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

TN - Child support termination bill attacked



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 26th 08, 01:19 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message

...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of

bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS

money
is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship
or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should

have
no
responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when
it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

The whole idea is so disgusting!! As if a child is owed money from a
man--any man--and to not receive the money from whatever man mom
points
to
is child abuse! Where do these idiot politicians get their ideas?
You've
got to wonder if the lot of them have children by "outside interests"
where
other men are paying what they, themselves, should be paying.

The above is a classic response from one who does not understand the
relationship between rights and responsibilities.


What? You are NUTS, Chris! I said I think it is ridiculous that the
law
says that a child is owed money by a man--any man--whether he is the

father
or not.


You also said "...what they, themselves, should be paying."


What I said is that, perhaps, the politicians keep the laws the way they are
because they (the politicians) know that they could be the fathers of some
of these children who are being discovered not to be the children of the men
who have been told by the moms that they are the fathers. If the
politicians change the law to say that nonbio dads do not have to continue
to pay, then maybe the politicians themselves will be forced to pay for the
results of their "consultations" with "constituents."



  #22  
Old April 26th 08, 01:21 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message

...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of

bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS

money
is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored

when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be
the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the
biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue

the
mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party
to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get

off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can

be
proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is

culpable
as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not
blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud.


I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all know
that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it is
a
win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held responsible
for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible for
their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things

are.

Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth.


We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do not
necessarily agree with you on that point.


  #23  
Old April 26th 08, 04:09 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked



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

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message

...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of

bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS

money
is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored

when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who

gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status

quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be
the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very

common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the
biological father and the putative father should be empowered to

sue
the
mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party
to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still

get
off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it

can
be
proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is

culpable
as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not
blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional

fraud.

I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all

know
that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it is
a
win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held

responsible
for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible

for
their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things

are.

Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth.


We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do not
necessarily agree with you on that point.


That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.





  #24  
Old April 26th 08, 04:10 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked



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

..
..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation,"
said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the
burden
of
a
parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS

money
is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant
as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or

with
multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no
responsibility.

Responsibility exists ONLY where one has a choice. Explain such

choice
regarding a father and his biological children.

A biological father who knows another man is paying CS for the child he
fathered has the choice to come forward, acknolwedge his paternity, and

take
over the CS payments. Currently, the CS laws allow the bio-dad to

remain
anonymous and dodge any personal responsibility for his role in

creating
a
child. I find that to be absurd.


And just what, exactly, is his "role"?


The same role your bio-dad played in creating you. Ask your mother if you
need more details.


Right after I posted my reply, I realized that you would probably not
understand my question. To clarify, in YOUR mind, what exactly is his
"role"?




  #25  
Old April 26th 08, 04:13 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked



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

..
..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message

...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of

bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS
money
is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored

when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological

father
should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo

when
it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be

the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very

common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the

biological
father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother

AND
the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party

to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get

off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I found it very telling the politician referred to the
adultery/out-of-wedlock pregnancies as "conduct" rather than calling it
"misconduct." His words were intended to protect women from any

personal
responsibility.

And, of course, making any argument within the context of it being "for

the
children" is a dodge. When I hear those words I just cringe.


But isn't payment of "child support", which you condone, "for the
children"?


No. If CS was for the children there would be tracking of both parent's
required contribution and a full accounting of how it was spent. And
children would be the judgment creditors for the money.


Then why are you in favor of such arrangement?




  #26  
Old April 26th 08, 05:05 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation,"
said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the
burden
of
a
parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS

money
is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored
when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant
as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or
with
multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no
responsibility.

Responsibility exists ONLY where one has a choice. Explain such

choice
regarding a father and his biological children.

A biological father who knows another man is paying CS for the child
he
fathered has the choice to come forward, acknolwedge his paternity,
and
take
over the CS payments. Currently, the CS laws allow the bio-dad to

remain
anonymous and dodge any personal responsibility for his role in

creating
a
child. I find that to be absurd.

And just what, exactly, is his "role"?


The same role your bio-dad played in creating you. Ask your mother if
you
need more details.


Right after I posted my reply, I realized that you would probably not
understand my question. To clarify, in YOUR mind, what exactly is his
"role"?


The same role your bio-dad played in creating you.

  #27  
Old April 26th 08, 06:08 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of
bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS
money
is more important than factual reality and truth should be
ignored
when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who

gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status

quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be
the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very

common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to
the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the
biological father and the putative father should be empowered to

sue
the
mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a
party
to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still

get
off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it

can
be
proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is
culpable
as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not
blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional

fraud.

I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all

know
that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it
is
a
win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held

responsible
for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible

for
their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things
are.

Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth.


We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do not
necessarily agree with you on that point.


That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.


I understand the law, Chris. I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all. But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it because it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the world." I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the other.


  #28  
Old April 26th 08, 06:09 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked



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

..
..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation,"
said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the
burden
of
a
parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS

money
is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored
when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who

gets
pregnant
as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship

or
with
multiple partners and believe the biological father should have

no
responsibility.

Responsibility exists ONLY where one has a choice. Explain such

choice
regarding a father and his biological children.

A biological father who knows another man is paying CS for the child
he
fathered has the choice to come forward, acknolwedge his paternity,
and
take
over the CS payments. Currently, the CS laws allow the bio-dad to

remain
anonymous and dodge any personal responsibility for his role in

creating
a
child. I find that to be absurd.

And just what, exactly, is his "role"?

The same role your bio-dad played in creating you. Ask your mother if
you
need more details.


Right after I posted my reply, I realized that you would probably not
understand my question. To clarify, in YOUR mind, what exactly is his
"role"?


The same role your bio-dad played in creating you.


Petitio principii. Care to try again?




  #29  
Old April 26th 08, 04:27 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked



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

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of
bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying

CS
money
is more important than factual reality and truth should be
ignored
when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who

gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the

biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status

quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to

be
the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very

common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and

the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to
the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the
biological father and the putative father should be empowered to

sue
the
mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a
party
to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still

get
off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may

be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it

can
be
proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is
culpable
as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not
blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to

1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional

fraud.

I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all

know
that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it
is
a
win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held

responsible
for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held

responsible
for
their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way

things
are.

Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do not
necessarily agree with you on that point.


That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.


I understand the law, Chris.


Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.


"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it because it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the world."

I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the other.


According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.






  #30  
Old April 26th 08, 07:13 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Chris" wrote in message ...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation,"
said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the
burden
of
a
parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS
money
is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored
when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who

gets
pregnant
as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship

or
with
multiple partners and believe the biological father should have

no
responsibility.

Responsibility exists ONLY where one has a choice. Explain such
choice
regarding a father and his biological children.

A biological father who knows another man is paying CS for the
child
he
fathered has the choice to come forward, acknolwedge his paternity,
and
take
over the CS payments. Currently, the CS laws allow the bio-dad to
remain
anonymous and dodge any personal responsibility for his role in
creating
a
child. I find that to be absurd.

And just what, exactly, is his "role"?

The same role your bio-dad played in creating you. Ask your mother if
you
need more details.

Right after I posted my reply, I realized that you would probably not
understand my question. To clarify, in YOUR mind, what exactly is his
"role"?


The same role your bio-dad played in creating you.


Petitio principii. Care to try again?


Nope. Look up simile.

 




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
FL: Child-support bill clears panel Dusty Child Support 2 April 15th 06 10:49 PM
CO: Bill Would Take Casino Winnings To Pay Child Support Dusty Child Support 7 April 6th 06 05:53 AM
SC: Man ordered to pay 28-year-old child support bill or go to jail Dusty Child Support 22 January 26th 06 08:44 PM
FL: Governor Signs Child Support, Paternity Bill Dusty Child Support 2 May 24th 05 02:17 AM
LA: Bill would criminalize non-payment of child support Dusty Child Support 28 June 23rd 04 04:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.