Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"Hyerdahl" wrote
....................
==
No. Garnishment is part of every new order unless both parents agree
and
the judge approves.

But that's the issue, is it not ...that one parent thinks the other
will not pay so theydon't agree and thus, it is garnished.
==
No. Garnisment is done automatically. Read any state's child support
guidenes. You do know
what CS guidelines are, right?

"Hyerdahl" wrote
..........................

No. It's your point ...you prove it or you simply back down. That's
the way this game is played. In the end there is no statute of
limitations for support.
==
That is corrrect. But that is an entirely different matter than filing for
"back support."
You do know that don't you dear?

Hyerdahl wrote:
Chris wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:%tGJg.4533$_q4.3166@dukeread09...


Gini wrote:


"Hyerdahl" wrote
.........................


I dunno, Hy. Seems like all fathers are treated as criminals and have
their
wages garnished rather than trusting them to pay their child support.

Garnishing a parent's paycheck usually takes place when the payor has
been less than reliable already, no?

==
No. Garnishment is part of every new order unless both parents agree and

the judge approves.

But that's the issue, is it not ...that one parent thinks the other
will not pay so theydon't agree and thus, it is garnished.


Yep. Way it is in my state too, unless the CP refuses to allow the
garnishing. I feel that it's only a matter of time before they do away
with this option for the CP as well, because it means less money for the
state coffers.


How does the amount of money going to the CP reflect what goes to the
state unless the state is paying for the NCP's kids?

Your question belies your ignorance. States don't pay for the NCP's
kids, the federal government does. Do your research before spewing here.

- Ron ^*^

Chris wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:2izJg.4515$_q4.3389@dukeread09...


Hyerdahl wrote:


Bob Whiteside wrote:
(edit)



People break the law all the time; that doesn't mean the laws are bad;
it means the people are misusing them are crooks. :-) I have no
objection at all to making sure there is a child to support. Did you
really think I would? :-) How do your allegations make any difference
at all to women proving they are mothers, by giving birth?

Yes. I offered the list to show mothers are not required to show proof

they

are mothers as you claimed.


But they are ....at the hospital when they fill out the BC. Forging a
BC is about criminal actions and not about parental identification.

If that proof was required the fraudulent activities I listed above
would not ever occur.

Again, we don't run our world based on criminal actions per se; we run
our world based on the laws that are least invasive to our privacy.
Certainly if a child needs to be seen to prove up his or her existence,
that is acceptable.

Your assumption mothers always tell the truth is widely held, but never
seems to play out in family law matters.

This isn't about criminals; it's about the laws regulating childbirths.
The mother goes into the hospital, and gives birth. There is a BC.
They know she's the mother because she has just given birth. A
criminal who forges a BC will be treated as a criminal, but there's no
need to treat all mothers as criminals just because some few have
broken the law.

Then why treat all NCP fathers as if they are criminals just because
some few have broken the law?


I almost posted the same question.

It's a good question.

- Ron ^*^

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:dnuJg.566$6E5.347@trndny05...

"Hyerdahl" wrote

teachrmama wrote:
.................................

The state I live in now assigns no arrearages, but begins cs at proof
of
paternity. Even when my husband was assessed cs several years ago
upon
finding that he had an almost-13-year-old daughter, they could legally
only
go back 2 years with the arrearages. Does it bother you that women
are
losing the ability to use men as savings accounts while raising their
children alone?

When did you stop beating your wife? :-) Name the state law hon.
I'll read it. Until then you're just a poofter.
==
Yikes, TM! She/he doesn't even know about CS guidelines and stuff! Gonna
haveta put him/her in pre-pre law!

It's kinda like my kindergartners--they think if they can't see you, you
can't see them. "If I don't know the law exists, then I get to keep
believing it my way." chuckle

Better known as argumentum ad ignorantiam.

"pandora" wrote in message
news:8tOdnZBn5p0hSmrZnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:WcOJg.7709$Mz3.7668@fed1read07...

"pandora" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:%JsJg.7690$Mz3.6203@fed1read07...


It was donated; hence the term "sperm donor"? What the recipient
chooses
to
do with such gift has ZERO to do with the donor.
But you already knew that.................. I think.

Oh my! Thanks for the wonderful laugh.

Marg

Once the sperm is inside the uterus, who owns it?

No one owns it. It was left lying around..

Nonsense! It belongs to someone...... WHO?


Marg

"Gini" wrote in message
news:dlSJg.3055$wI5.1453@trndny04...

"Hyerdahl" wrote
.........................

No. It's your point ...you prove it or you simply back down. That's
the way this game is played. In the end there is no statute of
limitations for support.
==
That is corrrect. But that is an entirely different matter than filing for
"back support."
You do know that don't you dear?

Or having a judge create a CS arrearage for any number of reasons.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:dlSJg.3055$wI5.1453@trndny04...

"Hyerdahl" wrote
.........................

No. It's your point ...you prove it or you simply back down. That's
the way this game is played. In the end there is no statute of
limitations for support.
==
That is corrrect. But that is an entirely different matter than filing
for
"back support."
You do know that don't you dear?

Or having a judge create a CS arrearage for any number of reasons.

Doesn't that come under the heading for "fraud"?

When a judge (or anyone else for that matter) creates a debt out of nothing
(where no debt existed before) and says "pay it or else", that constitutes a
crime. At least, last I knew it did..

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...
(edit)


You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed
before
the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he
WAS
a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume
that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of
abuse or
neglect.

The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father,
Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of
children.
In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and
the
father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court
will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring
FOR
that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the
same
page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no
legal obligation to let you know you're a father. Secondly, if she
pursues child support for her child, she can go to court to get
support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child. If the newly
named father can show why the child's interests would be better
served
a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him.

Of course! The burden ALWAYS rests with the father. But remember, no
matter
how hard you try, you can NOT make the horse drink......

Not so, Chris....here a mother is also responsible for identifying
herself as the mother; the difference is that that mother does so, by
giving birth. The hospital has a ready record of her delivery, and can
easily identify her as the mother. A father is either named on the
BC as the father, or must prove he is the father. After all, the
mother has proven herself as the mother, no?

There are flaws in the public money and CS system that you are ignoring.
Here are a few that have nothing to do with giving birth:

1. A woman can buy a fraudulent birth certificate for a non-existent
child
and use it to get money.

So can a man. My ex-husband did so when he worked as part of the cleaning
team during the night shirt in Lawton, OK. He also "optained" a marriage
certificate. Hmmm... I wonder what he was up to.

2. The system does not require a mother to physically produce the child
to
secure money or benefits.

She is required to provide a SSN, which required "proof" of birth (see
above).

3. Fathers named on birth certificates are not always the biological
father
of the child.

In an indirect way many women of step-children are held responsible for
their step-children. No different then me, currently.

4. Mothers can hide the fact a child is deceased to continue getting CS
money.

I guess a man can hide the fact that his wife is actually a decaying corpse
in the next room while collecting social security...

5. Mothers can collect money for children they give to another person to
raise.


Oh my... my 2b-ex received child support money from his ex for a child he
did not have in his care - period. Oh hell... he received money for his 2
children during the summer of 2004, but did not spend even 1 penney on them
during that time. I supported them 100%. Oh heck - I wish I would have
listened to Mel... where is he now?

Tracy

"Gini" wrote in message
newsruJg.3116$dj4.2188@trndny08...

"teachrmama" wrote

"Chris" wrote
.............................

Apparently, this woman has not spent time observing the circus better
known
as "family court". I think a field trip would be in line.

Yeah! She could wear her cheerleader outfit.
==
And sit in the back of the bus.

I don't know what you all are talking about but... here in Oregon you can
wear a too small of a "cheerleader" outfit and blaim someone else for your
behavior and get away with it.