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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 $200/month on at least the same takehome pay. I guess we would need more than hearsay to figure out exactly why the amounts being paid were ordered. snicker naive, naive, naive |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:RzLWg.10968$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 | |
|
|
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 05:27 AM |
Parent-Child Negotiations | Nathan A. Barclay | Spanking | 623 | January 28th 05 04:24 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 29th 04 05:26 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | November 28th 04 05:16 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |