TO ALL DEADBEATS OUT THERE!

"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...

"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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rudy" wrote in message
. ..
Your economic stimulus payment WILL be intercepted for back
child
support!

Thank GOD the Federal Government can do what the deadbeats
refuse
to do.
Support their kids.



First, most "deadbeats" don't "refuse", they simply CAN'T pay
the
exorbitant C$ amounts;
Second, paying the mother is NOT supporting a child.

The first thing to realize is that "child support" does not
have
the
same meaning as "supporting a child".

Child support is money paid from one parent to the other under
the
pretense that it will be used for the betterment of the child
in
question.

I always like to add the CP's pro-rata share of the total CS
obligation is part of the calculation even though the money does
not
change hands and there is no tracking of whether it is paid or
not.

So the question becomes - If the CP is not providing their share
of
the total CS obligation, should their economic stimulus package
be
seized too? Why should the CP get both parent's refund?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to support the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no presumption. Whether
or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when it comes
to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a legal way to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption." (on the
part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that the mother
will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even if she must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't matter that
she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long as the
child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not provide
from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP for the
damages.

Which proves my point (to which you disagre).

Semantics; we agree in fact. When it comes to "child support" custodial
mothers are not handed a monthly bill that must be paid under penalty of
incarceration but are "presumed" to put that much or more toward their
children. As an example, in my divorce (over 20 years ago), the amounts
of each parent's "support" was delineated. Each parent was expected to
put a specific amount toward the support of the child, both of us were
given different amounts (Of course mine was MUCH higher). The amount my
ex was expected to pay was "presumed" because there were no demands made
to enable proof of her share ever being paid or put toward the SOL of
our child.


This brings up another problem with "equality" in that the NCP is
never
qualified to receive state funding to help him support his child but
the
CP is and often does.

That's because ONLY women deserve state funded (mother) support.


Apparently so.
Phil #3





Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below that
equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide "child
care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as for
children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are they
allowed
to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then again, a
twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Excellent point.
You know the answer: Options for women (and underage girls) without
responsibility.
Phil #3

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

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

"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...

"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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rudy" wrote in message
. ..
Your economic stimulus payment WILL be intercepted for back
child
support!

Thank GOD the Federal Government can do what the deadbeats
refuse
to do.
Support their kids.



First, most "deadbeats" don't "refuse", they simply CAN'T pay
the
exorbitant C$ amounts;
Second, paying the mother is NOT supporting a child.

The first thing to realize is that "child support" does not
have
the
same meaning as "supporting a child".

Child support is money paid from one parent to the other under
the
pretense that it will be used for the betterment of the child
in
question.

I always like to add the CP's pro-rata share of the total CS
obligation is part of the calculation even though the money does
not
change hands and there is no tracking of whether it is paid or
not.

So the question becomes - If the CP is not providing their share
of
the total CS obligation, should their economic stimulus package
be
seized too? Why should the CP get both parent's refund?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to support the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no presumption. Whether
or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when it comes
to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a legal way to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption." (on the
part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that the mother
will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even if she must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't matter that
she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long as the
child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not provide
from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP for the
damages.

Which proves my point (to which you disagre).

Semantics; we agree in fact. When it comes to "child support" custodial
mothers are not handed a monthly bill that must be paid under penalty of
incarceration but are "presumed" to put that much or more toward their
children. As an example, in my divorce (over 20 years ago), the amounts
of each parent's "support" was delineated. Each parent was expected to
put a specific amount toward the support of the child, both of us were
given different amounts (Of course mine was MUCH higher). The amount my
ex was expected to pay was "presumed" because there were no demands made
to enable proof of her share ever being paid or put toward the SOL of
our child.

She GETS paid, yet she is presumed to be paying. Makes sense to me.......
My point above is that mothers can drop off newborns, adopt them away, hand
them over to grandma, etc.. Thus, there is NO presumption that they are
caring for the child.



This brings up another problem with "equality" in that the NCP is
never
qualified to receive state funding to help him support his child but
the
CP is and often does.

That's because ONLY women deserve state funded (mother) support.


Apparently so.
Phil #3





Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below that
equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide "child
care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as for
children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are they
allowed
to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then again, a
twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Excellent point.
You know the answer: Options for women (and underage girls) without
responsibility.
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...

"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...

"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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rudy" wrote in message
. ..
Your economic stimulus payment WILL be intercepted for back
child
support!

Thank GOD the Federal Government can do what the deadbeats
refuse
to do.
Support their kids.



First, most "deadbeats" don't "refuse", they simply CAN'T
pay
the
exorbitant C$ amounts;
Second, paying the mother is NOT supporting a child.

The first thing to realize is that "child support" does not
have
the
same meaning as "supporting a child".

Child support is money paid from one parent to the other
under
the
pretense that it will be used for the betterment of the
child
in
question.

I always like to add the CP's pro-rata share of the total CS
obligation is part of the calculation even though the money
does
not
change hands and there is no tracking of whether it is paid
or
not.

So the question becomes - If the CP is not providing their
share
of
the total CS obligation, should their economic stimulus
package
be
seized too? Why should the CP get both parent's refund?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to support
the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no presumption.
Whether
or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when it
comes
to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a legal way
to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption." (on the
part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that the
mother
will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even if she
must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't matter that
she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long as the
child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not provide
from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP for the
damages.

Which proves my point (to which you disagre).

Semantics; we agree in fact. When it comes to "child support"
custodial
mothers are not handed a monthly bill that must be paid under penalty
of
incarceration but are "presumed" to put that much or more toward
their
children. As an example, in my divorce (over 20 years ago), the
amounts
of each parent's "support" was delineated. Each parent was expected
to
put a specific amount toward the support of the child, both of us
were
given different amounts (Of course mine was MUCH higher). The amount
my
ex was expected to pay was "presumed" because there were no demands
made
to enable proof of her share ever being paid or put toward the SOL of
our child.

She GETS paid, yet she is presumed to be paying. Makes sense to
me.......
My point above is that mothers can drop off newborns, adopt them away,
hand
them over to grandma, etc.. Thus, there is NO presumption that they
are
caring for the child.


True but she is *presumed* to be supporting a child (and caring for
them) if and only if she retains legal custody, reality doesn't matter.
If she relinquishes custody for any reason, she is often required to
actually pay real money toward the support of the child and any and all
such 'presumption' ends.
It is a word game the state plays with non-custodial parents. Anyone
with half a brain can see that CPs are free to demand "child support"
then spend only as much as is absolutely necessary to keep the DHS out
of the situation, which CAN mean she doesn't spend one penny of her own
money on them.
It is similar to the basic costs of children. Many add things into child
support such as the cost of cable TV, equal shares of utilities and an
equal share in the cost of housing, clothing and food. It is all
"presumed", even when it is obvious that the CP is using such claims to
justify the amount of C$ received.
Phil #3



This brings up another problem with "equality" in that the NCP is
never
qualified to receive state funding to help him support his child
but
the
CP is and often does.

That's because ONLY women deserve state funded (mother) support.


Apparently so.
Phil #3





Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below that
equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide
"child
care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as for
children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are they
allowed
to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then again, a
twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Excellent point.
You know the answer: Options for women (and underage girls)
without
responsibility.
Phil #3

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

..
..
"Phil" 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]

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

"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...

"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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rudy" wrote in message
. ..
Your economic stimulus payment WILL be intercepted for back
child
support!

Thank GOD the Federal Government can do what the deadbeats
refuse
to do.
Support their kids.



First, most "deadbeats" don't "refuse", they simply CAN'T
pay
the
exorbitant C$ amounts;
Second, paying the mother is NOT supporting a child.

The first thing to realize is that "child support" does not
have
the
same meaning as "supporting a child".

Child support is money paid from one parent to the other
under
the
pretense that it will be used for the betterment of the
child
in
question.

I always like to add the CP's pro-rata share of the total CS
obligation is part of the calculation even though the money
does
not
change hands and there is no tracking of whether it is paid
or
not.

So the question becomes - If the CP is not providing their
share
of
the total CS obligation, should their economic stimulus
package
be
seized too? Why should the CP get both parent's refund?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to support
the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no presumption.
Whether
or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when it
comes
to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a legal way
to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption." (on the
part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that the
mother
will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even if she
must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't matter that
she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long as the
child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not provide
from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP for the
damages.

Which proves my point (to which you disagre).

Semantics; we agree in fact. When it comes to "child support"
custodial
mothers are not handed a monthly bill that must be paid under penalty
of
incarceration but are "presumed" to put that much or more toward
their
children. As an example, in my divorce (over 20 years ago), the
amounts
of each parent's "support" was delineated. Each parent was expected
to
put a specific amount toward the support of the child, both of us
were
given different amounts (Of course mine was MUCH higher). The amount
my
ex was expected to pay was "presumed" because there were no demands
made
to enable proof of her share ever being paid or put toward the SOL of
our child.

She GETS paid, yet she is presumed to be paying. Makes sense to
me.......
My point above is that mothers can drop off newborns, adopt them away,
hand
them over to grandma, etc.. Thus, there is NO presumption that they
are
caring for the child.


True but she is *presumed* to be supporting a child (and caring for
them) if and only if she retains legal custody, reality doesn't matter.
If she relinquishes custody for any reason, she is often required to
actually pay real money toward the support of the child and any and all
such 'presumption' ends.
It is a word game the state plays with non-custodial parents. Anyone
with half a brain can see that CPs are free to demand "child support"
then spend only as much as is absolutely necessary to keep the DHS out
of the situation, which CAN mean she doesn't spend one penny of her own
money on them.

Nor one penny of the "child support" money.

It is similar to the basic costs of children. Many add things into child
support such as the cost of cable TV, equal shares of utilities and an
equal share in the cost of housing, clothing and food. It is all
"presumed", even when it is obvious that the CP is using such claims to
justify the amount of C$ received.
Phil #3



This brings up another problem with "equality" in that the NCP is
never
qualified to receive state funding to help him support his child
but
the
CP is and often does.

That's because ONLY women deserve state funded (mother) support.


Apparently so.
Phil #3





Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below that
equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide
"child
care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as for
children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are they
allowed
to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then again, a
twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Excellent point.
You know the answer: Options for women (and underage girls)
without
responsibility.
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
...

"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...

"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...

"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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rudy" wrote in
message
. ..
Your economic stimulus payment WILL be intercepted for
back
child
support!

Thank GOD the Federal Government can do what the
deadbeats
refuse
to do.
Support their kids.



First, most "deadbeats" don't "refuse", they simply CAN'T
pay
the
exorbitant C$ amounts;
Second, paying the mother is NOT supporting a child.

The first thing to realize is that "child support" does
not
have
the
same meaning as "supporting a child".

Child support is money paid from one parent to the other
under
the
pretense that it will be used for the betterment of the
child
in
question.

I always like to add the CP's pro-rata share of the total
CS
obligation is part of the calculation even though the
money
does
not
change hands and there is no tracking of whether it is
paid
or
not.

So the question becomes - If the CP is not providing their
share
of
the total CS obligation, should their economic stimulus
package
be
seized too? Why should the CP get both parent's refund?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to support
the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no presumption.
Whether
or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when it
comes
to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a legal
way
to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption." (on
the
part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that the
mother
will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even if she
must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't matter
that
she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long as
the
child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not
provide
from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP for the
damages.

Which proves my point (to which you disagre).

Semantics; we agree in fact. When it comes to "child support"
custodial
mothers are not handed a monthly bill that must be paid under
penalty
of
incarceration but are "presumed" to put that much or more toward
their
children. As an example, in my divorce (over 20 years ago), the
amounts
of each parent's "support" was delineated. Each parent was
expected
to
put a specific amount toward the support of the child, both of us
were
given different amounts (Of course mine was MUCH higher). The
amount
my
ex was expected to pay was "presumed" because there were no
demands
made
to enable proof of her share ever being paid or put toward the SOL
of
our child.

She GETS paid, yet she is presumed to be paying. Makes sense to
me.......
My point above is that mothers can drop off newborns, adopt them
away,
hand
them over to grandma, etc.. Thus, there is NO presumption that they
are
caring for the child.


True but she is *presumed* to be supporting a child (and caring for
them) if and only if she retains legal custody, reality doesn't
matter.
If she relinquishes custody for any reason, she is often required to
actually pay real money toward the support of the child and any and
all
such 'presumption' ends.
It is a word game the state plays with non-custodial parents. Anyone
with half a brain can see that CPs are free to demand "child support"
then spend only as much as is absolutely necessary to keep the DHS
out
of the situation, which CAN mean she doesn't spend one penny of her
own
money on them.

Nor one penny of the "child support" money.

Well, of course that is true. I observed it in my divorce where my ex
moved her and our son back home with "mama and daddy" and let them
support both of them and serve as baby-sitter but as a practical matter,
the state doesn't care WHO supports the child as long as men pay their
"debt" to the mother. This is further evidence that "child support" is
simply a transfer of wealth from men to women; the fact that a very few
women get caught in the same trap is wholly the law of unintended
consequences.
Phil #3



It is similar to the basic costs of children. Many add things into
child
support such as the cost of cable TV, equal shares of utilities and
an
equal share in the cost of housing, clothing and food. It is all
"presumed", even when it is obvious that the CP is using such claims
to
justify the amount of C$ received.
Phil #3



This brings up another problem with "equality" in that the NCP
is
never
qualified to receive state funding to help him support his
child
but
the
CP is and often does.

That's because ONLY women deserve state funded (mother) support.


Apparently so.
Phil #3





Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below that
equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide
"child
care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as for
children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey
kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are
they
allowed
to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then
again, a
twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Excellent point.
You know the answer: Options for women (and underage girls)
without
responsibility.
Phil #3

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

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

"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
...

"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...

"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...

"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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rudy" wrote in
message
. ..
Your economic stimulus payment WILL be intercepted for
back
child
support!

Thank GOD the Federal Government can do what the
deadbeats
refuse
to do.
Support their kids.



First, most "deadbeats" don't "refuse", they simply CAN'T
pay
the
exorbitant C$ amounts;
Second, paying the mother is NOT supporting a child.

The first thing to realize is that "child support" does
not
have
the
same meaning as "supporting a child".

Child support is money paid from one parent to the other
under
the
pretense that it will be used for the betterment of the
child
in
question.

I always like to add the CP's pro-rata share of the total
CS
obligation is part of the calculation even though the
money
does
not
change hands and there is no tracking of whether it is
paid
or
not.

So the question becomes - If the CP is not providing their
share
of
the total CS obligation, should their economic stimulus
package
be
seized too? Why should the CP get both parent's refund?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to support
the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no presumption.
Whether
or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when it
comes
to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a legal
way
to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption." (on
the
part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that the
mother
will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even if she
must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't matter
that
she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long as
the
child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not
provide
from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP for the
damages.

Which proves my point (to which you disagre).

Semantics; we agree in fact. When it comes to "child support"
custodial
mothers are not handed a monthly bill that must be paid under
penalty
of
incarceration but are "presumed" to put that much or more toward
their
children. As an example, in my divorce (over 20 years ago), the
amounts
of each parent's "support" was delineated. Each parent was
expected
to
put a specific amount toward the support of the child, both of us
were
given different amounts (Of course mine was MUCH higher). The
amount
my
ex was expected to pay was "presumed" because there were no
demands
made
to enable proof of her share ever being paid or put toward the SOL
of
our child.

She GETS paid, yet she is presumed to be paying. Makes sense to
me.......
My point above is that mothers can drop off newborns, adopt them
away,
hand
them over to grandma, etc.. Thus, there is NO presumption that they
are
caring for the child.


True but she is *presumed* to be supporting a child (and caring for
them) if and only if she retains legal custody, reality doesn't
matter.
If she relinquishes custody for any reason, she is often required to
actually pay real money toward the support of the child and any and
all
such 'presumption' ends.
It is a word game the state plays with non-custodial parents. Anyone
with half a brain can see that CPs are free to demand "child support"
then spend only as much as is absolutely necessary to keep the DHS
out
of the situation, which CAN mean she doesn't spend one penny of her
own
money on them.

Nor one penny of the "child support" money.

Well, of course that is true. I observed it in my divorce where my ex
moved her and our son back home with "mama and daddy" and let them
support both of them and serve as baby-sitter but as a practical matter,
the state doesn't care WHO supports the child as long as men pay their
"debt" to the mother. This is further evidence that "child support" is
simply a transfer of wealth from men to women; the fact that a very few
women get caught in the same trap is wholly the law of unintended
consequences.
Phil #3

That could be, but I think it's more along the line of burning a few mothers
just so they can say "See, we are not discriminating against fathers. If we
were, then we would not be making mothers NCPs too." So on that note, they
have to sacrifice a few pawns to make it appear that the court drama is
legitimate. I must say, a very clever strategy. But anyone with half a brain
can see right through it!
You know the symbol of justice being the blind-folded woman holding the
balance scale. That is supposed to symbolize blindness to unchangeable
characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and yes GENDER too. Problem is,
most judges are too ignorant to understand such concept, and misconstrue it
to mean being blind to (ignoring) the truth.

I have often asked the question: If they truly advocate being blind to such
characteristics, then what's the problem with concealing the gender of the
litigants?




It is similar to the basic costs of children. Many add things into
child
support such as the cost of cable TV, equal shares of utilities and
an
equal share in the cost of housing, clothing and food. It is all
"presumed", even when it is obvious that the CP is using such claims
to
justify the amount of C$ received.
Phil #3



This brings up another problem with "equality" in that the NCP
is
never
qualified to receive state funding to help him support his
child
but
the
CP is and often does.

That's because ONLY women deserve state funded (mother) support.


Apparently so.
Phil #3





Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below that
equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide
"child
care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as for
children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey
kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are
they
allowed
to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then
again, a
twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Excellent point.
You know the answer: Options for women (and underage girls)
without
responsibility.
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...

"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
...

"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...

"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...

"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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rudy" wrote in
message
. ..
Your economic stimulus payment WILL be intercepted
for
back
child
support!

Thank GOD the Federal Government can do what the
deadbeats
refuse
to do.
Support their kids.



First, most "deadbeats" don't "refuse", they simply
CAN'T
pay
the
exorbitant C$ amounts;
Second, paying the mother is NOT supporting a child.

The first thing to realize is that "child support"
does
not
have
the
same meaning as "supporting a child".

Child support is money paid from one parent to the
other
under
the
pretense that it will be used for the betterment of
the
child
in
question.

I always like to add the CP's pro-rata share of the
total
CS
obligation is part of the calculation even though the
money
does
not
change hands and there is no tracking of whether it is
paid
or
not.

So the question becomes - If the CP is not providing
their
share
of
the total CS obligation, should their economic stimulus
package
be
seized too? Why should the CP get both parent's refund?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to
support
the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO
legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no
presumption.
Whether
or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when
it
comes
to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a
legal
way
to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption."
(on
the
part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that the
mother
will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even if
she
must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't
matter
that
she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long as
the
child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not
provide
from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP for
the
damages.

Which proves my point (to which you disagre).

Semantics; we agree in fact. When it comes to "child support"
custodial
mothers are not handed a monthly bill that must be paid under
penalty
of
incarceration but are "presumed" to put that much or more
toward
their
children. As an example, in my divorce (over 20 years ago), the
amounts
of each parent's "support" was delineated. Each parent was
expected
to
put a specific amount toward the support of the child, both of
us
were
given different amounts (Of course mine was MUCH higher). The
amount
my
ex was expected to pay was "presumed" because there were no
demands
made
to enable proof of her share ever being paid or put toward the
SOL
of
our child.

She GETS paid, yet she is presumed to be paying. Makes sense to
me.......
My point above is that mothers can drop off newborns, adopt them
away,
hand
them over to grandma, etc.. Thus, there is NO presumption that
they
are
caring for the child.


True but she is *presumed* to be supporting a child (and caring
for
them) if and only if she retains legal custody, reality doesn't
matter.
If she relinquishes custody for any reason, she is often required
to
actually pay real money toward the support of the child and any
and
all
such 'presumption' ends.
It is a word game the state plays with non-custodial parents.
Anyone
with half a brain can see that CPs are free to demand "child
support"
then spend only as much as is absolutely necessary to keep the DHS
out
of the situation, which CAN mean she doesn't spend one penny of
her
own
money on them.

Nor one penny of the "child support" money.

Well, of course that is true. I observed it in my divorce where my ex
moved her and our son back home with "mama and daddy" and let them
support both of them and serve as baby-sitter but as a practical
matter,
the state doesn't care WHO supports the child as long as men pay
their
"debt" to the mother. This is further evidence that "child support"
is
simply a transfer of wealth from men to women; the fact that a very
few
women get caught in the same trap is wholly the law of unintended
consequences.
Phil #3

That could be, but I think it's more along the line of burning a few
mothers
just so they can say "See, we are not discriminating against fathers.
If we
were, then we would not be making mothers NCPs too." So on that note,
they
have to sacrifice a few pawns to make it appear that the court drama
is
legitimate. I must say, a very clever strategy. But anyone with half a
brain
can see right through it!
You know the symbol of justice being the blind-folded woman holding
the
balance scale. That is supposed to symbolize blindness to unchangeable
characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and yes GENDER too. Problem
is,
most judges are too ignorant to understand such concept, and
misconstrue it
to mean being blind to (ignoring) the truth.

I have often asked the question: If they truly advocate being blind to
such
characteristics, then what's the problem with concealing the gender of
the
litigants?


I have always thought that the defendant in criminal trials and all
litigants in civil cases should be unknown to the judge and jury. There
is too much evidence that being a minority results in a "guilty" verdict
or longer and harsher sentences and we all know how well men fare in
"family courts".
I don't think the courts intentionally screw over the few women it does
just for appearance sake, I think that in those cases the mother is so
bad they have little choice.
With the "court watchers" of N.O.W., et al, judges must be very careful
when ruling against a woman.

I don't think the courts are necessarily ruling in favor or women but
more like they are simply ruling against men.
Phil #3





It is similar to the basic costs of children. Many add things into
child
support such as the cost of cable TV, equal shares of utilities
and
an
equal share in the cost of housing, clothing and food. It is all
"presumed", even when it is obvious that the CP is using such
claims
to
justify the amount of C$ received.
Phil #3



This brings up another problem with "equality" in that the
NCP
is
never
qualified to receive state funding to help him support his
child
but
the
CP is and often does.

That's because ONLY women deserve state funded (mother)
support.


Apparently so.
Phil #3





Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below
that
equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide
"child
care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as
for
children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey
kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are
they
allowed
to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then
again, a
twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Excellent point.
You know the answer: Options for women (and underage girls)
without
responsibility.
Phil #3

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

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

"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...

"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
...

"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...

"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...

"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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rudy" wrote in
message
. ..
Your economic stimulus payment WILL be intercepted
for
back
child
support!

Thank GOD the Federal Government can do what the
deadbeats
refuse
to do.
Support their kids.



First, most "deadbeats" don't "refuse", they simply
CAN'T
pay
the
exorbitant C$ amounts;
Second, paying the mother is NOT supporting a child.

The first thing to realize is that "child support"
does
not
have
the
same meaning as "supporting a child".

Child support is money paid from one parent to the
other
under
the
pretense that it will be used for the betterment of
the
child
in
question.

I always like to add the CP's pro-rata share of the
total
CS
obligation is part of the calculation even though the
money
does
not
change hands and there is no tracking of whether it is
paid
or
not.

So the question becomes - If the CP is not providing
their
share
of
the total CS obligation, should their economic stimulus
package
be
seized too? Why should the CP get both parent's refund?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to
support
the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO
legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no
presumption.
Whether
or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when
it
comes
to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a
legal
way
to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption."
(on
the
part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that the
mother
will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even if
she
must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't
matter
that
she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long as
the
child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not
provide
from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP for
the
damages.

Which proves my point (to which you disagre).

Semantics; we agree in fact. When it comes to "child support"
custodial
mothers are not handed a monthly bill that must be paid under
penalty
of
incarceration but are "presumed" to put that much or more
toward
their
children. As an example, in my divorce (over 20 years ago), the
amounts
of each parent's "support" was delineated. Each parent was
expected
to
put a specific amount toward the support of the child, both of
us
were
given different amounts (Of course mine was MUCH higher). The
amount
my
ex was expected to pay was "presumed" because there were no
demands
made
to enable proof of her share ever being paid or put toward the
SOL
of
our child.

She GETS paid, yet she is presumed to be paying. Makes sense to
me.......
My point above is that mothers can drop off newborns, adopt them
away,
hand
them over to grandma, etc.. Thus, there is NO presumption that
they
are
caring for the child.


True but she is *presumed* to be supporting a child (and caring
for
them) if and only if she retains legal custody, reality doesn't
matter.
If she relinquishes custody for any reason, she is often required
to
actually pay real money toward the support of the child and any
and
all
such 'presumption' ends.
It is a word game the state plays with non-custodial parents.
Anyone
with half a brain can see that CPs are free to demand "child
support"
then spend only as much as is absolutely necessary to keep the DHS
out
of the situation, which CAN mean she doesn't spend one penny of
her
own
money on them.

Nor one penny of the "child support" money.

Well, of course that is true. I observed it in my divorce where my ex
moved her and our son back home with "mama and daddy" and let them
support both of them and serve as baby-sitter but as a practical
matter,
the state doesn't care WHO supports the child as long as men pay
their
"debt" to the mother. This is further evidence that "child support"
is
simply a transfer of wealth from men to women; the fact that a very
few
women get caught in the same trap is wholly the law of unintended
consequences.
Phil #3

That could be, but I think it's more along the line of burning a few
mothers
just so they can say "See, we are not discriminating against fathers.
If we
were, then we would not be making mothers NCPs too." So on that note,
they
have to sacrifice a few pawns to make it appear that the court drama
is
legitimate. I must say, a very clever strategy. But anyone with half a
brain
can see right through it!
You know the symbol of justice being the blind-folded woman holding
the
balance scale. That is supposed to symbolize blindness to unchangeable
characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and yes GENDER too. Problem
is,
most judges are too ignorant to understand such concept, and
misconstrue it
to mean being blind to (ignoring) the truth.

I have often asked the question: If they truly advocate being blind to
such
characteristics, then what's the problem with concealing the gender of
the
litigants?


I have always thought that the defendant in criminal trials and all
litigants in civil cases should be unknown to the judge and jury. There
is too much evidence that being a minority results in a "guilty" verdict
or longer and harsher sentences and we all know how well men fare in
"family courts".
I don't think the courts intentionally screw over the few women it does
just for appearance sake, I think that in those cases the mother is so
bad they have little choice.
With the "court watchers" of N.O.W., et al, judges must be very careful
when ruling against a woman.

I don't think the courts are necessarily ruling in favor or women but
more like they are simply ruling against men.
Phil #3

Bear in mind that there are a (very) few judges who actually ignore their
own feelings and rule ONLY on the facts. The vast majority are emotion
driven creatures, thus the injustice. This explains why fathers get cheated
on a regular basis. Men are considered the "tough" gender, hence a greater
trophy when defeated. Such mentality is unavoidable by those (judges) with
little more than a jungle mentality; win over the females by being the
biggest, baddest, strongest male. Survival of the fittest.






It is similar to the basic costs of children. Many add things into
child
support such as the cost of cable TV, equal shares of utilities
and
an
equal share in the cost of housing, clothing and food. It is all
"presumed", even when it is obvious that the CP is using such
claims
to
justify the amount of C$ received.
Phil #3



This brings up another problem with "equality" in that the
NCP
is
never
qualified to receive state funding to help him support his
child
but
the
CP is and often does.

That's because ONLY women deserve state funded (mother)
support.


Apparently so.
Phil #3





Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below
that
equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide
"child
care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as
for
children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey
kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are
they
allowed
to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then
again, a
twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Excellent point.
You know the answer: Options for women (and underage girls)
without
responsibility.
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...

"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...

"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
...

"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...

"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...

"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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in
message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rudy" wrote in
message
. ..
Your economic stimulus payment WILL be intercepted
for
back
child
support!

Thank GOD the Federal Government can do what the
deadbeats
refuse
to do.
Support their kids.



First, most "deadbeats" don't "refuse", they simply
CAN'T
pay
the
exorbitant C$ amounts;
Second, paying the mother is NOT supporting a
child.

The first thing to realize is that "child support"
does
not
have
the
same meaning as "supporting a child".

Child support is money paid from one parent to the
other
under
the
pretense that it will be used for the betterment of
the
child
in
question.

I always like to add the CP's pro-rata share of the
total
CS
obligation is part of the calculation even though
the
money
does
not
change hands and there is no tracking of whether it
is
paid
or
not.

So the question becomes - If the CP is not providing
their
share
of
the total CS obligation, should their economic
stimulus
package
be
seized too? Why should the CP get both parent's
refund?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to
support
the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO
legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no
presumption.
Whether
or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant
when
it
comes
to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a
legal
way
to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption."
(on
the
part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that
the
mother
will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even
if
she
must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't
matter
that
she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long
as
the
child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not
provide
from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP
for
the
damages.

Which proves my point (to which you disagre).

Semantics; we agree in fact. When it comes to "child
support"
custodial
mothers are not handed a monthly bill that must be paid
under
penalty
of
incarceration but are "presumed" to put that much or more
toward
their
children. As an example, in my divorce (over 20 years ago),
the
amounts
of each parent's "support" was delineated. Each parent was
expected
to
put a specific amount toward the support of the child, both
of
us
were
given different amounts (Of course mine was MUCH higher).
The
amount
my
ex was expected to pay was "presumed" because there were no
demands
made
to enable proof of her share ever being paid or put toward
the
SOL
of
our child.

She GETS paid, yet she is presumed to be paying. Makes sense
to
me.......
My point above is that mothers can drop off newborns, adopt
them
away,
hand
them over to grandma, etc.. Thus, there is NO presumption
that
they
are
caring for the child.


True but she is *presumed* to be supporting a child (and caring
for
them) if and only if she retains legal custody, reality doesn't
matter.
If she relinquishes custody for any reason, she is often
required
to
actually pay real money toward the support of the child and any
and
all
such 'presumption' ends.
It is a word game the state plays with non-custodial parents.
Anyone
with half a brain can see that CPs are free to demand "child
support"
then spend only as much as is absolutely necessary to keep the
DHS
out
of the situation, which CAN mean she doesn't spend one penny of
her
own
money on them.

Nor one penny of the "child support" money.

Well, of course that is true. I observed it in my divorce where my
ex
moved her and our son back home with "mama and daddy" and let them
support both of them and serve as baby-sitter but as a practical
matter,
the state doesn't care WHO supports the child as long as men pay
their
"debt" to the mother. This is further evidence that "child
support"
is
simply a transfer of wealth from men to women; the fact that a
very
few
women get caught in the same trap is wholly the law of unintended
consequences.
Phil #3

That could be, but I think it's more along the line of burning a
few
mothers
just so they can say "See, we are not discriminating against
fathers.
If we
were, then we would not be making mothers NCPs too." So on that
note,
they
have to sacrifice a few pawns to make it appear that the court
drama
is
legitimate. I must say, a very clever strategy. But anyone with
half a
brain
can see right through it!
You know the symbol of justice being the blind-folded woman holding
the
balance scale. That is supposed to symbolize blindness to
unchangeable
characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and yes GENDER too.
Problem
is,
most judges are too ignorant to understand such concept, and
misconstrue it
to mean being blind to (ignoring) the truth.

I have often asked the question: If they truly advocate being blind
to
such
characteristics, then what's the problem with concealing the gender
of
the
litigants?


I have always thought that the defendant in criminal trials and all
litigants in civil cases should be unknown to the judge and jury.
There
is too much evidence that being a minority results in a "guilty"
verdict
or longer and harsher sentences and we all know how well men fare in
"family courts".
I don't think the courts intentionally screw over the few women it
does
just for appearance sake, I think that in those cases the mother is
so
bad they have little choice.
With the "court watchers" of N.O.W., et al, judges must be very
careful
when ruling against a woman.

I don't think the courts are necessarily ruling in favor or women but
more like they are simply ruling against men.
Phil #3

Bear in mind that there are a (very) few judges who actually ignore
their
own feelings and rule ONLY on the facts. The vast majority are emotion
driven creatures, thus the injustice. This explains why fathers get
cheated
on a regular basis. Men are considered the "tough" gender, hence a
greater
trophy when defeated. Such mentality is unavoidable by those (judges)
with
little more than a jungle mentality; win over the females by being the
biggest, baddest, strongest male. Survival of the fittest.


I have no doubt you are correct in some cases, perhaps even most but
even the most fair judge is watched by these harridian feminist groups.
The sitting judges learned decades back the power of an angry mob of
self-righteous wingnuts.
Check this old link:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal...cno =ED302492
This is how they managed to gain control of the judiciary, especially
"family law".
Phil #3


[snip]