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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 $10,000 the court wants. She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and keep the family's tax refund. "It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in such states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help, but they also said they were worried that changing the law could have unintended consequences. The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments if the law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of paying support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his children. Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law, told legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than biology. Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be "a broad brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other children." State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee will try to pass the bill without creating new problems. "We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one case," Owens said. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..
"Dusty" wrote in message ... You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army Sergeant gets screwed by X over C$ 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
|
|||
|
|||
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 $10,000 the court wants. She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and keep the family's tax refund. "It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in such states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help, but they also said they were worried that changing the law could have unintended consequences. The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments if the law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of paying support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his children. Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law, told legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than biology. Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be "a broad brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other children." State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee will try to pass the bill without creating new problems. "We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one case," Owens said. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..
It's time for men to stand up for themselves and vote these asses out!
"Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army Sergeant gets screwed by X over C$ 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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 $10,000 the court wants. She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and keep the family's tax refund. "It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in such states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help, but they also said they were worried that changing the law could have unintended consequences. The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments if the law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of paying support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his children. Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law, told legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than biology. Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be "a broad brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other children." State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee will try to pass the bill without creating new problems. "We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one case," Owens said. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kansas.. Oh the spin they put on this load of horse dung..
-- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Dusty" wrote in message ... You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army Sergeant gets screwed by X over C$ 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 | |
|
|
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 |