TN - Child support termination bill attacked

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris.

Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.

"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it because it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the world."
I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the
other.

According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.

chuckle You wish

--
[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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do
not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris.

Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.

"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it because
it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the
world."
I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the
other.

According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.

chuckle You wish

Correction: I KNOW!
But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription does not ring
fair with their 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
...

"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
...

"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.

Right after I posted my reply, I realized that you would probably not
understand my question. To clarify, in YOUR mind, what exactly is his
"role"?

The same role your bio-dad played in creating you.

Petitio principii. Care to try again?

Nope.

I rest my case.

Look up simile.

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do
not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris.

Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.

"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it because
it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the
world."
I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the
other.

According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.

chuckle You wish

Correction: I KNOW!
But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription does not
ring
fair with their law.

If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay child
support?

--
[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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do
not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris.

Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.

"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids
should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it
because
it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the
world."
I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the
other.

According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.

chuckle You wish

Correction: I KNOW!
But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription does not
ring
fair with their law.

If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay child
support?

Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an assumption. Not
to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are simply
renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom. Now, since
the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof rests
with YOU.

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I
do
not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris.

Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.

"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids
should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it
because
it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the
world."
I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the
other.

According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.

chuckle You wish

Correction: I KNOW!
But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription does not
ring
fair with their law.

If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay child
support?

Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an assumption.
Not
to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are simply
renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom. Now, since
the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof rests
with YOU.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

"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.

You have a good point. At the very least, the law should recognize
paternity fraud as criminal fraud with appropriate punishment like any
other bunko activity and the bio-father, if his knowledge is sufficient
that he was part of a scheme to defraud the putative father, should be
just as liable for punishment to the degree that he was involved.
I'm not comfortable with punishing the child so the question arises, how
to insure that the child receives adequate funding without rewarding the
mother and bio-father for their dishonesty and greed. Of course the
mother should be liable for the child's support as should the bio-dad
but to order the bio\-dad to supply the mother with funding under the
guise of "child support" defeats the purpose of paternity fraud to begin
with.
I'll have to give this some more thought.
Phil #3

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[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?


She probably doesn't but she is quite aware there is a great possibility
that either could be. If she hides the fact from the husband that he may
NOT be related to her child, she's committing a lie of omission. Then
again if her lover is black or oriental, etc., it may be evident.

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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I
do
not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris.

Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.

"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids
should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it
because
it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the
world."
I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in
the
other.

According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.

chuckle You wish

Correction: I KNOW!
But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription does
not
ring
fair with their law.

If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay child
support?

Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an assumption.
Not
to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are
simply
renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom. Now,
since
the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof rests
with YOU.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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
...

"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.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that
I
do
not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris.

Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.

"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids
should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it
because
it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into
the
world."
I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in
the
other.

According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.

chuckle You wish

Correction: I KNOW!
But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription does
not
ring
fair with their law.

If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay child
support?

Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an
assumption.
Not
to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are
simply
renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom. Now,
since
the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof
rests
with YOU.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is
happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of
either gender.