TN - Child support termination bill attacked

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of
bearing the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS
money is more important than factual reality and truth should be
ignored when there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be
the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very
common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and
the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to
the fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the
biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue
the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party
to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get
off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can
be proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is
culpable as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly
not blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud.
Phil #3



as well as pain and suffering
with, and this is an important factor, the backing of state statute
that makes producing a child through cuckolding and hiding the fact
from the husband. This in addition to neonatal paternity testing,
which would eliminate much of the problem early on.

The problem is that law and logic rarely collide. Laws for the past
60-100 years are primarily based on emotion, resulting in legal
problems such as this which should not be a problem.
Phil #3

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of
bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS
money
is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored
when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who
gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship
or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should
have
no
responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status
quo when
it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

The whole idea is so disgusting!! As if a child is owed money from
a
man--any man--and to not receive the money from whatever man mom
points to
is child abuse! Where do these idiot politicians get their ideas?
You've
got to wonder if the lot of them have children by "outside
interests"
where
other men are paying what they, themselves, should be paying.

The above is a classic response from one who does not understand the
relationship between rights and responsibilities.

What? You are NUTS, Chris! I said I think it is ridiculous that the
law says that a child is owed money by a man--any man--whether he is
the father or not. I, myself, do not believe that--but that is what
the law says, Chris. Why do you think non-bio men are forced to keep
paying even when it is proved that they are not the fathers?
I think Chris may have misunderstood your statement. I know I did the
FIRST time I read it. After re-reading I understood what you were saying
but the first time it sounded like you supported the idea that "any
man..." should be held liable but knowing you better than that, I
re-read and understood.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't always understand what others
clearly say. When I misunderstand what is spoken out loud, I can fall
back on the fact that I'm nearly deaf but in reading, I don't have an
excuse.
Phil #3

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money
is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the
biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the
mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can be
proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is culpable
as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not
blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud.

I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all know
that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it is a
win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held responsible
for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible for
their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things are.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of
bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS
money
is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship
or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should
have
no
responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when
it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

The whole idea is so disgusting!! As if a child is owed money from a
man--any man--and to not receive the money from whatever man mom points
to
is child abuse! Where do these idiot politicians get their ideas?
You've
got to wonder if the lot of them have children by "outside interests"
where
other men are paying what they, themselves, should be paying.

The above is a classic response from one who does not understand the
relationship between rights and responsibilities.

What? You are NUTS, Chris! I said I think it is ridiculous that the law
says that a child is owed money by a man--any man--whether he is the
father
or not.

You also said "...what they, themselves, should be paying."

I, myself, do not believe that--but that is what the law says,
Chris. Why do you think non-bio men are forced to keep paying even when
it
is proved that they are not the fathers?

Because the BIG GUNS say so?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation,"
said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden
of
a
parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money
is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant
as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or
with
multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no
responsibility.

Responsibility exists ONLY where one has a choice. Explain such choice
regarding a father and his biological children.

A biological father who knows another man is paying CS for the child he
fathered has the choice to come forward, acknolwedge his paternity, and
take
over the CS payments. Currently, the CS laws allow the bio-dad to remain
anonymous and dodge any personal responsibility for his role in creating a
child. I find that to be absurd.

And just what, exactly, is his "role"?





You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when
it
comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of
bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money
is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored
when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological
father
should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when
it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the
biological
father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother
AND
the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get
off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I found it very telling the politician referred to the
adultery/out-of-wedlock pregnancies as "conduct" rather than calling it
"misconduct." His words were intended to protect women from any personal
responsibility.

And, of course, making any argument within the context of it being "for
the
children" is a dodge. When I hear those words I just cringe.

But isn't payment of "child support", which you condone, "for the children"?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of
bearing the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS
money is more important than factual reality and truth should be
ignored when there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be
the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very
common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and
the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to
the fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the
biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue
the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party
to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get
off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can
be proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is
culpable as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly
not blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud.

How does the mother know which one is the father absent any biological
testing?

Phil #3



as well as pain and suffering
with, and this is an important factor, the backing of state statute
that makes producing a child through cuckolding and hiding the fact
from the husband. This in addition to neonatal paternity testing,
which would eliminate much of the problem early on.

The problem is that law and logic rarely collide. Laws for the past
60-100 years are primarily based on emotion, resulting in legal
problems such as this which should not be a problem.
Phil #3

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of
bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS
money
is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored
when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the
biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue
the
mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get
off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can
be
proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is
culpable
as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not
blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud.

I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all know
that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it is a
win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held responsible
for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible for
their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things
are.

Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of
bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS
money
is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored
when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological
father
should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when
it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the
biological
father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother
AND
the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get
off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I found it very telling the politician referred to the
adultery/out-of-wedlock pregnancies as "conduct" rather than calling it
"misconduct." His words were intended to protect women from any personal
responsibility.

And, of course, making any argument within the context of it being "for
the
children" is a dodge. When I hear those words I just cringe.

But isn't payment of "child support", which you condone, "for the
children"?

No. If CS was for the children there would be tracking of both parent's
required contribution and a full accounting of how it was spent. And
children would be the judgment creditors for the money.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation,"
said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the
burden
of
a
parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money
is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant
as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or
with
multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no
responsibility.

Responsibility exists ONLY where one has a choice. Explain such choice
regarding a father and his biological children.

A biological father who knows another man is paying CS for the child he
fathered has the choice to come forward, acknolwedge his paternity, and
take
over the CS payments. Currently, the CS laws allow the bio-dad to remain
anonymous and dodge any personal responsibility for his role in creating
a
child. I find that to be absurd.

And just what, exactly, is his "role"?

The same role your bio-dad played in creating you. Ask your mother if you
need more details.