research* (Google is a
wonderful tool...use it !) which I did BEFORE I came into these news
groups and started spouting off about something I knew nothing about. If
you want to learn about safe have laws, just google "safe have laws" and
you'll get about 100 pages of "hits" and you to can find out what it's
all about without expecting someone else to make the effort for you...
The main difference between safe haven provisions and adoption is in
adoption you have to have found other *suitable* parents who are willing
to relieve you of your parental obligations by accepting full
responsibility for the child(ern) themselves...in safe haven/drop off
situations there is no such requirement, you just dump the infant and
walk away...no strings attached and the child becomes the ward of the
state. It's interesting that the primary objection by many to allowing
fathers to "just walk away" (C4M) is an objection to the state "paying
for" someone else's child yet this is *exactly* what occurs in a "safe
haven/drop-off situation for women....hummm
I have no particular problem with safe have laws and would certainly
rather see a child safe than left to die in a dumpster but I am upset
than in virtually all of the statutes that I have actually read (37 to
date) they speak specifically about the mother having this right and no
one else...it's just another example of the huge systemic bias that
favours mothers (note, not children) to the detriment of
fathers...mothers have been given legal "reproductive rights" that DO
NOT stem from biology while fathers have had their natural "reproductive
rights" legally restricted. This is unfair, unjust and probably
unconstitutional to boot...

....Ken
  #224  
Old October 11th 06, 01:27 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong
opinions
about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the
Minnesota
laws regarding women's parental avoidance.
Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years.

"Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a
mother
can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of
prosecution.
She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required

to
do
so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory
medical information."
So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a
firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very

serious
question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit.
I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and

force
her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't

want.
Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital

drug
to stop the pregnancy, have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, give

the
child up for adoption, or take the child to term and raise it. Instead,

she
chose to have the child and then abandon it. The choice between child
neglect and child murder is a false choice.

I see your point, but shouldn't we also be thinking of the welfare of
the unwanted child?


Actually I think the - his semen, his choice, his responsibility - father
should have the first right to care for the child, not the local fire
department. It is total crap for the birth mother to define the child is
"unwanted" without giving the father the right to raise his child.


That's right: it's crap. But she's not gonna do what you want her to do
just because you want her to do it. She's gonna do what she wants to do,
even if it's illegal, and even if it results in the death of the child.
That's just reality.

So if she's not gonna give the father a chance, and if she's not gonna
give adoption a chance, then absent a "safe haven" law there's no chance
at all for the child; it's gonna end up in the dumpster. Is that what
you want? I don't.

If this "parent" is going to get rid of the unwanted child, then the
child is going to be gotten rid of, one way or another. In my opinion,
the responsible way to do so is through adoption, but for some reason
that I do not understand a substantial number of "parents" are unwilling
to do that. So we're left with the unpalatable choices of either the
firehouse or the dumpster. Given those choices, I'll go for the
firehouse, in the interest of protecting the unwanted child. Not the
preferred outcome, but better than finding a newborn child dead in a
dumpster.


Even with the fire department drop off option young mothers are still
flushing new newborns down the toilet, hiding them in coffee cans, and
killing innocent babies. The feminist's consider this extension of late
term abortion to be post child birth abortion and just another
post-conception option for women. And in the legal system there are no
meaningful punishments for these types of crimes.

It's not as sterile as you try to make it sound. These young mothers are
abusing their newborns no matter how you cut it. And calling them "parents"
just disguises the real issue of mother neglect and abuse.


I am rapidly getting the impression that, given the choice between
having a "safe harbor" law that saves the life of a child while letting
the irresponsible mother walk away unpunished, and not having a "safe
harbor" law and seeing the child die in a dumpster so that the
irresponsible mother can be punished, you'd prefer to see the child die
in a dumpster. What say you? About THOSE CHOICES, Bob. No dad; she's not
gonna do that. No adoption; she's not gonna do that. She's
irresponsible, remember? You have two choices: save the child, or see it
die in a dumpster.

What say you?
  #225  
Old October 11th 06, 01:42 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

?-? wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
?-? wrote:
"Fred" wrote in

Both base child support on the combined gross incomes of both parents,

That's after they impute his income up and impute her income down, then
it's calulated.

Have a friend whose ex's income was imputed down to the point of where
they said she was earning only $800/mth as an RN.

What jurisdiction?


Wayne County, Michigan!

So of the $1600/mth he brings home and now imputed to $2000/mth, his
responsibility according to the Kourt is now $800/mth to support the child
and it's mother. He's already in arrears, so how does this work for your
responsibility theory?


Works fine. "His semen, his choice, his responsibility." If he doesn't
think that his financial responsibility has been correctly determined,
he can seek judicial review. The current determination is documented,
after all. If it is unjust, then it should be changed.

I must tell you that the story you tell is *very* different from the one
told by my co-worker, who is paying something like $200/month on at
least the same takehome pay. I guess we would need more than hearsay to
figure out exactly why the amounts being paid were ordered.

  #226  
Old October 11th 06, 01:50 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

?-? wrote:
"Fred" wrote in

Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something, or y'all are not
communicating something, or y'all really do not give a damn about the
welfare of the child. I hate to think that it is the last, but when you'd
rather see a child put out on the street rather than see child support
used to put a roof over its head, I really do have to wonder what's going
on here. Please clarify.


What's really going on is called alimony for the mother and the state gets a
percentage of the outrages CS rates that they determine. It has nothing to
do with the child!


Then I take it that you would rather see the child put out on the street.

I thought it would come to that. I mean, when you have to resort to
saying that child support is alimony, which is a lie, all you're doing
is demonstrating yet again that, to y'all, it's all about the money, and
the child be damned.

Disgusting.
  #227  
Old October 11th 06, 02:15 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Ken Chaddock wrote:
Fred wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote:

Update, with a little further research I've discovered that
apparently there are now 47 states with "safe haven" laws and, wonder
of all wonders, a couple of them will also accept an infant from a
man without asking questions...but only a couple...
...and NO Fred, this ISN'T adoption...



So tell me, what are the differences? And more importantly, what is it
about adoption that caused 47 state legislatures to feel it necessary
to pass these "safe haven" laws? There must be something ...


[sanctimony deleted]

The main difference between safe haven provisions and adoption is in
adoption you have to have found other *suitable* parents who are willing
to relieve you of your parental obligations by accepting full
responsibility for the child(ern) themselves...


Well, *someone* has to find adoptive parents. There are government
agencies that perform that task. There are brokers that facilitate that
task. But yes, it has to be done.

... in safe haven/drop off
situations there is no such requirement, you just dump the infant and
walk away...no strings attached and the child becomes the ward of the
state. It's interesting that the primary objection by many to allowing
fathers to "just walk away" (C4M) is an objection to the state "paying
for" someone else's child yet this is *exactly* what occurs in a "safe
haven/drop-off situation for women....hummm


Which gets us back to that choice between "safe haven" and seeing the
child dropped off at a firehouse, and no "safe haven" and seeing the
child die in a dumpster.

What y'all want fathers to be able to walk away from is financial
responsibility.

I have no particular problem with safe have laws and would certainly
rather see a child safe than left to die in a dumpster but I am upset
than in virtually all of the statutes that I have actually read (37 to
date) they speak specifically about the mother having this right and no
one else...it's just another example of the huge systemic bias that
favours mothers (note, not children) to the detriment of
fathers...mothers have been given legal "reproductive rights" that DO
NOT stem from biology while fathers have had their natural "reproductive
rights" legally restricted. This is unfair, unjust and probably
unconstitutional to boot...


Ken, I don't mind you being resentful. You can be as resentful as you
like. But this is not a simplistic issue, and there are competing
interests to consider. In my opinion, the overriding interest must be in
protecting the child, and if that means that we have to let mom walk
away, distasteful though that may be, when the alternative is seeing the
child die in a dumpster, then that's what we have to do. You don't have
to like it, but for the sake of that child I really do think that you're
gonna have to put up with it.
  #228  
Old October 11th 06, 02:25 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Ken Chaddock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Fred wrote:

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...

Bob Whiteside wrote:

So then you have no problem with the child support used exclusively


for

said

child
and not be put into the family coffers for let's say, the mortgage,


SUV

payment?


You may take what I said at face value. I will leave it to
legislatures
and courts to figure out what constitutes an expense in the child's
interest.

[sanctimony deleted] Neither the legislatures nor the courts
have used expense based criteria to fulfill a child's interest since
the
mid-80's when CS guidelines were introduced.

But if one wants to go down OP's road, then you end up back at
expense-based criteria, with all of the nit-picking and litigation that
implies. Vicious circle.

BTW, how do you feel about the implication made by OP that using child
support money to help pay the mortgage on the house in which the child
lives is somehow not in the child's interest?



I feel it's bull****. CS is for the child not for the householder to pay
the mortgage and gain home equity for themselves.



I see. As usual, it's all about the money, not the child.

Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something,


You are clearly "missing something" Fred. I'll give you an example from
Canada. This is quite well documented. About 10 years ago a woman named
Chantell Leduc took a case all the way to the Supreme Court Of Canada.
She claimed that it was unfair that she would have to pay income tax on
child support money since, theoretically the money is for the support of
the child...even though she gets to spend it however she likes without
any requirement to prove that she spent it for the support of the child.
She won, the SCofC agreed and struck down that portion of the Income Tax
Act.
I saw an interview with her at the time, (it was on a phone-in show)
during the interview she complained that, to reduce her income tax
burden, she had to invest 40% of the CS money into a Registered
Retirement Savings Plan to gain the tax write off...At her tax bracket,
she got back about 65%...so she invests 40% of the CS into an RRSP to
get back 65% of it...please note, in Canada a minor child *cannot* own
an RRSP...so the RRSP was HER savings plan and would be on NO benefit to
her child so, even if she were to spend *all* of the tax refund on her
son, the son has still "lost" 14% (40% X 65% = 26% refund) of the CS
paid by his father for him...to HER sole benefit...I called in and asked
her why she though it was right for her to use the CS for her own
benefit and not for her son...I was cut off and am still waiting for an
answer...
The changes to the Income Tax Act had dyer consequences for custodial
children all across Canada since Revenue Canada, taking their famous "in
the best interests of the child" stance, switched the tax burden to the
non-custodial parent (mostly fathers) who, now since they weren't
getting a tax break anymore, all had their CS reduced by an equivalent
amount. Since the fathers were usually the high earners, the
differential in CS reduction amounted to an average $1500 per year
*less* child support being paid to children...yea, the Government
*really* cared about children...not !


or y'all are not
communicating something, or y'all really do not give a damn about the
welfare of the child.


Actually *we* care a hell of a lot MORE about the welfare of the
children that the courts who don't even care whether the custodial
parent even spends the CS money for the benefit of the child.
My brother-in-law (by his 2nd marriage) had the experience of going to
court with well documented evidence that his ex-wife was using the CS
money he was paying to support his 3 sons to take her latest "boy toy" n
a two week southern vacation each year. She so poorly supported the boys
that he had to buy their clothes and pay for their school supplies out
of his own pocket even though these expenses were supposed to have been
covered by the CS. When he presented his irrefutable evidence, the judge
curtly told him it was none of the courts (or his !) business HOW his
ex-wife spent the CS money because it was HERS !

Now tell me how *those* inconvenient facts fit into your nice "theory"
of parental responsibility ?

....Ken
  #229  
Old October 11th 06, 02:56 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
?-? wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
?-? wrote:
"Fred" wrote in

Both base child support on the combined gross incomes of both parents,

That's after they impute his income up and impute her income down, then
it's calulated.

Have a friend whose ex's income was imputed down to the point of where
they said she was earning only $800/mth as an RN.
What jurisdiction?


Wayne County, Michigan!

So of the $1600/mth he brings home and now imputed to $2000/mth, his
responsibility according to the Kourt is now $800/mth to support the
child and it's mother. He's already in arrears, so how does this work for
your responsibility theory?


Works fine. "His semen, his choice, his responsibility." If he doesn't
think that his financial responsibility has been correctly determined, he
can seek judicial review. The current determination is documented, after
all. If it is unjust, then it should be changed.

I must tell you that the story you tell is *very* different from the one
told by my co-worker, who is paying something like $200/month on at least
the same takehome pay. I guess we would need more than hearsay to figure
out exactly why the amounts being paid were ordered.


snicker naive, naive, naive



  #230  
Old October 11th 06, 03:01 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82...
Fred wrote:
Gini wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote
............................

And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S
responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you
keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about how
WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same situation.
Everything a woman does after the sex act is a consequence of
where that mean old man left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm
just reading you wrong--why don't you clearly delineate what the
woman's responsibilities are after the consequence of pregnancy
becomes an issue.

==
A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.)


I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the
theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence."

It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post
conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance
with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the
consequences that follow from those choices should also be hers.


So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses
to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is
pregnancy.

But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm
around" go. After that the woman has many options and
CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to
abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which
will most likely be the birth of a child...

And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any
responsibility for or to the child?
Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as
well?


Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and
from those choices will spring consequences in turn.

Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER
choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow
from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all
that, most likely unconstitutional...

So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or
not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this
absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his
child?

When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his
responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward
the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the
child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be
the bankroll.

So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other
parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights,
and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights?

Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the
same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default
50/50 is the key.

Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad
wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom
wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she
chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses.

"No rights to walk away".

How do you propose stopping someone from doing so?

"they pay for their own expenses"

So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the
other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either.
They both insist it's the other's expense.

So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is
required to provide health insurance?
(or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense, it's
the *other* parent's expense)


Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of
marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance when
kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met, why should
*anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't want to?


Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children on
the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole lot more
that's going to be said here.


I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more than
married parents are forced to provide, Moon. If insurance isn't required of
married parents, why should it be required of divorced paernts? However, I
do believe that parents who have a relationship with their children will
*want* to provide for them. That's the reason for the default 50/50
custody.


Have a lovely day.

Unless you don't want to.


Such a sweet little thing you are.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 February 28th 05 06:27 AM
Parent-Child Negotiations Nathan A. Barclay Spanking 623 January 28th 05 05:24 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 29th 04 06:26 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 November 28th 04 06:16 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 June 28th 04 07:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.