Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"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

"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.

It does amaze me that anyone should think it is ok to not tell a man he is a
father, then expect him to pay hears, even decades of "child support" plus
penalties and interest, and justify it by saying that "men should keep track
of their sprem better." I wonder if she hears voices......

Hyerdahl wrote:

teachrmama wrote:

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

teachrmama wrote:

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
groups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oglegroups.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.

Still waiting for your response to my post, Hyerdahl. Too many facts
for you?

- Ron ^*^

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?

- Ron ^*^

teachrmama wrote:

"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.


It does amaze me that anyone should think it is ok to not tell a man he is a
father, then expect him to pay hears, even decades of "child support" plus
penalties and interest, and justify it by saying that "men should keep track
of their sprem better." I wonder if she hears voices......

Well it is true that men have a psychic connection to each and every one
of their sperm cells, and know intuitively when one of them has merged
with an egg to create a zygote. I mean it's a proven fact.

- Ron ^*^

teachrmama wrote:

"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!!

She'll just drop the thread once the facts don't bear her out, and then
begin spewing somewhere else.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:xjzJg.4516$_q4.554@dukeread09...


teachrmama wrote:

"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.


It does amaze me that anyone should think it is ok to not tell a man he
is a father, then expect him to pay hears, even decades of "child
support" plus penalties and interest, and justify it by saying that "men
should keep track of their sprem better." I wonder if she hears
voices......

Well it is true that men have a psychic connection to each and every one
of their sperm cells, and know intuitively when one of them has merged
with an egg to create a zygote. I mean it's a proven fact.

Oh, Ron, please do post the research!! I would sooooooooo love to read it!!
chuckle

"Terri" wrote in message
. theremailer.net...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, "Chris" wrote:

Then your claim that judges like to maintain what the couple themselves
put
into action is false. Consider: If a father "put into action" being with
his
child 24/7 prior to the legal proceeding then judges would support such
arrangement, according to YOUR claim. But they don't!

Hi--

In actuality this is generally true. Family law judges will usually stick
with what's already in place so as to not disrupt a child. If a child is
living with a particular parent, be it mother or father, the court will
seek to not make a radical change.

Terri
http://terrimadison.blogspot.com


Hmmmmmm.........ok....so if there are 2 working parents who spend equal
amounts of time with the child and take turns staying home when the child is
ill, then why do judges almost always award the mother physical custody and
the father visitation, rather than awarding shared custody?

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


(edit)

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.

No one here can substantiate your person experience ....mama. That's
why laws are 'eversomuch' more reliable than mere personal
experiences.

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

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.

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?

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.

If there is some problem with mother identification, DNA testing is
always available.