Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama 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.

How about a moral obligation, Hy? Don't you think a child deserves
both
a
mother and a father? Don't you think a man deserves to know he is a
father?

I think moral choices are generally left up to individuals and their
diety of choice, mama. Don't you find that to be the case? In some
cases, a moral choice might be made to alert a prospective father;
and
it other cases, not so much. It's relative.

Secondly, if she pursues child support for her child,

How far back do you think child support should be awarded, Hy? A
year? 2
years? Back to the birth of the child? What if the mother doesn't
name
the
father until the child is 17? Should the father owe 17 years of back
support?

I have no problem with courts awarding support for the life of the
child regardless of when the mother chooses to identify the child.
After all, the child does not stop eating or needing clothing and
shelter until he is identified, and someone has to pay for all that.

Should his current family be financially devastated at the whim of
a woman who was tooo selfish and self centered to even tell the man
he
had a
child?

We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice, and
cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example, what
if
the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets out, he
wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru that
every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing, shelter,
education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do you
think that someone should be the mother only?

Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she alone
bears
*all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent also, then the
father
would bear part of the costs. But until the father is identified by the
mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel.

I don't agree.

Care to explain why it should be otherwise?

But that's ok...we need not agree. The courts will
decide.

How, pray tell, is that in the best interests of the child? Seems
to me it is only in the best interests of the woman who has made sure
that both the child and the man's money belong only to her.

Again, it's not a woman's job to alert a man as to the status of his
sperm. A bright man would make sure his sperm is only used in a way
that satisfies his legal needs. His children shouldn't have to pay
for
his negligence, and the mother shouldn't have to support the child
alone.

If the mother chooses to be the child's only paernt, then, yes, she
*should*
support the child alone. If she wanted the other parent involved, she
should have let him know he was a parent.

Again I don't agree with you and the courts also do not.


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.

Do you really think it is in the best interests of a child to be
raised
by a mother who is so selfish that she robbed her own child of its
father?

I think moral issues are best left to individuals and their dieties.
Some children do better to know their other parent; others, not so
much.

Until the mother can return to the father all the years of the child's
life
that she kept from him, he should not have to return to her a plugged
nickel
of what she clains to have spent on the child.


And you are entitled to your opinion on that, and so are judges. :-)


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. Courts don't
assume; they simply look at existing facts.

Some of the existing facts--obviously not all.

Like what?

Like the fact that he is a hardworking, taxpaying citizen who is an
excellent father to his other children. Like the fact that he was
prevented
by the mother from developing a relationship with his child, thus
robbing
the child of a father's love. None of those things are considered.

Nor should they be. After all, children still need to be supported,
whether or not you had the presence of mind to know what happened to
your own sperm.

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.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

snip

We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice,
and
cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example,
what
if
the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets
out,
he
wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru
that
every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing,
shelter,
education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do
you
think that someone should be the mother only?

Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she
alone
bears *all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent
also,
then the
father would bear part of the costs. But until the father is
identified by the
mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel.

I don't agree. But that's ok...we need not agree. The courts
will
decide.

The courts in many states now have laws on the books limiting
arrearage
awards to only a short time before the finding of paternity. Some
states
even say that child support begins the day paternity is established.
So
you're right. The courts will decide.

No courts that I know of have such laws. So if you can prove up your
assertions be my guest.

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.

Well, Dearie, I was there. I KNOW he was only assigned 2 years
arrearages.
I will see if I can find the law for you--but you can't trump my
experience
with you rather biased opinion no matter how much you may want to.

Actually, you need not cite any law. All court rulings are considered law,
"case" law. Thus, if this is how the judge ruled in your case, then it is
law.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:%JsJg.7689$Mz3.1756@fed1read07...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"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.
2. The system does not require a mother to physically produce the
child
to
secure money or benefits.
3. Fathers named on birth certificates are not always the biological
father
of the child.
4. Mothers can hide the fact a child is deceased to continue getting
CS
money.
5. Mothers can collect money for children they give to another
person
to
raise.

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. If that proof was required the fraudulent
activities I listed above would not ever occur. Your assumption mothers
always tell the truth is widely held, but never seems to play out in
family
law matters.

In reality, mothers statements are accepted as factual and no proof is
necessary to back up their claims. On the flip side fathers are expected
to
submit to DNA testing, disclose details of their financial situations,
and
produce documentation for anything they claim.

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.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

snip

We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice,
and
cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example,
what
if
the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets
out,
he
wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru
that
every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing, shelter,
education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do
you
think that someone should be the mother only?

Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she
alone
bears *all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent
also,
then the
father would bear part of the costs. But until the father is
identified by the
mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel.

I don't agree. But that's ok...we need not agree. The courts will
decide.

The courts in many states now have laws on the books limiting
arrearage
awards to only a short time before the finding of paternity. Some
states
even say that child support begins the day paternity is established.
So
you're right. The courts will decide.

No courts that I know of have such laws. So if you can prove up your
assertions be my guest.

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.

Federal law sets timeframes for this and other CS related actions in Title
42 Chapter 7 Subchapter IV Part D Section 652(h). The state law for the
state where the CS order in question is located in Oregon Revised Statutes
416.419 Tribunals for establishment of paternity or for child support order
and ORS 416.422 Past support.

"teachrmama" wrote

"Hyerdahl" wrote

teachrmama wrote:


Fortunately, the courts are disagreeing with you more and more, Hy. =c)


In that case you need to present caselaw that shows all that. Where's
your cite?

Where is yours? Check it out--and prove it your way.
==
Yeah, legal research is what..$200 an hour?

"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!

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

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

When did you stop beating your wife? :-) Name the state law hon.
I'll read it. Until then you're just a poofter.

Federal law sets timeframes for this and other CS related actions in Title
42 Chapter 7 Subchapter IV Part D Section 652(h). The state law for the
state where the CS order in question is located in Oregon Revised Statutes
416.419 Tribunals for establishment of paternity or for child support
order
and ORS 416.422 Past support.
==
Damn, Bob--You always ruin the fun.

"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.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

snip

We know nothing at all about each woman who makes the choice,
and
cannot really attribute to her a selfish motive. For example,
what
if
the child's father is in jail for child rape, and when he gets
out,
he
wins the lottery? Each situation is different, but all thru
that
every child needs support...in terms of food, clothing,
shelter,
education, healthcare, etc. Someone has to pay for that, so do
you
think that someone should be the mother only?

Absolutely, Hy. If she *chooses* to be a single mother, then she
alone
bears *all* costs. If she wanted the father to be a parent
also,
then the
father would bear part of the costs. But until the father is
identified by the
mother, he should not owe so much as a nickel.

I don't agree. But that's ok...we need not agree. The courts
will
decide.

The courts in many states now have laws on the books limiting
arrearage
awards to only a short time before the finding of paternity. Some
states
even say that child support begins the day paternity is established.
So
you're right. The courts will decide.

No courts that I know of have such laws. So if you can prove up your
assertions be my guest.

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.

Federal law sets timeframes for this and other CS related actions in Title
42 Chapter 7 Subchapter IV Part D Section 652(h). The state law for the
state where the CS order in question is located in Oregon Revised Statutes
416.419 Tribunals for establishment of paternity or for child support
order
and ORS 416.422 Past support.

Thanks, Bob. I was hoping you would pop in here. I'm up to my eyeballs in
beginning-of-school stuff and didn't know when I could look for what you
have so kindly posted.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:IjuJg.2791$aQ4.1749@trndny06...

"teachrmama" wrote

"Hyerdahl" wrote

teachrmama wrote:


Fortunately, the courts are disagreeing with you more and more, Hy. =c)


In that case you need to present caselaw that shows all that. Where's
your cite?

Where is yours? Check it out--and prove it your way.
==
Yeah, legal research is what..$200 an hour?

I can hardly wait to read her results!!