Name change because parent not visiting child

"Dale" wrote in message
om...

"teachrmama" wrote in
It also beats the hell out of all these women claiming that they are
victims because they are raising children alone because they didn't have
the sense to get to know the men well before they took off their panties
and flopped back on a bed. Perhaps women might start considering the
consequences for their actions if they got real consequences, too. And,
no, raising a child is NOT a consequence.

Since immigration has pulled my authorization to work, the CS payments
have ceased.
I just got a heart wrenching letter from the single never married mother
of my child after 8 years of no communication.

She complains that she suffers from having to work in order to afford a
place to stay for her and our child.
She whines about being laid off a couple times and having to pound the
pavement to find a new job, else she couldn't afford a place to rent. The
biggest problem in her life right now is how is she going to afford a new
car when her current one breaks down.

Am I missing something here or is everyone in the country not in the same
predicament?

She works in health care and lives in co-op housing for $360/mth.

The thing is, when you choose to have children, whether you are single or
married, you CHOOSE to support that child. If the 2 of you were married and
you were incapacitated in some way, she would be doing the exact same thing.
I do no comprehend why some womwn think that having a child should exempt
them from being wage earners so they can support their children. It boggles
the mind.

Do you have any contact with your child at all? And, at the moment, since
you are not working, how are you affording to live?

"teachrmama" wrote in

Am I missing something here or is everyone in the country not in the same
predicament?

She works in health care and lives in co-op housing for $360/mth.

The thing is, when you choose to have children, whether you are single or
married, you CHOOSE to support that child. If the 2 of you were married
and you were incapacitated in some way, she would be doing the exact same
thing.

Yes, she's lucky she only has herself to feed & 1 small girl!
We all don't spend 100% of our income on living expenses, she's just cheap!

I do no comprehend why some womwn think that having a child should exempt
them from being wage earners so they can support their children. It
boggles the mind.

SHe has that 50's mentality, men should pay for all her expenses!

Do you have any contact with your child at all? And, at the moment, since
you are not working, how are you affording to live?

I just had to give up my job two weeks ago. my rent is payed for this month
and I have enough for next month, but the end is in sight for me in this
country. I have not seen my child in 8 years!
Would it not make more sense for her to drop the $55,000 arrearage to make
the felony charge go away and I can appeal immigration's denial? AT least if
I'm working here, she can continue to receive monthly payments.

"ghostwriter" wrote in

CASA to jail your deadbeat ass. If you honestly were layed off I want
that same CASA to be able to transfer some of the current payment
amount into arrears so that you can get back on your feet, at which
point the payment can be readjusted. And I want all this without you or
your ex having to dish out money for a lawyer.

It will never work, Lawyers have to be involved to get their cut of the
money.
Realize, C$ is a huge thriving legal industry where the law profession is
raking in the fees!

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Am I missing something here or is everyone in the country not in the
same predicament?

She works in health care and lives in co-op housing for $360/mth.

The thing is, when you choose to have children, whether you are single or
married, you CHOOSE to support that child. If the 2 of you were married
and you were incapacitated in some way, she would be doing the exact same
thing.

Yes, she's lucky she only has herself to feed & 1 small girl!
We all don't spend 100% of our income on living expenses, she's just
cheap!

I do no comprehend why some womwn think that having a child should exempt
them from being wage earners so they can support their children. It
boggles the mind.

SHe has that 50's mentality, men should pay for all her expenses!

Do you have any contact with your child at all? And, at the moment,
since you are not working, how are you affording to live?

I just had to give up my job two weeks ago. my rent is payed for this
month and I have enough for next month, but the end is in sight for me in
this country. I have not seen my child in 8 years!
Would it not make more sense for her to drop the $55,000 arrearage to make
the felony charge go away and I can appeal immigration's denial? AT least
if I'm working here, she can continue to receive monthly payments.

It doesn't sound as if she can see anything but her own "needs"--which is
sad. I think depriving her child of a father who is perfectly willing and
able to be a father is criminal.

Dale wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in

CASA to jail your deadbeat ass. If you honestly were layed off I want
that same CASA to be able to transfer some of the current payment
amount into arrears so that you can get back on your feet, at which
point the payment can be readjusted. And I want all this without you or
your ex having to dish out money for a lawyer.

It will never work, Lawyers have to be involved to get their cut of the
money.
Realize, C$ is a huge thriving legal industry where the law profession is
raking in the fees!

So hire a lawyer to serve as the CASA. Hire a lawyer to represent you
kids, not yourself or your ex, but pick the lawyer by elimination so
that neither party is unduly represented. Then sign a binding
agreement allowing that lawyer to draft a final agreement if you and
your ex cannot agree. Lawyers are required to seek the best interests
of their clients and assuming you research the lawyer it shouldnt be
difficult to pick one that believes joint custody is in the best
interests of the child. The idea is that favortism can be eliminated by
the selection process and that you can draft the agreement so that
challenging the results on its merits is difficult assuming that no
malpractice occured.

Frankly you could use this method right now as a form of binding
arbetration if you could get both parties to agree to it. No
disinterested CS caseworkers or uninformed judge, and I think it
unlikley that any judge would question someones right to use
non-judicial forms of conflict resolution. And while that type of
advocate couldnt issue contempt charges, I could see a garnishment type
clause being possible.

Ghostwriter

"ghostwriter" wrote in

interests of the child. The idea is that favortism can be eliminated by
the selection process and that you can draft the agreement so that
challenging the results on its merits is difficult assuming that no
malpractice occured.

Frankly you could use this method right now as a form of binding
arbetration if you could get both parties to agree to it.


You could write this into the marriage license agreement so that all parties
understand the score before they concider marriage and during the marriage
when they are concidering to leave it. A clause should be understood that
the one party leaving the marriage will not equally share all benefits due
to them.

Oh my god what drivel.




"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in


IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE
BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT
HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS
THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

R wrote:
Oh my god what drivel.



Thank you so much for pointing that out to me, a little more detail as
to why it is drivel might help.

My postion and thinking on the subject are fairly common in this
country, no matter how much you dislike that fact. If you cant make a
willing participant in a discussion understand your postion you're
screwed with the rest of the country.

Ghostwriter




"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in


IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE
BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT
HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS
THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

"ghostwriter" wrote in

My postion and thinking on the subject are fairly common in this
country,

What about the global thinking on equal human rights for everyone, should a
man's existence be diminished because a political pressure group has come up
with a sympathetic slogan that allows politicians to do as they please?

When are we going to tell our political representatives that "in the best
interest of the children" is not an excuse for ignoring human rights or
denying freedoms that were hard fought for.

No Mr. Senator, you do not get of that easy to ignore equality & human
rights in the name of political agenda. Your job is to make sure the system
is helping everyone involved, the present system does not do this, FIX
IT!!!!!!!!!!!

"DB" wrote

No Mr. Senator, you do not get of that easy to ignore equality & human
rights in the name of political agenda. Your job is to make sure the
system is helping everyone involved, the present system does not do this,
FIX IT!!!!!!!!!!!
==
Umm, I'm pretty sure he isn't reading alt.child-support.