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
  #211  
Old October 11th 06, 05:45 AM 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:

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?

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.

  #212  
Old October 11th 06, 05:59 AM 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:

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, 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.

  #213  
Old October 11th 06, 06:00 AM 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..

Ask Fred if it is ok by him if fathers drop their babies off at safe haven
spots, too, Bob. He won't even answer me any more, and I really like to
know if he supports a father's right to walk away from responsibility via
safe haven, too.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"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.




  #214  
Old October 11th 06, 06:28 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"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.


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.


  #215  
Old October 11th 06, 08:14 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
?-?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"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?



  #216  
Old October 11th 06, 08:44 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
?-?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"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!


  #217  
Old October 11th 06, 10:20 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"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:[email protected]
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.

Have a lovely day.

Unless you don't want to.





  #218  
Old October 11th 06, 10:24 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"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.


Which will end adoption completely, since you want to prosecute women for
having a child they didn't want.

Out of curiousity - are you planning on prosecuting the men who sired these
unwanted children as well?


Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital drug
to stop the pregnancy,


Legal right, not legal responsibility.

have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy,

Legal right, not legal responsibility.

give the
child up for adoption,


What do you think happens to children under the safe haven law? They're
adopted.

or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she
chose to have the child and then abandon it.


Safe haven babies are no different from other children released for
adoption.

The choice between child
neglect and child murder is a false choice.


Turning a child over to authorities in a legally sanctioned 'safe haven' is
not abandonment.





  #219  
Old October 11th 06, 10:49 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
...................................

Perhaps you'd like to tackle something of substance. When you do, let me
know.

==
Umm, we have Fred. You just didn't get it. Whoosh!


  #220  
Old October 11th 06, 10:54 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..


"teachrmama" wrote
Ask Fred if it is ok by him if fathers drop their babies off at safe haven
spots, too, Bob. He won't even answer me any more, and I really like to
know if he supports a father's right to walk away from responsibility via
safe haven, too.

==
He must. He's already stated that both parents should be treated equally
after the birth.


 




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 10:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.