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

Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 25th 09, 09:06 AM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..

You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army Sergeant
gets screwed by X over C$ for child he didn't sire, tries to get the law
changed and the legislature says, "..they were worried that changing the law
could have unintended consequences." Oh, ceasing to screw a man over is
going to have "unintended consequences"??? Are they for real?!?

Then there's this beauty.. "We have to be very careful about fixing the
entire law because of one case," - State Sen. Tim Owens
Oh yeah, re-elect his ass right away.
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/994731.html

Kansas bill aims to fix 'presumed father' quandary
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star's Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA - Wife has an affair, gets pregnant and gives birth to a boy. Husband
and wife divorce. Tests show the husband isn't the father, but a court
orders him to pay child support anyway.

It is a story of what happens when the birds and the bees get entangled with
the letter of the law, and on Wednesday, it had Kansas lawmakers scratching
their heads.

Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson is a 19-year Army veteran now on his third
tour in Iraq. His wife, Karey, and three children live near Fort Riley,
where she stays home to raise the children.

In 1995, Sprowson's first wife had an affair and got pregnant. The couple
divorced when the child was still a baby, and Sprowson has never had a
relationship with the boy. Genetic tests prove the boy, now 13, is not his.

But a judge decided it didn't matter. According to Kansas law, a husband is
the "presumed father" of his wife's children - even if the children were
fathered by another man. Because the boy's mother could not tell the court
who the father was, the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay.

The boy's mother never sought child support and offered to forgo the money,
Karey Sprowson said. But the state required the payments because the mother
once received welfare. The state automatically seeks child support for any
parent receiving state assistance.

On Wednesday, Karey Sprowson urged legislators to change the law so that
nonbiological fathers can use genetic tests to avoid paying child support.
She said her family can't afford the more than $10,000 the court wants.

She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and keep
the family's tax refund.

"It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of
this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in such
states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help, but they
also said they were worried that changing the law could have unintended
consequences.

The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas
Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments if the
law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of paying
support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his children.

Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law, told
legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than biology.
Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be "a broad
brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other children."

State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee will
try to pass the bill without creating new problems.

"We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one
case," Owens said.

  #2  
Old January 25th 09, 07:58 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army Sergeant
gets screwed by X over C$ for child he didn't sire, tries to get the law
changed and the legislature says, "..they were worried that changing the
law could have unintended consequences." Oh, ceasing to screw a man over
is going to have "unintended consequences"??? Are they for real?!?

Then there's this beauty.. "We have to be very careful about fixing the
entire law because of one case," - State Sen. Tim Owens
Oh yeah, re-elect his ass right away.
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/994731.html

Kansas bill aims to fix 'presumed father' quandary
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star's Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA - Wife has an affair, gets pregnant and gives birth to a boy.
Husband and wife divorce. Tests show the husband isn't the father, but a
court orders him to pay child support anyway.

It is a story of what happens when the birds and the bees get entangled
with the letter of the law, and on Wednesday, it had Kansas lawmakers
scratching their heads.

Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson is a 19-year Army veteran now on his
third tour in Iraq. His wife, Karey, and three children live near Fort
Riley, where she stays home to raise the children.

In 1995, Sprowson's first wife had an affair and got pregnant. The couple
divorced when the child was still a baby, and Sprowson has never had a
relationship with the boy. Genetic tests prove the boy, now 13, is not
his.

But a judge decided it didn't matter. According to Kansas law, a husband
is the "presumed father" of his wife's children - even if the children
were fathered by another man. Because the boy's mother could not tell the
court who the father was, the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay.

The boy's mother never sought child support and offered to forgo the
money, Karey Sprowson said. But the state required the payments because
the mother once received welfare. The state automatically seeks child
support for any parent receiving state assistance.

On Wednesday, Karey Sprowson urged legislators to change the law so that
nonbiological fathers can use genetic tests to avoid paying child support.
She said her family can't afford the more than $10,000 the court wants.

She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and keep
the family's tax refund.

"It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of
this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in such
states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help, but
they also said they were worried that changing the law could have
unintended consequences.

The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas
Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments if
the law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of
paying support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his
children.

Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law, told
legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than biology.
Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be "a broad
brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other children."

State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee will
try to pass the bill without creating new problems.

"We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one
case," Owens said.


So they pass a law that ends up having unintended consequences, but they
can't pass a law to fix the unintended consequences. Brilliant!

The other item in the article that stands out is the comment about
step-parents paying CS in Kansas. That needs to be fixed too. If the
step-dad doesn't adopt the step-kids he shouldn't be paying for someone
else's children. Of course, we have to overlook the unintended consequences
of men refusing to marry women with children to avoid being classified as a
step-parent.

  #3  
Old January 25th 09, 10:26 PM posted to alt.child-support
Kenneth S.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..



"Because the boy's mother could not tell the court who the father was,
the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay."

COULD not tell the court? WHY couldn't she tell the court? And why
on earth does the reporter not include in his story some explanation
of the difference between "couldn't" and "wouldn't" in this case? News
stories aren't supposed to contain obvious unanswered questions.

At the very least, the woman could say who the potential fathers were,
and they then could be given DNA tests. That is, IF the court (or
legislators) were concerned about being fair to men who were paying
"child support," or the court or legislators were under intense
outside pressure to treat these men fairly. And there you have the
nub of the issue, despite all the hypocritical nonsense about
"unintended consequences."

But maybe the Kansas legislators who commented are sincere dimwits who
just don't understand the ramifications of this situation. Sincere
dimwits or hypocrites. It's one or the other.

Oh, and by the way, despite the comments from Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas Bar Association, it's not the
children who would lose the money if the law were changed. It's the
mothers.


On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:06:38 +0100, "Dusty" wrote:

You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army Sergeant
gets screwed by X over C$ for child he didn't sire, tries to get the law
changed and the legislature says, "..they were worried that changing the law
could have unintended consequences." Oh, ceasing to screw a man over is
going to have "unintended consequences"??? Are they for real?!?

Then there's this beauty.. "We have to be very careful about fixing the
entire law because of one case," - State Sen. Tim Owens
Oh yeah, re-elect his ass right away.
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/994731.html

Kansas bill aims to fix 'presumed father' quandary
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star's Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA - Wife has an affair, gets pregnant and gives birth to a boy. Husband
and wife divorce. Tests show the husband isn't the father, but a court
orders him to pay child support anyway.

It is a story of what happens when the birds and the bees get entangled with
the letter of the law, and on Wednesday, it had Kansas lawmakers scratching
their heads.

Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson is a 19-year Army veteran now on his third
tour in Iraq. His wife, Karey, and three children live near Fort Riley,
where she stays home to raise the children.

In 1995, Sprowson's first wife had an affair and got pregnant. The couple
divorced when the child was still a baby, and Sprowson has never had a
relationship with the boy. Genetic tests prove the boy, now 13, is not his.

But a judge decided it didn't matter. According to Kansas law, a husband is
the "presumed father" of his wife's children - even if the children were
fathered by another man. Because the boy's mother could not tell the court
who the father was, the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay.

The boy's mother never sought child support and offered to forgo the money,
Karey Sprowson said. But the state required the payments because the mother
once received welfare. The state automatically seeks child support for any
parent receiving state assistance.

On Wednesday, Karey Sprowson urged legislators to change the law so that
nonbiological fathers can use genetic tests to avoid paying child support.
She said her family can't afford the more than $10,000 the court wants.

She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and keep
the family's tax refund.

"It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of
this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in such
states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help, but they
also said they were worried that changing the law could have unintended
consequences.

The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas
Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments if the
law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of paying
support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his children.

Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law, told
legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than biology.
Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be "a broad
brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other children."

State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee will
try to pass the bill without creating new problems.

"We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one
case," Owens said.

  #4  
Old January 26th 09, 03:39 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
DB[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..

It's time for men to stand up for themselves and vote these asses out!

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army
Sergeant gets screwed by X over C$ for child he didn't sire, tries to get
the law changed and the legislature says, "..they were worried that
changing the law could have unintended consequences." Oh, ceasing to
screw a man over is going to have "unintended consequences"??? Are they
for real?!?

Then there's this beauty.. "We have to be very careful about fixing the
entire law because of one case," - State Sen. Tim Owens
Oh yeah, re-elect his ass right away.
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/994731.html

Kansas bill aims to fix 'presumed father' quandary
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star's Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA - Wife has an affair, gets pregnant and gives birth to a boy.
Husband and wife divorce. Tests show the husband isn't the father, but a
court orders him to pay child support anyway.

It is a story of what happens when the birds and the bees get entangled
with the letter of the law, and on Wednesday, it had Kansas lawmakers
scratching their heads.

Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson is a 19-year Army veteran now on his
third tour in Iraq. His wife, Karey, and three children live near Fort
Riley, where she stays home to raise the children.

In 1995, Sprowson's first wife had an affair and got pregnant. The couple
divorced when the child was still a baby, and Sprowson has never had a
relationship with the boy. Genetic tests prove the boy, now 13, is not
his.

But a judge decided it didn't matter. According to Kansas law, a husband
is the "presumed father" of his wife's children - even if the children
were fathered by another man. Because the boy's mother could not tell the
court who the father was, the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay.

The boy's mother never sought child support and offered to forgo the
money, Karey Sprowson said. But the state required the payments because
the mother once received welfare. The state automatically seeks child
support for any parent receiving state assistance.

On Wednesday, Karey Sprowson urged legislators to change the law so that
nonbiological fathers can use genetic tests to avoid paying child
support. She said her family can't afford the more than $10,000 the court
wants.

She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and
keep the family's tax refund.

"It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of
this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in such
states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help, but
they also said they were worried that changing the law could have
unintended consequences.

The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas
Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments if
the law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of
paying support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his
children.

Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law,
told legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than
biology. Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be
"a broad brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other
children."

State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee
will try to pass the bill without creating new problems.

"We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one
case," Owens said.


So they pass a law that ends up having unintended consequences, but they
can't pass a law to fix the unintended consequences. Brilliant!

The other item in the article that stands out is the comment about
step-parents paying CS in Kansas. That needs to be fixed too. If the
step-dad doesn't adopt the step-kids he shouldn't be paying for someone
else's children. Of course, we have to overlook the unintended
consequences of men refusing to marry women with children to avoid being
classified as a step-parent.



  #5  
Old January 26th 09, 03:13 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..

These buttwipes don't care about "unintended consequences" because even
when they turn up, the only ones they worry about are those that
feminists want fixed.
In this case, he's worried that the state may have to finance women like
this woman and the results of their unilateral decisions if men who are
no longer forced to finance children they are unrelated to. One of the
possible unintended consequences just might be that fathers deserve to
have a relationship with their children as much as mothers and that
mothers are just as responsible for children they are unrelated to as
fathers. Can you imagine if women were held to be financially
responsible for their husband's former and future children, those to
which she was unrelated?
Phil #3



"Dusty" wrote in message
...
You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army
Sergeant gets screwed by X over C$ for child he didn't sire, tries to
get the law changed and the legislature says, "..they were worried
that changing the law could have unintended consequences." Oh,
ceasing to screw a man over is going to have "unintended
consequences"??? Are they for real?!?

Then there's this beauty.. "We have to be very careful about fixing
the entire law because of one case," - State Sen. Tim Owens
Oh yeah, re-elect his ass right away.
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/994731.html

Kansas bill aims to fix 'presumed father' quandary
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star's Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA - Wife has an affair, gets pregnant and gives birth to a boy.
Husband and wife divorce. Tests show the husband isn't the father, but
a court orders him to pay child support anyway.

It is a story of what happens when the birds and the bees get
entangled with the letter of the law, and on Wednesday, it had Kansas
lawmakers scratching their heads.

Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson is a 19-year Army veteran now on his
third tour in Iraq. His wife, Karey, and three children live near Fort
Riley, where she stays home to raise the children.

In 1995, Sprowson's first wife had an affair and got pregnant. The
couple divorced when the child was still a baby, and Sprowson has
never had a relationship with the boy. Genetic tests prove the boy,
now 13, is not his.

But a judge decided it didn't matter. According to Kansas law, a
husband is the "presumed father" of his wife's children - even if the
children were fathered by another man. Because the boy's mother could
not tell the court who the father was, the judge ruled Sprowson had to
pay.

The boy's mother never sought child support and offered to forgo the
money, Karey Sprowson said. But the state required the payments
because the mother once received welfare. The state automatically
seeks child support for any parent receiving state assistance.

On Wednesday, Karey Sprowson urged legislators to change the law so
that nonbiological fathers can use genetic tests to avoid paying child
support. She said her family can't afford the more than $10,000 the
court wants.

She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and
keep the family's tax refund.

"It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of
this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in such
states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help,
but they also said they were worried that changing the law could have
unintended consequences.

The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the
Kansas Bar Association said many children could lose child-support
payments if the law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could
get out of paying support after a divorce - no matter how long he had
lived with his children.

Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law,
told legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than
biology. Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would
be "a broad brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other
children."

State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee
will try to pass the bill without creating new problems.

"We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one
case," Owens said.



  #6  
Old January 26th 09, 03:18 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..

But Kenneth, it might be *embarrassing* to force her to admit she really
doesn't know the names of any of the men she had relations with during
the time this child was conceived.
Phil #3


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...


"Because the boy's mother could not tell the court who the father was,
the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay."

COULD not tell the court? WHY couldn't she tell the court? And why
on earth does the reporter not include in his story some explanation
of the difference between "couldn't" and "wouldn't" in this case? News
stories aren't supposed to contain obvious unanswered questions.

At the very least, the woman could say who the potential fathers were,
and they then could be given DNA tests. That is, IF the court (or
legislators) were concerned about being fair to men who were paying
"child support," or the court or legislators were under intense
outside pressure to treat these men fairly. And there you have the
nub of the issue, despite all the hypocritical nonsense about
"unintended consequences."

But maybe the Kansas legislators who commented are sincere dimwits who
just don't understand the ramifications of this situation. Sincere
dimwits or hypocrites. It's one or the other.

Oh, and by the way, despite the comments from Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas Bar Association, it's not the
children who would lose the money if the law were changed. It's the
mothers.


On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:06:38 +0100, "Dusty" wrote:

You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army
Sergeant
gets screwed by X over C$ for child he didn't sire, tries to get the
law
changed and the legislature says, "..they were worried that changing
the law
could have unintended consequences." Oh, ceasing to screw a man over
is
going to have "unintended consequences"??? Are they for real?!?

Then there's this beauty.. "We have to be very careful about fixing
the
entire law because of one case," - State Sen. Tim Owens
Oh yeah, re-elect his ass right away.
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/994731.html

Kansas bill aims to fix 'presumed father' quandary
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star's Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA - Wife has an affair, gets pregnant and gives birth to a boy.
Husband
and wife divorce. Tests show the husband isn't the father, but a court
orders him to pay child support anyway.

It is a story of what happens when the birds and the bees get
entangled with
the letter of the law, and on Wednesday, it had Kansas lawmakers
scratching
their heads.

Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson is a 19-year Army veteran now on his
third
tour in Iraq. His wife, Karey, and three children live near Fort
Riley,
where she stays home to raise the children.

In 1995, Sprowson's first wife had an affair and got pregnant. The
couple
divorced when the child was still a baby, and Sprowson has never had a
relationship with the boy. Genetic tests prove the boy, now 13, is not
his.

But a judge decided it didn't matter. According to Kansas law, a
husband is
the "presumed father" of his wife's children - even if the children
were
fathered by another man. Because the boy's mother could not tell the
court
who the father was, the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay.

The boy's mother never sought child support and offered to forgo the
money,
Karey Sprowson said. But the state required the payments because the
mother
once received welfare. The state automatically seeks child support for
any
parent receiving state assistance.

On Wednesday, Karey Sprowson urged legislators to change the law so
that
nonbiological fathers can use genetic tests to avoid paying child
support.
She said her family can't afford the more than $10,000 the court
wants.

She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and
keep
the family's tax refund.

"It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of
this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in
such
states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help,
but they
also said they were worried that changing the law could have
unintended
consequences.

The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the
Kansas
Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments
if the
law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of
paying
support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his
children.

Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law,
told
legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than
biology.
Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be "a
broad
brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other children."

State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee
will
try to pass the bill without creating new problems.

"We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one
case," Owens said.



  #7  
Old January 26th 09, 05:57 PM posted to alt.child-support
Kenneth S.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..

You may be right, Phil, but at least the reporter who wrote
the news story should have pursued this issue. Perhaps he was fearful
of the career consequences of appearing to embarrass a member of the
politically correct sex in one of his stories.

The reporter could have said in the story that, "when
questioned, the mother refused to say why she was unable to tell the
court who the father was, and would not disclose whether her refusal
indicated that the father was one of several men." Compare the
kid-glove treatment this woman received in this story with the media
treatment of deadbeat dads and other members of the politically
incorrect sex.

By the way, this thread has a very apt title. Spinning horse
dung seems like a good way of describing what's going on here, It's
reminiscent of the expression that people used to use about the
excrement hitting the fan. As far as men are concerned, that started
happening about 30-40 years ago, and it's been showering down on us
ever since.


On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:18:18 -0600, "Phil"
wrote:

But Kenneth, it might be *embarrassing* to force her to admit she really
doesn't know the names of any of the men she had relations with during
the time this child was conceived.
Phil #3


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
.. .


"Because the boy's mother could not tell the court who the father was,
the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay."

COULD not tell the court? WHY couldn't she tell the court? And why
on earth does the reporter not include in his story some explanation
of the difference between "couldn't" and "wouldn't" in this case? News
stories aren't supposed to contain obvious unanswered questions.

At the very least, the woman could say who the potential fathers were,
and they then could be given DNA tests. That is, IF the court (or
legislators) were concerned about being fair to men who were paying
"child support," or the court or legislators were under intense
outside pressure to treat these men fairly. And there you have the
nub of the issue, despite all the hypocritical nonsense about
"unintended consequences."

But maybe the Kansas legislators who commented are sincere dimwits who
just don't understand the ramifications of this situation. Sincere
dimwits or hypocrites. It's one or the other.

Oh, and by the way, despite the comments from Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas Bar Association, it's not the
children who would lose the money if the law were changed. It's the
mothers.


On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:06:38 +0100, "Dusty" wrote:

You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army
Sergeant
gets screwed by X over C$ for child he didn't sire, tries to get the
law
changed and the legislature says, "..they were worried that changing
the law
could have unintended consequences." Oh, ceasing to screw a man over
is
going to have "unintended consequences"??? Are they for real?!?

Then there's this beauty.. "We have to be very careful about fixing
the
entire law because of one case," - State Sen. Tim Owens
Oh yeah, re-elect his ass right away.
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/994731.html

Kansas bill aims to fix 'presumed father' quandary
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star's Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA - Wife has an affair, gets pregnant and gives birth to a boy.
Husband
and wife divorce. Tests show the husband isn't the father, but a court
orders him to pay child support anyway.

It is a story of what happens when the birds and the bees get
entangled with
the letter of the law, and on Wednesday, it had Kansas lawmakers
scratching
their heads.

Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson is a 19-year Army veteran now on his
third
tour in Iraq. His wife, Karey, and three children live near Fort
Riley,
where she stays home to raise the children.

In 1995, Sprowson's first wife had an affair and got pregnant. The
couple
divorced when the child was still a baby, and Sprowson has never had a
relationship with the boy. Genetic tests prove the boy, now 13, is not
his.

But a judge decided it didn't matter. According to Kansas law, a
husband is
the "presumed father" of his wife's children - even if the children
were
fathered by another man. Because the boy's mother could not tell the
court
who the father was, the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay.

The boy's mother never sought child support and offered to forgo the
money,
Karey Sprowson said. But the state required the payments because the
mother
once received welfare. The state automatically seeks child support for
any
parent receiving state assistance.

On Wednesday, Karey Sprowson urged legislators to change the law so
that
nonbiological fathers can use genetic tests to avoid paying child
support.
She said her family can't afford the more than $10,000 the court
wants.

She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and
keep
the family's tax refund.

"It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of
this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in
such
states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help,
but they
also said they were worried that changing the law could have
unintended
consequences.

The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the
Kansas
Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments
if the
law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of
paying
support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his
children.

Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law,
told
legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than
biology.
Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be "a
broad
brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other children."

State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee
will
try to pass the bill without creating new problems.

"We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one
case," Owens said.


  #8  
Old January 27th 09, 06:02 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..



--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...
These buttwipes don't care about "unintended consequences" because even
when they turn up, the only ones they worry about are those that feminists
want fixed.
In this case, he's worried that the state may have to finance women like
this woman and the results of their unilateral decisions if men who are no
longer forced to finance children they are unrelated to. One of the
possible unintended consequences just might be that fathers deserve to
have a relationship with their children as much as mothers and that
mothers are just as responsible for children they are unrelated to as
fathers. Can you imagine if women were held to be financially responsible
for their husband's former and future children, those to which she was
unrelated?
Phil #3


Even if one could, it would ONLY be an imagination.




"Dusty" wrote in message
...
You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army
Sergeant gets screwed by X over C$ for child he didn't sire, tries to get
the law changed and the legislature says, "..they were worried that
changing the law could have unintended consequences." Oh, ceasing to
screw a man over is going to have "unintended consequences"??? Are they
for real?!?

Then there's this beauty.. "We have to be very careful about fixing the
entire law because of one case," - State Sen. Tim Owens
Oh yeah, re-elect his ass right away.
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/994731.html

Kansas bill aims to fix 'presumed father' quandary
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star's Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA - Wife has an affair, gets pregnant and gives birth to a boy.
Husband and wife divorce. Tests show the husband isn't the father, but a
court orders him to pay child support anyway.

It is a story of what happens when the birds and the bees get entangled
with the letter of the law, and on Wednesday, it had Kansas lawmakers
scratching their heads.

Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson is a 19-year Army veteran now on his
third tour in Iraq. His wife, Karey, and three children live near Fort
Riley, where she stays home to raise the children.

In 1995, Sprowson's first wife had an affair and got pregnant. The couple
divorced when the child was still a baby, and Sprowson has never had a
relationship with the boy. Genetic tests prove the boy, now 13, is not
his.

But a judge decided it didn't matter. According to Kansas law, a husband
is the "presumed father" of his wife's children - even if the children
were fathered by another man. Because the boy's mother could not tell the
court who the father was, the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay.

The boy's mother never sought child support and offered to forgo the
money, Karey Sprowson said. But the state required the payments because
the mother once received welfare. The state automatically seeks child
support for any parent receiving state assistance.

On Wednesday, Karey Sprowson urged legislators to change the law so that
nonbiological fathers can use genetic tests to avoid paying child
support. She said her family can't afford the more than $10,000 the court
wants.

She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and
keep the family's tax refund.

"It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of
this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in such
states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help, but
they also said they were worried that changing the law could have
unintended consequences.

The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas
Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments if
the law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of
paying support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his
children.

Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law,
told legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than
biology. Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be
"a broad brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other
children."

State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee
will try to pass the bill without creating new problems.

"We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one
case," Owens said.




  #9  
Old January 27th 09, 06:05 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..



--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
You may be right, Phil, but at least the reporter who wrote
the news story should have pursued this issue. Perhaps he was fearful
of the career consequences of appearing to embarrass a member of the
politically correct sex in one of his stories.

The reporter could have said in the story that, "when
questioned, the mother refused to say why she was unable to tell the
court who the father was, and would not disclose whether her refusal
indicated that the father was one of several men."


This is because she was excercising her right to privacy, a right reserved
only for women.

Compare the
kid-glove treatment this woman received in this story with the media
treatment of deadbeat dads and other members of the politically
incorrect sex.

By the way, this thread has a very apt title. Spinning horse
dung seems like a good way of describing what's going on here, It's
reminiscent of the expression that people used to use about the
excrement hitting the fan. As far as men are concerned, that started
happening about 30-40 years ago, and it's been showering down on us
ever since.


On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:18:18 -0600, "Phil"
wrote:

But Kenneth, it might be *embarrassing* to force her to admit she really
doesn't know the names of any of the men she had relations with during
the time this child was conceived.
Phil #3


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
. ..


"Because the boy's mother could not tell the court who the father was,
the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay."

COULD not tell the court? WHY couldn't she tell the court? And why
on earth does the reporter not include in his story some explanation
of the difference between "couldn't" and "wouldn't" in this case? News
stories aren't supposed to contain obvious unanswered questions.

At the very least, the woman could say who the potential fathers were,
and they then could be given DNA tests. That is, IF the court (or
legislators) were concerned about being fair to men who were paying
"child support," or the court or legislators were under intense
outside pressure to treat these men fairly. And there you have the
nub of the issue, despite all the hypocritical nonsense about
"unintended consequences."

But maybe the Kansas legislators who commented are sincere dimwits who
just don't understand the ramifications of this situation. Sincere
dimwits or hypocrites. It's one or the other.

Oh, and by the way, despite the comments from Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas Bar Association, it's not the
children who would lose the money if the law were changed. It's the
mothers.


On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:06:38 +0100, "Dusty" wrote:

You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army
Sergeant
gets screwed by X over C$ for child he didn't sire, tries to get the
law
changed and the legislature says, "..they were worried that changing
the law
could have unintended consequences." Oh, ceasing to screw a man over
is
going to have "unintended consequences"??? Are they for real?!?

Then there's this beauty.. "We have to be very careful about fixing
the
entire law because of one case," - State Sen. Tim Owens
Oh yeah, re-elect his ass right away.
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/994731.html

Kansas bill aims to fix 'presumed father' quandary
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star's Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA - Wife has an affair, gets pregnant and gives birth to a boy.
Husband
and wife divorce. Tests show the husband isn't the father, but a court
orders him to pay child support anyway.

It is a story of what happens when the birds and the bees get
entangled with
the letter of the law, and on Wednesday, it had Kansas lawmakers
scratching
their heads.

Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson is a 19-year Army veteran now on his
third
tour in Iraq. His wife, Karey, and three children live near Fort
Riley,
where she stays home to raise the children.

In 1995, Sprowson's first wife had an affair and got pregnant. The
couple
divorced when the child was still a baby, and Sprowson has never had a
relationship with the boy. Genetic tests prove the boy, now 13, is not
his.

But a judge decided it didn't matter. According to Kansas law, a
husband is
the "presumed father" of his wife's children - even if the children
were
fathered by another man. Because the boy's mother could not tell the
court
who the father was, the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay.

The boy's mother never sought child support and offered to forgo the
money,
Karey Sprowson said. But the state required the payments because the
mother
once received welfare. The state automatically seeks child support for
any
parent receiving state assistance.

On Wednesday, Karey Sprowson urged legislators to change the law so
that
nonbiological fathers can use genetic tests to avoid paying child
support.
She said her family can't afford the more than $10,000 the court
wants.

She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and
keep
the family's tax refund.

"It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of
this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in
such
states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help,
but they
also said they were worried that changing the law could have
unintended
consequences.

The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the
Kansas
Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments
if the
law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of
paying
support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his
children.

Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law,
told
legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than
biology.
Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be "a
broad
brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other children."

State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee
will
try to pass the bill without creating new problems.

"We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one
case," Owens said.



  #10  
Old January 27th 09, 06:06 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..



--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army Sergeant
gets screwed by X over C$ for child he didn't sire, tries to get the law
changed and the legislature says, "..they were worried that changing the
law could have unintended consequences." Oh, ceasing to screw a man over
is going to have "unintended consequences"??? Are they for real?!?

Then there's this beauty.. "We have to be very careful about fixing the
entire law because of one case," - State Sen. Tim Owens
Oh yeah, re-elect his ass right away.
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/994731.html

Kansas bill aims to fix 'presumed father' quandary
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star's Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA - Wife has an affair, gets pregnant and gives birth to a boy.
Husband and wife divorce. Tests show the husband isn't the father, but a
court orders him to pay child support anyway.

It is a story of what happens when the birds and the bees get entangled
with the letter of the law, and on Wednesday, it had Kansas lawmakers
scratching their heads.

Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson is a 19-year Army veteran now on his
third tour in Iraq. His wife, Karey, and three children live near Fort
Riley, where she stays home to raise the children.

In 1995, Sprowson's first wife had an affair and got pregnant. The couple
divorced when the child was still a baby, and Sprowson has never had a
relationship with the boy. Genetic tests prove the boy, now 13, is not
his.

But a judge decided it didn't matter. According to Kansas law, a husband
is the "presumed father" of his wife's children - even if the children
were fathered by another man.


Then what's the purpose of DNA tests?

Because the boy's mother could not tell the court who the father was, the
judge ruled Sprowson had to pay.

The boy's mother never sought child support and offered to forgo the
money, Karey Sprowson said. But the state required the payments because
the mother once received welfare. The state automatically seeks child
support for any parent receiving state assistance.

On Wednesday, Karey Sprowson urged legislators to change the law so that
nonbiological fathers can use genetic tests to avoid paying child support.
She said her family can't afford the more than $10,000 the court wants.

She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and keep
the family's tax refund.

"It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of
this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in such
states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help, but
they also said they were worried that changing the law could have
unintended consequences.

The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas
Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments if
the law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of
paying support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his
children.


"HIS" children?


Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law, told
legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than biology.


Just what does he mean by "fatherhood"?

Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be "a broad
brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other children."

State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee will
try to pass the bill without creating new problems.

"We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one
case," Owens said.


As you should be ALL the time. What's the point?



 




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
Fluoridated horse dies... Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 September 11th 05 02:59 AM
Report cites CPS errors, caseworker load in deaths wexwimpy Foster Parents 0 April 14th 05 03:23 PM
gestational diabetes topic again... I know I'm flogging a dead horse already... SuperEeyore Pregnancy 23 March 28th 05 11:38 PM
Charlie Horse (Cramp in Calf muscle) Yvonne Pregnancy 10 December 10th 04 01:59 AM
Gastaldo - get a load of this! Jo Pregnancy 4 August 31st 04 09:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 AM.


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.