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
  #301  
Old October 13th 06, 01:25 PM 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:

All you want to do is to be able to walk away from the mess you make
when you spread your sperm hither and yon, because being responsible
is so *inconvenient*, mostly to your wallet, which is the bottom line
with you boys anyway. Y'all deny informed consent, y'all deny
fairness and equity, y'all deny the child itself. It is the ultimate
selfishness.

Disgusting.



What's disgusting is a mangina like you waltzing in here with no
knowledge (didn't even know about legal abandonment or the statutes
governing your own state of residence) and less sense and started to
lecture people who've *personally* lived through some of the
experiences that *YOU* insist can't happen...now *THAT'S* disgusting...



Ken, I have concluded that it is no longer productive to attempt to have
a reasonable discussion with you and your masculinist colleagues. We
will simply have to agree to disagree.


I'm fully capable of having a "reasonable" discussion...just let me
know when you plan to stop bashing men in general...but don't expect me
to accept statements and claims that I know are false...


Y'all claim that you want equality. Not so. What y'all want is to
enforce your ideas of male superiority and dominance through control of
the money.


If it's the man's money, he should have a say in how it's spent no ? If
women don't want to have the owner of the money (ie: some man OR the
government) tell them how much they can have and how to spend it...then
they should get their money the "old fashioned way"...they should EARN IT !

When you side with a position that prefers seeing babies die in a
dumpster rather than surrender even a scintilla of masculinist male
superiority and dominance, there's simply nothing further to discuss.
That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this
conversation.


Bull****, I've never said I want babies to die in dumpsters, in fact,
exactly the opposite. What I complained about was extending this sort of
legal mechanism to abrogate parental obligations ONLY to women...see the
difference ?

....Ken
  #302  
Old October 13th 06, 04:38 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..

Ken Chaddock ) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

"Phil" ) writes:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
use.net...

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Fred wrote:

Gini wrote:

"Fred" wrote
.........................

I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another
attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine
of informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen
hither and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof
because those consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's
"inconvenient" as in financially inconvenient, because at the end
of the day it's always about the money with y'all.

It's disgusting, really.

==
Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does
the same, such as abortion, baby dropoff?

What's "baby dropoff"?

[sanctimony deleted]

...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an
infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws or
"hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven" laws
with more in progress.
All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off
point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some
used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office,
hospital
or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most case
they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are absolutely
NO legal consequences...note that in all but two states this
provision is NOT available to the father and those two they
*require* that he provide identification...for future child support
no doubt...
If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's
plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that
you can read yourself...

Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose.

The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother." Maybe
that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than a
parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little
disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped
off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the
firehouse. How about you?

So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a
daddy to take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk away,
no questions asked?

IF, and it's a big IF, the mother is in favor, it is likely that it will
happen just like she dropped the baby off. Otherwise, and it has
happened, that the father can drop the baby off, mother retrieves the
baby and then the father winds up in the clutches of CSE to pay the
expenses of the baby, including arrearages.
In effect, only mothers can drop the baby without penalty. Fathers are
always in danger of later being brought into 'family court', perhaps
even decades later.


Theres one issue about these Legal Abandon Laws you've missed.

Its that, how does a father get custody of an infant, in time to use
a Legal Abandon Law ? Since new born infants tend to be with the mother,
because they just popped out of the mother, it logically follows that
any law that mandates use only for new born infants, een if it is
written in " gender neutral " language, can only be used by te person
who just physiclaly birthed the child: mommy.

In order for dad to use Legal Abandon Laws, first dad would have to
win legal custody, and the time needed to do that ( Assuming that he
has great legal cause to win with, a situation that misandrous family
kourts make greatly unlikely ), which would take the infant past the
new born status that such drop offs are limited to.


Yes, Andre, you've hit upon the obvious (to us perhaps) "devil in the
details"...the man is virtually *never* in a position to take advantage
of such laws and even if he is there is that pesky question of "custody"
which, at birth, generally defaults to the mother...


Exactly, and thats the " equality game " that Feminists and manginas
like Frederica play. On paper things *look* equal, but in *practice*,
they can never be.

Thats whats disgusting.

Andre

  #303  
Old October 13th 06, 04:40 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:
"Ken Chaddock" wrote
............................

Yes, Andre, you've hit upon the obvious (to us perhaps) "devil in the
details"...the man is virtually *never* in a position to take advantage
of such laws and even if he is there is that pesky question of "custody"
which, at birth, generally defaults to the mother...

==
Fathers who relinquish parental rights for adoption don't necessarily have
physical custody of the child.


Thats true. But, notice that such adoption laws are written differently
from the Legal Abandon Laws in this area.

Thats not by accident.

Andre


  #304  
Old October 15th 06, 08:38 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
enquiring minds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

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.


No man need donate any sperm to any woman including his wife so there
would be
no need for an abortion consideration.

2.. Although a wife may abort without permission from her husband, he
cannot compel an abortion, even if the child is not his.


Again not an issue if the man is bright enough to wear a condom.

3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child born to
the marriage even though it is not his.

Not true unless he knowingly accept the child as 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.

Only men who are stupid enough to marry a woman who earns less money is
faced with
this problem.



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).


Only spouses who are not civilized are denied visitiation which is
rare. Child support
is of prime imporance to taxpayers because if your sperm and her egg
produced offspring
society wants you and your wife to cover the expense of raising the
offspring right down
to the last cent. It is all about dollars and sense not law.

6.. Alienation, turning the kids against their father, is commonplace and
tolerated by the courts.


When two idiots appear before a judge for a divorce, he has to work with
what is
before him.

7.. Any woman can tell any amount of lies in family court and not fear
prosecution for perjury.


Both men and women can lie in court and unless there is factual
independent
evidence beyond doubt to the contrary, then the lies cannot be proven
otherwise.
Prosecution for pergury is very important but giving parents a criminal
record
means the are basically unemployable for the rest of their lives which
in the
bigger picture does not serve the well being of the offspring they are
required
to support or society in general.

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.


Don't put your faith in juries when it comes to family matters. These
people are
taxpayers and good citizens of your community. They would be disgusted
at the thought
of two parents having a jury trial for a family matter and all the costs
of paying for
the jury because juries get paid, too. The also would not tolerate
stupid parents if they
existed.



9.. Women frequently scam the welfare system. When they are caught they
are not prosecuted or even made to pay back the money.

Again if a woman is on welfare the question is why? Single no children
is a
different matter. Married on welfare, where is the husband? married
with children,
where is the husband? Giving anyone a criminal record means they are
basically unemployable
for life so society in general is not in agreement with that position.
Society in general
wants everybody working and paying for their own upkeep rather tha yet
another tax burden.




10.. Women are the primary clients of the welfare state, not men.

Most women can get honest work in even the smallest of towns or villages
but for
men it is not quite that easy. Women on welfare speaks to a large
question of
what women and why?

11.. When an unmarried woman misrepresents her fecundity to a man, he is
still financially liable for her unilateral decision to become pregnant.

No women becomes pregnant unless the guy is mentally challenged and
doesn't wear
a condom.

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.

Again stupid guys have stupid expensive things happen to them all the
time
and sometimes it involves women.


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.

Children are the responsibility of the custodial parent or parents. All
other
interested parties would be able to visit on a guest-visit basis.

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.


That is why it is important to choose the women you become involved in
very carefully.
Not any women is wise to become involved with.



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.

If men and women of a relationship cannot get alone, the husband is
removed because
it is cheaper and quicker and wiser to remove the male rather than the
children and wife
because it disrupts the children's society setting in the neighbourhood
and community.

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.


Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.


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.


Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.


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!).



Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.
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)


Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.
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.



Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.
  #305  
Old October 15th 06, 09:30 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"enquiring minds" wrote in message
...
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.


snip


3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child born
to
the marriage even though it is not his.

Not true unless he knowingly accept the child as his.


Please post a cite showing that your statement is correct.



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.

Only men who are stupid enough to marry a woman who earns less money is
faced with
this problem.


What? Men are supposed to go around searching for womwn that earn equal to
or more than them before they marry? Besides, you are incorrect. CS is to
maintain the *lefestyle* of the child, and the noncustodial parent--usually
the father--gets to supplement that lifestyle for the CP--it is not set up
so that both households will bring in an equal amount of money. Where *do*
you get your (mis)information?




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).


Only spouses who are not civilized are denied visitiation which is
rare.


By the courts, perhaps. But the custodial parent (usually the mother) can
deny visitation and never suffer a single consequence.


Child support
is of prime imporance to taxpayers because if your sperm and her egg
produced offspring
society wants you and your wife to cover the expense of raising the
offspring right down
to the last cent. It is all about dollars and sense not law.


No, it is not about keeping children off welfare--it is about providing
children a *lifestyle.* Not basic needs. Most people would not object to
paying 50% of the basic needs of a child. But paying for a certain
lifestyl--which, by the way, is not required of married parents--is unfair.


6.. Alienation, turning the kids against their father, is commonplace
and
tolerated by the courts.


When two idiots appear before a judge for a divorce, he has to work with
what is
before him.


And tends to select the female idiot the majority of the time.
Hmmmmm....unbiased system? Nope


7.. Any woman can tell any amount of lies in family court and not fear
prosecution for perjury.


Both men and women can lie in court and unless there is factual
independent
evidence beyond doubt to the contrary, then the lies cannot be proven
otherwise.
Prosecution for pergury is very important but giving parents a criminal
record
means the are basically unemployable for the rest of their lives which
in the
bigger picture does not serve the well being of the offspring they are
required
to support or society in general.


Oh, so you are saying that it is in the best interests of the children for
the mother to not be prosecuted for filing false allegations of domestic
violence against the man she is dumping? That the childfren will prosper
living with a liar who has not compunctions about using the court system to
get her own way, even if she bvreaks the law to do so. I can certainly see
your point. The children will develop a deep reverence for our justice
system, respect and admiration for their father, and will NEVER lie to their
mothers about anything, because they will know by her example that lying to
get your own way is wrong. How brilliant you are!


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.


Don't put your faith in juries when it comes to family matters. These
people are
taxpayers and good citizens of your community. They would be disgusted
at the thought
of two parents having a jury trial for a family matter and all the costs
of paying for
the jury because juries get paid, too. The also would not tolerate
stupid parents if they
existed.


Where on earth do you come up with this stuff?



9.. Women frequently scam the welfare system. When they are caught they
are not prosecuted or even made to pay back the money.


Again if a woman is on welfare the question is why? Single no children
is a
different matter. Married on welfare, where is the husband? married
with children,
where is the husband? Giving anyone a criminal record means they are
basically unemployable
for life so society in general is not in agreement with that position.
Society in general
wants everybody working and paying for their own upkeep rather tha yet
another tax burden.


So we let the welfare mamas get away with their crimes so as not to harm the
children? Brilliant!





10.. Women are the primary clients of the welfare state, not men.

Most women can get honest work in even the smallest of towns or villages
but for
men it is not quite that easy. Women on welfare speaks to a large
question of
what women and why?


Huh?


11.. When an unmarried woman misrepresents her fecundity to a man, he
is
still financially liable for her unilateral decision to become pregnant.

No women becomes pregnant unless the guy is mentally challenged and
doesn't wear
a condom.


Really? How about the ones who take the used condoms and impregnate
themselves after the man falls asleep?


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.

Again stupid guys have stupid expensive things happen to them all the
time
and sometimes it involves women.


Again, that certainly makes it ok for women to lie to men in order to get
what they want from him. You certainly do have a thing for women who lie!
Did you learn that from your mother?



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.

Children are the responsibility of the custodial parent or parents. All
other
interested parties would be able to visit on a guest-visit basis.


Oh. So you are saying that fathers are merely visitors in their children's
lives? You really must have had some winner of a mother. gag


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.


That is why it is important to choose the women you become involved in
very carefully.
Not any women is wise to become involved with.


Women like the mother who taught you all this wonderful stuff, huh?



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.


If men and women of a relationship cannot get alone, the husband is
removed because
it is cheaper and quicker and wiser to remove the male rather than the
children and wife
because it disrupts the children's society setting in the neighbourhood
and community.


Why can't the mother be removed, leaving the children with the father?


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.


Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.


Again, post your cites. Otherwise it is just your opinion. And a
ridiculous one at that.



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.


Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.


Untrue. See above.



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!).



Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.


Untrue. See above.

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)


Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.


Untrue. See above.

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.



Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.


Untrue. See above.


  #306  
Old October 15th 06, 09:53 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"enquiring minds" wrote
Dusty wrote:

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

3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child born
to
the marriage even though it is not his.

Not true unless he knowingly accept the child as his.

==
You do know you're wrong about a whole bunch of crap, right?
==


  #307  
Old October 15th 06, 10:29 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Gini" wrote in message
news[email protected]

"enquiring minds" wrote
Dusty wrote:

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

3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child
born to
the marriage even though it is not his.

Not true unless he knowingly accept the child as his.

==
You do know you're wrong about a whole bunch of crap, right?
==


Probably doesn't care. Just wants to keep the money flowing.


  #308  
Old October 16th 06, 02:12 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
Kenneth S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

"Enquiring minds" makes frequent references in her comments below to
"stupid men," and the various ways in which they show their stupidity.
However, the whole tone of her message suggests that any man who has any
intimate contact with a woman is stupid -- particularly if the woman
exhibits the attitudes shown by "enquiring minds."

This is the kind of message that tells us much more about "enquiring
minds" than it does about the issues being discussed here.

Dusty is right. The balance of power between the sexes HAS been
destroyed. No man in his right mind would want to subject himself to the
sort of female tyranny that "enquiring minds" seeks to defend. Apparently,
the only male course of action that "enquiring minds" will permit is to
become involved with women who have substantial economic resources of their
own -- in other words, become gold-diggers.

As for me, I'm waiting until Anna Nicole Smith (aka the Widow Marshall)
gets her hands on her deceased oilman husband's millions. THEN, I'll make
my move. Is that good enough, "enquiring minds?" Does that take me out of
your category of the "stupid men?"

"enquiring minds" wrote in message
...
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.


No man need donate any sperm to any woman including his wife so there
would be
no need for an abortion consideration.

2.. Although a wife may abort without permission from her husband, he
cannot compel an abortion, even if the child is not his.


Again not an issue if the man is bright enough to wear a condom.

3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child born
to
the marriage even though it is not his.

Not true unless he knowingly accept the child as 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.

Only men who are stupid enough to marry a woman who earns less money is
faced with
this problem.



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).


Only spouses who are not civilized are denied visitiation which is
rare. Child support
is of prime imporance to taxpayers because if your sperm and her egg
produced offspring
society wants you and your wife to cover the expense of raising the
offspring right down
to the last cent. It is all about dollars and sense not law.

6.. Alienation, turning the kids against their father, is commonplace
and
tolerated by the courts.


When two idiots appear before a judge for a divorce, he has to work with
what is
before him.

7.. Any woman can tell any amount of lies in family court and not fear
prosecution for perjury.


Both men and women can lie in court and unless there is factual
independent
evidence beyond doubt to the contrary, then the lies cannot be proven
otherwise.
Prosecution for pergury is very important but giving parents a criminal
record
means the are basically unemployable for the rest of their lives which
in the
bigger picture does not serve the well being of the offspring they are
required
to support or society in general.

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.


Don't put your faith in juries when it comes to family matters. These
people are
taxpayers and good citizens of your community. They would be disgusted
at the thought
of two parents having a jury trial for a family matter and all the costs
of paying for
the jury because juries get paid, too. The also would not tolerate
stupid parents if they
existed.



9.. Women frequently scam the welfare system. When they are caught they
are not prosecuted or even made to pay back the money.

Again if a woman is on welfare the question is why? Single no children
is a
different matter. Married on welfare, where is the husband? married
with children,
where is the husband? Giving anyone a criminal record means they are
basically unemployable
for life so society in general is not in agreement with that position.
Society in general
wants everybody working and paying for their own upkeep rather tha yet
another tax burden.




10.. Women are the primary clients of the welfare state, not men.

Most women can get honest work in even the smallest of towns or villages
but for
men it is not quite that easy. Women on welfare speaks to a large
question of
what women and why?

11.. When an unmarried woman misrepresents her fecundity to a man, he
is
still financially liable for her unilateral decision to become pregnant.

No women becomes pregnant unless the guy is mentally challenged and
doesn't wear
a condom.

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.

Again stupid guys have stupid expensive things happen to them all the
time
and sometimes it involves women.


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.

Children are the responsibility of the custodial parent or parents. All
other
interested parties would be able to visit on a guest-visit basis.

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.


That is why it is important to choose the women you become involved in
very carefully.
Not any women is wise to become involved with.



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.

If men and women of a relationship cannot get alone, the husband is
removed because
it is cheaper and quicker and wiser to remove the male rather than the
children and wife
because it disrupts the children's society setting in the neighbourhood
and community.

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.


Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.


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.


Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.


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!).



Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.
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)


Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.
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.



Again this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn less than they
do.



  #309  
Old October 16th 06, 03:22 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Kenneth S. wrote:
"Enquiring minds" makes frequent references in her comments below to
"stupid men," and the various ways in which they show their stupidity.


That is a distortion.

I searched the message in question for the phrase "stupid men", and what
I found was the phrase, "this relates to stupid men who marry women who
earn less than they do."

However, the whole tone of her message suggests that any man who has any
intimate contact with a woman is stupid -- particularly if the woman
exhibits the attitudes shown by "enquiring minds."


More distortions ...

This is the kind of message that tells us much more about "enquiring
minds" than it does about the issues being discussed here.


.... and yet more.

Dusty is right. The balance of power between the sexes HAS been
destroyed.


Y'all masculinists aren't talking about balance of power. y'all are
talking about male superiority and dominance over women, specifically by
controlling the money.

So it's real simple: if you want to control the money, execute a
pre-nup. I am a big fan of pre-nups, because they spell out the
responsibilities of the parties. That's always a good thing, in my
opinion. It is simply the smart thing to do.
  #310  
Old October 16th 06, 03:51 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Oh-oh, Kenneth. Looks like Freddi-girl wants the Widow Marshall for
herself. Or at least the Widow Marshall's oilman husbands millions. Looks
like you've got some competition! (And Freddi believes in prenups as if
they will actually upheld in court! snicker)


"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Kenneth S. wrote:
"Enquiring minds" makes frequent references in her comments below to
"stupid men," and the various ways in which they show their stupidity.


That is a distortion.

I searched the message in question for the phrase "stupid men", and what I
found was the phrase, "this relates to stupid men who marry women who earn
less than they do."

However, the whole tone of her message suggests that any man who has any
intimate contact with a woman is stupid -- particularly if the woman
exhibits the attitudes shown by "enquiring minds."


More distortions ...

This is the kind of message that tells us much more about "enquiring
minds" than it does about the issues being discussed here.


... and yet more.

Dusty is right. The balance of power between the sexes HAS been
destroyed.


Y'all masculinists aren't talking about balance of power. y'all are
talking about male superiority and dominance over women, specifically by
controlling the money.

So it's real simple: if you want to control the money, execute a pre-nup.
I am a big fan of pre-nups, because they spell out the responsibilities of
the parties. That's always a good thing, in my opinion. It is simply the
smart thing to do.



 




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 02:09 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.