A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Things to think of before you get married again..



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old October 11th 06, 07:38 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong
opinions
about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the
Minnesota
laws regarding women's parental avoidance.
Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years.

"Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a
mother
can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of
prosecution.
She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required

to
do
so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no

mandatory
medical information."
So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a
firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very

serious
question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit.
I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and

force
her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't

want.
Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital

drug
to stop the pregnancy, have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy,

give
the
child up for adoption, or take the child to term and raise it.

Instead,
she
chose to have the child and then abandon it. The choice between child
neglect and child murder is a false choice.
I see your point, but shouldn't we also be thinking of the welfare of
the unwanted child?


Actually I think the - his semen, his choice, his responsibility -

father
should have the first right to care for the child, not the local fire
department. It is total crap for the birth mother to define the child

is
"unwanted" without giving the father the right to raise his child.


That's right: it's crap. But she's not gonna do what you want her to do
just because you want her to do it. She's gonna do what she wants to do,
even if it's illegal, and even if it results in the death of the child.
That's just reality.

So if she's not gonna give the father a chance, and if she's not gonna
give adoption a chance, then absent a "safe haven" law there's no chance
at all for the child; it's gonna end up in the dumpster. Is that what
you want? I don't.

If this "parent" is going to get rid of the unwanted child, then the
child is going to be gotten rid of, one way or another. In my opinion,
the responsible way to do so is through adoption, but for some reason
that I do not understand a substantial number of "parents" are

unwilling
to do that. So we're left with the unpalatable choices of either the
firehouse or the dumpster. Given those choices, I'll go for the
firehouse, in the interest of protecting the unwanted child. Not the
preferred outcome, but better than finding a newborn child dead in a
dumpster.


Even with the fire department drop off option young mothers are still
flushing new newborns down the toilet, hiding them in coffee cans, and
killing innocent babies. The feminist's consider this extension of late
term abortion to be post child birth abortion and just another
post-conception option for women. And in the legal system there are no
meaningful punishments for these types of crimes.

It's not as sterile as you try to make it sound. These young mothers

are
abusing their newborns no matter how you cut it. And calling them

"parents"
just disguises the real issue of mother neglect and abuse.


I am rapidly getting the impression that, given the choice between
having a "safe harbor" law that saves the life of a child while letting
the irresponsible mother walk away unpunished, and not having a "safe
harbor" law and seeing the child die in a dumpster so that the
irresponsible mother can be punished, you'd prefer to see the child die
in a dumpster. What say you? About THOSE CHOICES, Bob. No dad; she's not
gonna do that. No adoption; she's not gonna do that. She's
irresponsible, remember? You have two choices: save the child, or see it
die in a dumpster.

What say you?



I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and here
is why.

These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year are
dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by
their birth mothers. Mothers who are hiding pregnancies are sanctioned
under these laws to continue the hide the truth after childbirth. The
concept behind the drop off law is to save the baby, but the reality is the
mother is saving her own butt to preserve her secret. Her choice is murder
or lie. And these laws reinforce the stigma of unwanted pregnancies for
young girls suggesting hiding the pregnancy and child birth will make it go
away.






  #242  
Old October 11th 06, 09:09 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 80
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

"Gini" ) writes:
"teachrmama" wrote

"Gini" wrote

"Fred" wrote

....................................
Then we have nothing further to discuss.
==
Don't forget your ball, Fred.


She keeps telling people that ("we have nothing more to discuss") I'm
sure everyone is devastated. Thing is, it keeps him from having to
answer any of the hard questions, so he sail along with his ignorance
and bigotry unhampered.

==
Sounds remarkably like Hyerdahl eh?


Yep. I suggested that Frederika was Hyerdahl, aka Parg.

BTW, where is Hyerdahl?


Too busy running her sock puppet ?

Did I spell that correctly?


Yes.

Andre

  #243  
Old October 11th 06, 09:35 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
AirRaid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

I agree with most if not all of this - the forces of divorce, abortion,
death, cheating and hate of the father rule America and many western
countries.

Dusty wrote:
The balance of power between male and female, father and mother, has been
systematically destroyed in favor of female dominance at law. The following
is a (short) list of female advantages over male.

1.. A married woman may legally abort her child without her husband's
permission. This underscores the materialistic view that the male is merely
a sperm donor and that the child is not a person.
2.. Although a wife may abort without permission from her husband, he
cannot compel an abortion, even if the child is not his.
3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child born to
the marriage even though it is not his.
4.. Except for rich men and in cases of female default (prison,
abandonment, hospitalization, death, et.al.) women universally receive
custody of children and all that comes with it, the marital home and child
support.
5.. Denial of court ordered visitation is common place and not punished
(yet failure to pay all your child support, for any reason, will cause the
state to bring a myriad of punishments down on you).
6.. Alienation, turning the kids against their father, is commonplace and
tolerated by the courts.
7.. Any woman can tell any amount of lies in family court and not fear
prosecution for perjury.
8.. Fathers routinely have their children taken from them by judges. In
most, if not all, states men are not allowed to have jury trials. Juries
would never do to families what judges do. State policy is executed via the
judiciary.
9.. Women frequently scam the welfare system. When they are caught they
are not prosecuted or even made to pay back the money.
10.. Women are the primary clients of the welfare state, not men.
11.. When an unmarried woman misrepresents her fecundity to a man, he is
still financially liable for her unilateral decision to become pregnant.
12.. If an unmarried woman becomes pregnant she may abort over the
objection of the man. If she decides to keep the child he cannot compel an
abortion and will be held liable for child support.
13.. Paternal grandparents have no rights of visitation with their son's
children. For that matter neither do the maternal grandparents have rights
of visitation - none that are enforced anyway.
14.. Any woman may call the police and allege physical abuse. Even without
any physical evidence the male will be arrested, booked and placed into the
system for prosecution. He must prove his innocence. He will be evicted from
his home without due process of law and may have a personal protection order
(restraining order) filed against him.
15.. Any woman may allege sex abuse of one of her children and 800 years
of constitutional protections are thrown out the window. Without due process
of law the man will be evicted from his home, arrested, booked, released on
bail and prosecuted. He will have to pay child support. The allegation of
sex abuse may be used in family court to obtain permanent custody. He will
have to pay tens of thousand of dollars for an attorney and all this while
he is trying to fund a new residence. The custodial mother can smear his
name in public with impunity and even try to destroy his employment and all
without fear of correction from the court. The woman does not have to retain
an attorney to prosecute the sex abuse case; that the state does this for
her. If it is later discovered that she lied, the system will not prosecute
her. The man will get his day in court after a year or two. But by then he
has had his children taken from him and his property transferred to his
accuser.
16.. After divorce there are often many conflicts that have to be resolved
by the court. The custodial mother does not have to hire an attorney, the
court ancillary will represent her interest against the non-custodial
father. The father must hire an attorney. He may represent himself but then
he has a fool for an attorney.
17.. The system is quick to increase child support and even base it on
overtime and/or second jobs. However, if a man loses overtime or his second
job (or his primary job) he quickly falls into "arrears." The courts will
not make adjustments even if loss of income is not his fault - and in some
cases, they may even increase the amount and call it "incentive" to find
another, high paying job (which, to them is the only thing an NCP should
ever seek, even if it's not in your chosen field or at your education level)
so they can go after more "support" money.
18.. Draconian measures for collection of child support have been
federally mandated. These include seizure of assets, seizure of professional
licenses and up to four years in prison (or more in some cases). Arrearages
compound at exorbitant interest rates (some states charges up to 18% or more
in interest alone!).
19.. Child support accrues for men in prison with above market interest
rates. Such men become "debt slaves" to the state. (See Title 42/Chapter
7/Subchapter IV/Part D/Subsection 666)
20.. Men are traumatized by divorce and loss of their children but the
courts will not tolerate a loss of income. The court will not adjust child
support accordingly.


  #244  
Old October 12th 06, 12:54 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Ken Chaddock wrote:
Fred wrote:

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...

Bob Whiteside wrote:

So then you have no problem with the child support used exclusively

for

said

child
and not be put into the family coffers for let's say, the mortgage,

SUV

payment?


You may take what I said at face value. I will leave it to
legislatures
and courts to figure out what constitutes an expense in the child's
interest.

[sanctimony deleted] Neither the legislatures nor the courts
have used expense based criteria to fulfill a child's interest
since the
mid-80's when CS guidelines were introduced.

But if one wants to go down OP's road, then you end up back at
expense-based criteria, with all of the nit-picking and litigation that
implies. Vicious circle.

BTW, how do you feel about the implication made by OP that using child
support money to help pay the mortgage on the house in which the child
lives is somehow not in the child's interest?


I feel it's bull****. CS is for the child not for the householder to
pay
the mortgage and gain home equity for themselves.



I see. As usual, it's all about the money, not the child.

Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something,


You are clearly "missing something" Fred. I'll give you an example
from Canada. This is quite well documented. About 10 years ago a woman
named Chantell Leduc took a case all the way to the Supreme Court Of
Canada. She claimed that it was unfair that she would have to pay income
tax on child support money since, theoretically the money is for the
support of the child...even though she gets to spend it however she
likes without any requirement to prove that she spent it for the support
of the child. She won, the SCofC agreed and struck down that portion of
the Income Tax Act.


Ah yes, the Supreme Court of Canada, the body that ruled that it is
legal to force workers into retirement at age 65 even though it is
unconstitutional, thus institutionalizing age discrimination in Canada.
See McKinney v. University of Guelph.

So I will have to keep reminding myself that you are in Canada, and
subject to the arbitrary nature of Canadian law and a Charter of Rights
and Freedoms that isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

No wonder you're ****ed off ...

or y'all are not communicating something, or y'all really do not give
a damn about the welfare of the child.


Actually *we* care a hell of a lot MORE about the welfare of the
children that the courts who don't even care whether the custodial
parent even spends the CS money for the benefit of the child.
My brother-in-law (by his 2nd marriage) had the experience of going
to court with well documented evidence that his ex-wife was using the CS
money he was paying to support his 3 sons to take her latest "boy toy" n
a two week southern vacation each year. She so poorly supported the boys
that he had to buy their clothes and pay for their school supplies out
of his own pocket even though these expenses were supposed to have been
covered by the CS. When he presented his irrefutable evidence, the judge
curtly told him it was none of the courts (or his !) business HOW his
ex-wife spent the CS money because it was HERS !

Now tell me how *those* inconvenient facts fit into your nice
"theory" of parental responsibility ?


They fit in a societal context, which, after all, is the context in
which we live, each in our own society. Because it is society, after
all, which sets the norms we are to follow, including those of
responsibility and accountability.

In your society, in which your highest court enshrines unconstitutional
acts as being legal, it does not surprise me to learn that norms of
responsibility and accountability in the raising of children have been
corrupted by that same court. It's tragic, but that's the system of
government y'all have in Canada, and I doubt that there's anything y'all
can do about it.

As I said, no wonder you're ****ed off ...
  #245  
Old October 12th 06, 01:10 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

wrote:
Fred wrote:
wrote:
Fred wrote:
wrote:
Fred -

You are Fred aren't you, and not Cindy, Sharon, Luoise, or some other
feminist disguising yourself to make it look like you are chivalrous?
What kind of a stupid question is that?

[more abject stupidity deleted]
Just as I thought ... attack the messenger and ignore the message.

What message? Seriously, what message? I just went back and looked, on
the off chance that I missed something of substance, and all I saw was
the same silly-ass, irrelevant, red herrings as before. That's not a
message, it's a joke.

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


Let's see ...


Well, since you insist ...


... you're whole rant is about cause and effect in regards to
enjoyment/satisfaction ...


I never said a word about "enjoyment/satisfaction". That's you
projecting your fantasies.

Horney, are ya? (8-)

... men should be responsible for their actions, or be abstainant.


Never said that, either. What I said was that being abstinent is a
choice, and can be considered a subset of being responsible.

You're making this all up.

With the resultant likelihood is conception.


Do you deny that you are less likely to contribute to conception if you
utake measures not to spread your semen hither and yon? Or are you so
fixated on your own "enjoyment/satisfaction" that you just don't give a
damn?

Like I said, you're just being silly. or maybe I'm wrong, and you really
are so fixated on your own "enjoyment/satisfaction" that you just don't
give a damn. Yeah, that must be it ... (8-(
  #246  
Old October 12th 06, 01:15 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Fred wrote:
Gini wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote
............................

And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S
responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that
you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about
how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same
situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act is a
consequence of where that mean old man left his semen.
Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't you
clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are after
the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue.

==
A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.)


I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the
theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence."

It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post
conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance
with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the
consequences that follow from those choices should also be hers.


So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses
to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence
is pregnancy.

But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm
around" go. After that the woman has many options and
CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to
abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which
will most likely be the birth of a child...

And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any
responsibility for or to the child?
Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as
well?


Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and
from those choices will spring consequences in turn.

Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER
choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow
from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of
all that, most likely unconstitutional...

So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or
not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this
absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's still
his child?

When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his
responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities
toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of
the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should
not be the bankroll.

So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other
parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the
rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no
rights?

Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the
same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the
default 50/50 is the key.

Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If
Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If
mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 %
she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own
expenses.

"No rights to walk away".

How do you propose stopping someone from doing so?

"they pay for their own expenses"

So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the
other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either.
They both insist it's the other's expense.

So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is
required to provide health insurance?
(or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense,
it's the *other* parent's expense)

Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of
marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance
when kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met, why
should *anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't want to?


Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children on
the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole lot
more that's going to be said here.


I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more than
married parents are forced to provide, Moon.


Married parents are not required to work.

Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and in many
cases are not required to provide medical attention.

Married parents are not required to successfully battle alcoholism.

But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work, and all the
rest!


If insurance isn't required of
married parents, why should it be required of divorced paernts? However,
I do believe that parents who have a relationship with their children will
*want* to provide for them. That's the reason for the default 50/50
custody.


Have a lovely day.

Unless you don't want to.


Such a sweet little thing you are.


Thank you :-)






  #247  
Old October 12th 06, 01:18 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong
opinions
about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the
Minnesota
laws regarding women's parental avoidance.

Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years.

"Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a
mother
can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of
prosecution.
She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required
to
do
so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no
mandatory
medical information."

So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a
firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very
serious
question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit.

I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and
force
her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't
want.


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

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


Men are already being held responsible for unwanted children while women
can live off of public money and child support. How about if women start
being prosecuted the same way men are, Moon? Or does that just boggle
your mind a bit too much? Oh, and just in case you missed it, I'm not
talking about just the safe haven kids.


Well, that was a non-answer.




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


Legal right, not legal responsibility.

have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy,

Legal right, not legal responsibility.


We're talking about WOMEN having the SAME FORCED LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS
MEN, Moon! Pay attention!


I am - and the woman is NOT legally required to terminate the pregnancy, no
matter what you, or anyone else wants.




give the
child up for adoption,


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

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


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


Oh yes they are. But you already knew that.


They're all adopted into families that love them and raise them.



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


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


Of course it is.


Then let's abolish adoption - that's the same legally sanctioned
abandonment.





  #248  
Old October 12th 06, 01:27 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
P Fritz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Gini wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote

"Gini" wrote

"Fred" wrote


....................................

Then we have nothing further to discuss.

==
Don't forget your ball, Fred.


She keeps telling people that ("we have nothing more to discuss") I'm
sure everyone is devastated. Thing is, it keeps him from having to answer
any of the hard questions, so he sail along with his ignorance and bigotry
unhampered.


==
Sounds remarkably like Hyerdahl eh? BTW, where is Hyerdahl? Did I spell that
correctly?


I thin it is spelled hyperdunce. :-)




  #249  
Old October 12th 06, 01:28 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Ken Chaddock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Moon Shyne wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

Fred wrote:

Gini wrote:


"teachrmama" wrote
............................


And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S responsibilities!
I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you keep harping on what
MEN should do, but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle their
responibilities in the same situation. Everything a woman does
after the sex act is a consequence of where that mean old man left
his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why
don't you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are
after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue.

==
A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.)



I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme
of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence."

It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post
conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance with
the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences
that follow from those choices should also be hers.



So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses to
let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is
pregnancy.

But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm
around" go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even
if she decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that
to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the
birth of a child...

And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any
responsibility for or to the child?
Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as
well?


Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and from
those choices will spring consequences in turn.

Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER
choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow from
HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that,
most likely unconstitutional...

So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not
undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves
the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child?

When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his
responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward
the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the child
he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the
bankroll.

So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other parent,
the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights, and the
parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights?


Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the same
rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default 50/50
is the key.

Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad
wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom wants
80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she chooses on
her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses.



"No rights to walk away".

How do you propose stopping someone from doing so?


How do we do it now ? What he means is that if you were in a
relationship where having children was an agreed upon objective or
wherein you had agreed to the commitment of having and supporting
children, you don't get to *LEGALLY* walk away just because you might
want to. (Note, this relationship doesn't necessarily have to be a
marriage, it could be co-habitation, if could even be separate
habitation but you've told the pregnant women that you agree to support
the child...which influences her decision to have the child...you don't
get to arbitrarily walk away if you've freely made a commitment...

"they pay for their own expenses"

So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the other
parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either.
They both insist it's the other's expense.


The courts sort it out...like now...

So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is required to
provide health insurance? (or any other expense that both parents insist
isn't their expense, it's the *other* parent's expense)


The courts sort it out...just like now.

....Ken
  #250  
Old October 12th 06, 01:52 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Ken Chaddock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Fred wrote:

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Fred wrote:

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Update, with a little further research I've discovered that
apparently there are now 47 states with "safe haven" laws and,
wonder of all wonders, a couple of them will also accept an infant
from a man without asking questions...but only a couple...
...and NO Fred, this ISN'T adoption...


So tell me, what are the differences? And more importantly, what is
it about adoption that caused 47 state legislatures to feel it
necessary to pass these "safe haven" laws? There must be something ...


[sanctimony deleted]


Ah, can't take criticism...I see

The main difference between safe haven provisions and adoption is
in adoption you have to have found other *suitable* parents who are
willing to relieve you of your parental obligations by accepting full
responsibility for the child(ern) themselves...


Well, *someone* has to find adoptive parents. There are government
agencies that perform that task. There are brokers that facilitate that
task. But yes, it has to be done.


Yes, that's "adoption"...it's *not* legal abandonment...

... in safe haven/drop off situations there is no such requirement,
you just dump the infant and walk away...no strings attached and the
child becomes the ward of the state. It's interesting that the primary
objection by many to allowing fathers to "just walk away" (C4M) is an
objection to the state "paying for" someone else's child yet this is
*exactly* what occurs in a "safe haven/drop-off situation for
women....hummm


Which gets us back to that choice between "safe haven" and seeing the
child dropped off at a firehouse, and no "safe haven" and seeing the
child die in a dumpster.


This fallacy is called a "red herring". It deflects the discussion away
from the real point which is that the application and implementation of
"safe haven" laws allow the mother a method to legally abrogate her
parental obligations without allowing an equivalent legal method for the
father to do the same thing. Since this means that men and women are
being treated differently under the law, it is a clear violation of the
Section I of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

What y'all want fathers to be able to walk away from is financial
responsibility.


No, what we want is to be treated *equally* under the law. If the
mother has legal methods to abrogate her parental obligations and to
control her reproduction and her socio-economic situation, men should
have equal or equivalent legal mechanisms allowing them to accomplish
the same thing.

I have no particular problem with safe have laws and would
certainly rather see a child safe than left to die in a dumpster but I
am upset
than in virtually all of the statutes that I have actually read (37 to
date) they speak specifically about the mother having this right and
no one else...it's just another example of the huge systemic bias that
favours mothers (note, not children) to the detriment of
fathers...mothers have been given legal "reproductive rights" that DO
NOT stem from biology while fathers have had their natural
"reproductive rights" legally restricted. This is unfair, unjust and
probably unconstitutional to boot...



Ken, I don't mind you being resentful. You can be as resentful as you
like. But this is not a simplistic issue, and there are competing
interests to consider.


The basic issue is fairness and justice. Will we extend to men, legal
mechanisms to allow them to control their reproductive lives and their
socio-economic situation which are equal or equivalent to those we have
ALREADY extended to women...it's doesn't get any more complex than that
Fred.
All the rest, the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over saving
children or supporting children seems to me to be simple strawmen,
erected to deflect discussion away from this basic issue. They're just
crying crocodile tears since we *ONLY* seem interested in these things
when it's the MAN who has to lose his freedom or his rights or, yes, his
money...when it's a woman, we bend over backwards to accommodate her and
to hell with the "best interests of the child"...

....Ken
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 February 28th 05 05:27 AM
Parent-Child Negotiations Nathan A. Barclay Spanking 623 January 28th 05 04:24 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 29th 04 05:26 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 November 28th 04 05:16 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 June 28th 04 07:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:42 PM.


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