A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Voluntary" proof of paternity form?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 9th 05, 09:10 PM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...


I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the
only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom
also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name
on the birth certificate


Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because the
child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses. Therefore,
there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's quite
obvious she is the mother.

It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child
is considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is.


Oh, I just recognized the handle. That explains a lot.

Moon, you aren't paying attention. I'm not upset that Mom doesn't have to
claim maternity. Obviously that would be silly.

Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary"
affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the
ONLY one financially responsible for the child.



As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the
child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception.


I just asked my GF if she ever had to sign a document claming that she
agreed to be financially responsible for the child (without mention of
anyone else) in order to get her name on our son's birth certificate.
She told me that she did not. Do you get it yet?

That you can play ring-around-the-legal-rosie and formulate some
hypothesis of how she is financially responsible for our son is
irrelevant and untrue. We all know she could drop him off at the local
fire station and never have to pay one further red cent towards his
upkeep. And THAT is the law, in actuality.


I suppose that might seem paranoid to you -- and I would have thought so,
too, before I had my dealings with CSE and the Family Court System. Their
manner of dealing with fathers breeds paranoia. That's a consequence of
their attitudes and actions that we will ALL have to deal with until some
changes are made.



Then again, perhaps the paranoia is all yours. I've had dealings with CSE
and the Family court system as well - and watched while my ex ignored court
orders on any number of topics, without so much as a slap on the wrist -
he's stopped paying child support and never put in jail, nor even threatened
with it.


Moon, the list of my abuses at the hands of CSE is long enough to begin
looking unbelievable. I've never missed a payment, and yet I have been
jailed... Told that a judge would order 90% of the standard award for a
child I have exactly as many hours of the week that his mother does...
Threatened with severe punitive actions (loss of license, passport, and
license to teach) if I did not pay the state close to $500 in money that
I never owed and that to this day no one at CSE has ever been able to
explain how or why I owed... Had a $100 per month "obligation" to CSE
(in addition to the amount agreed on between my ex and myself, to be
paid directly to my ex) tacked on by CSE's lawyer to a judge's decree
that the judge never ordered... All of this and more.

But Moon, your previous discussions in this forum reveal your true
colors, and I realize going into this with you that you have made up
your mind and have no interest in changing it. Enjoy.


So........... all of this Chicken Little "the sky is falling" ain't
necessarily so.


If chicken little had had large chunks of the firmament plummeting down
to smack him in his head, he'd have had a case no matter who stood on
the sidelines and heckled him.

- Ron ^*^

  #22  
Old June 9th 05, 10:50 PM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:Sm1qe.28764$iU.2037@lakeread05...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...


I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is
the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if
Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get
her name on the birth certificate


Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because
the child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses.
Therefore, there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's
quite obvious she is the mother.

It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child
is considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is.

Oh, I just recognized the handle. That explains a lot.

Moon, you aren't paying attention. I'm not upset that Mom doesn't have
to claim maternity. Obviously that would be silly.

Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary"
affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the
ONLY one financially responsible for the child.



As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the
child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception.


I just asked my GF if she ever had to sign a document claming that she
agreed to be financially responsible for the child (without mention of
anyone else) in order to get her name on our son's birth certificate. She
told me that she did not. Do you get it yet?


She signed the birth certirficate. Get it yet?


That you can play ring-around-the-legal-rosie and formulate some
hypothesis of how she is financially responsible for our son is irrelevant
and untrue. We all know she could drop him off at the local fire station
and never have to pay one further red cent towards his upkeep. And THAT
is the law, in actuality.


Yet she still signed that birth certificate, didn't she.



I suppose that might seem paranoid to you -- and I would have thought so,
too, before I had my dealings with CSE and the Family Court System. Their
manner of dealing with fathers breeds paranoia. That's a consequence of
their attitudes and actions that we will ALL have to deal with until some
changes are made.



Then again, perhaps the paranoia is all yours. I've had dealings with
CSE and the Family court system as well - and watched while my ex ignored
court orders on any number of topics, without so much as a slap on the
wrist - he's stopped paying child support and never put in jail, nor even
threatened with it.


Moon, the list of my abuses at the hands of CSE is long enough to begin
looking unbelievable. I've never missed a payment, and yet I have been
jailed... Told that a judge would order 90% of the standard award for a
child I have exactly as many hours of the week that his mother does...
Threatened with severe punitive actions (loss of license, passport, and
license to teach) if I did not pay the state close to $500 in money that I
never owed and that to this day no one at CSE has ever been able to
explain how or why I owed... Had a $100 per month "obligation" to CSE (in
addition to the amount agreed on between my ex and myself, to be paid
directly to my ex) tacked on by CSE's lawyer to a judge's decree that the
judge never ordered... All of this and more.

But Moon, your previous discussions in this forum reveal your true colors,
and I realize going into this with you that you have made up your mind and
have no interest in changing it. Enjoy.


Raising my kids? I do enjoy it, thanks!



So........... all of this Chicken Little "the sky is falling" ain't
necessarily so.


If chicken little had had large chunks of the firmament plummeting down to
smack him in his head, he'd have had a case no matter who stood on the
sidelines and heckled him.

- Ron ^*^



  #23  
Old June 9th 05, 11:44 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:tpOpe.28711$iU.23522@lakeread05...


Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...

I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the
only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom
also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her
name on the birth certificate -- a document that specifically required
ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.



You are overlooking one significant fact. The mother signed the child's
birth certificate at the hospital and her doctor signed it too as a

witness
to the birth. And by operation of state law as the documented parent of

the
child she has financial responsibility for the child, so no additional
declaration by her is necessary.


Then have the declaration of paternity reflect that, and not imply that
the father and the father alone is responsible for the child's financial
well-being. Come on -- this isn't rocket science, people.


Take a look at RI Statute 11-9-5 Cruelty or Neglect of Children. The
statute includes a long list of offenses against children. One of the
offenses is for the person with custody or control of a child to be charged
with failure to "pay the reasonable charges for support of the child." If
that is not a way of implying the need for financial responsibility from an
unmarried mother with custody for the well being of her child I'd sure don't
know what else it could mean.


  #24  
Old June 10th 05, 12:41 AM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:Sm1qe.28764$iU.2037@lakeread05...


Moon Shyne wrote:


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05...


Moon Shyne wrote:


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...



I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is
the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if
Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get
her name on the birth certificate


Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because
the child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses.
Therefore, there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's
quite obvious she is the mother.

It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child
is considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is.

Oh, I just recognized the handle. That explains a lot.

Moon, you aren't paying attention. I'm not upset that Mom doesn't have
to claim maternity. Obviously that would be silly.

Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary"
affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the
ONLY one financially responsible for the child.


As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the
child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception.


I just asked my GF if she ever had to sign a document claming that she
agreed to be financially responsible for the child (without mention of
anyone else) in order to get her name on our son's birth certificate. She
told me that she did not. Do you get it yet?



She signed the birth certirficate. Get it yet?


Maybe birth certificates in your state specifically mention maternal
responsibility for the financial well-being of the child. Here, they do
not.


That you can play ring-around-the-legal-rosie and formulate some
hypothesis of how she is financially responsible for our son is irrelevant
and untrue. We all know she could drop him off at the local fire station
and never have to pay one further red cent towards his upkeep. And THAT
is the law, in actuality.



Yet she still signed that birth certificate, didn't she.


Moon, I am not going to be sucked into an argument with you. I would
also gladly sign the birth certificate, and by that I mean the same
document she signed. However I am not allowed to sign it directly. I
am required to first sign another document that implies that I am the
only person responsible for my son's financial upkeep.

This is not right. That you are too thick-headed to see that it is not
right, and WHY it is not right, does not make it right.


But Moon, your previous discussions in this forum reveal your true colors,
and I realize going into this with you that you have made up your mind and
have no interest in changing it. Enjoy.



Raising my kids? I do enjoy it, thanks!


Irrelevant to the matter at hand, Moon. It's great, don't get me wrong,
but irrelevant to the matter at hand.

- Ron ^*^

  #25  
Old June 10th 05, 12:56 AM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:tpOpe.28711$iU.23522@lakeread05...


Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...


I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the
only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom
also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her
name on the birth certificate -- a document that specifically required
ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


You are overlooking one significant fact. The mother signed the child's
birth certificate at the hospital and her doctor signed it too as a


witness

to the birth. And by operation of state law as the documented parent of


the

child she has financial responsibility for the child, so no additional
declaration by her is necessary.


Then have the declaration of paternity reflect that, and not imply that
the father and the father alone is responsible for the child's financial
well-being. Come on -- this isn't rocket science, people.



Take a look at RI Statute 11-9-5 Cruelty or Neglect of Children. The
statute includes a long list of offenses against children. One of the
offenses is for the person with custody or control of a child to be charged
with failure to "pay the reasonable charges for support of the child." If
that is not a way of implying the need for financial responsibility from an
unmarried mother with custody for the well being of her child I'd sure don't
know what else it could mean.


Pay the reasonable charges for support of the child out of whose pocket?

Accepting financial responsibility and being required to pay the
reasonable charges for the support of the child are two very different
things when some are allowed to pay with money they never really earned.
Very little "responsibility" is required to pick someone else's pocket
and then pay your bills with the swag.

"Be responsible", we men are told over and over. And there, being
"responsible" means earning your own money and paying your own way, as
well as for the way of your minor kids. Which is fine -- I agree with
that definition of responsibility. What I do not agree with is having
two separate definitions of responsibility for two different classes of
people -- the CPs and the NCPs (read: women and men).

What I am hearing over and over is, "Signing this document is not a big
deal". But if it were not such a big deal, why would the state be so
insistent on my signing the document? If signing the birth certificate
is tantamount to agreeing to accept financial responsibility of the
child, then why force me to sign another document accepting financial
responsibility in order to get my name on the birth certificate? Why
not just let me sign the birth certificate and then let the same legal
route revealing responsibility for the mother reveal responsibility for me?

It's like forcing Black people to sign a document agreeing that they
won't steal things from the mall before they can be allowed in, and then
saying that it is OK because White people are also not allowed to steal
things from the mall. I'm sorry, it just isn't right.

Let me sign the birth certificate, and bypass the other sexist nonsense.
Or come clean and require the mother to sign another "extra" document
agreeing to accept financial responsibility.

And for God's sake, don't call a document "voluntary" if failing to sign
it deprives you of legal rights to your child. That's just wrong. It
sets a very frightening precedent.

- Ron ^*^

  #26  
Old June 10th 05, 05:36 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Werebat" wrote in message
newsH4qe.28786$iU.25102@lakeread05...
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...



Pay the reasonable charges for support of the child out of whose pocket?


Doesn't matter as long as the child gets their reasonable needs met. It
could be the mother's income, money from relatives, welfare benefits, a
husband's income, child support received, or support from someone she lives
with.


What I am hearing over and over is, "Signing this document is not a big
deal". But if it were not such a big deal, why would the state be so
insistent on my signing the document?


One of the performance factors the federal government has in place to drive
the amount of federal bonus money paid to state CS systems is based on how
close the state comes to their "paternity establishment" goals. States
encourage unmarried fathers to sign the paternity acknowledgement
immediately after the child is born while they are caught up in the
emotional aspect of child birth.

States also know unmarried mothers will rarely disclose any doubts about
paternity options in front of an unmarried father who supports her during
child birth. That is why state laws allow the father to seek DNA testing,
and allow for reversals to deny the paternity acknoledgement within a
stipulated timeframe after the birth.

If signing the birth certificate
is tantamount to agreeing to accept financial responsibility of the
child, then why force me to sign another document accepting financial
responsibility in order to get my name on the birth certificate?


Most states do not allow a father to sign the birth certificate. Posters
have reported here some states allow father's to sign the birth certificate.
I have children born in two different states and neither state allowed me,
as a married father, to sign anything. My name is on the children's birth
certificates because my ex-spouse certified I was "the child's father to the
best of my (her) knowledge."

Why
not just let me sign the birth certificate and then let the same legal
route revealing responsibility for the mother reveal responsibility for

me?

You'll have to take your suggestions up with congress and your state
legislature. Right now the laws in place establish parental rights and
financial responsibility for the mother when her child is born. Married
fathers get the rights and responsibility by default. Unmarried fathers
have to sign the paternity acknowledgement form to secure their rights and
responsibility.




  #27  
Old June 10th 05, 08:45 PM
Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05...


Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...


Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary"
affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the
ONLY one financially responsible for the child.


As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the
child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception.



I believe it's called paranoia based on past experiences. Although some
child-support awards are high, it doesn't mean that mothers are not
financially responsible for their children.

Ron - I agree with Bob. It's a matter if you wish your name to be on your
child's birth certificate or not. Signing the document, or not signing it,
won't stop the mother from going after you for child-support at any time in
the future. I believe most people in this group can testify that promises
can be broken, and regardless of what the mother said - you never know what
she may do any time in the future.


Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/


  #28  
Old June 10th 05, 09:11 PM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Tracy wrote:

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...


Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary"
affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the
ONLY one financially responsible for the child.


As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the
child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception.




I believe it's called paranoia based on past experiences. Although some
child-support awards are high, it doesn't mean that mothers are not
financially responsible for their children.


The wording on the document (I am quoting from memory here because their
cloak-and-dagger rules wouldn't let me take a blank copy home with me)
went something like this: "I agree to assume responsibility for the
financial expenses of the child."

Note that it doesn't say partial responsibility, or my share of the
responsibility, or responsibility for my portion of the financial
expenses of the child. The implication is that I am the only one
financially responsible for the child.

You are right in that there is some amount of paranoia from past
experiences. I am the type to simply sign off on the usual contract
without giving it more than a cursory read. That comes from a basic
trust in our human systems that they aren't going to go off and do
something unreasonable because they "gotcha" on a technicality.

A system gets one chance there. When it screws you over on a
technicality, it's pretty easy for it to win -- but you never, ever,
ever trust them again, not any further than you can toss them. This
document was written by lawyers working for CSE, and I have no interest
in signing anything that passed through their slippery tentacles unless
I have read it with a very critical eye and am satisfied with every jot
and tittle of the document.

I am not satisfied with this document. What I am being told is that I
will have no legal recognition as a parent unless I sign it. This is
unjust. No amount of hemming and hawing is going to make it just. The
excuse that "you'll have to fight city hall to change it, so you might
as well give in" is not acceptable.


Ron - I agree with Bob. It's a matter if you wish your name to be on your
child's birth certificate or not. Signing the document, or not signing it,
won't stop the mother from going after you for child-support at any time in
the future. I believe most people in this group can testify that promises
can be broken, and regardless of what the mother said - you never know what
she may do any time in the future.


I agree that it is a minor quibble in the grand scheme of things, and
that if she were to go off the deep end and get on Welfare I'd be
screwed whether or not I signed the document. However, I feel...
unclean... participating in such a blatantly sexist policy.

It is just like my analogy about Blacks being forced to sign a document
agreeing not to shoplift before being allowed into the mall, and the
mall using the excuse that it is a fair practice because Whites will be
prosecuted for shoplifting if they get caught, too. Can you imagine the
outrage if this were to happen? Can you imagine ANYONE standing up and
telling angered Black people that they should just give in and sign the
document, because it "wasn't a big deal" and "didn't really change
anything"?

I think that Black people, and any other group, would be completely
justified in feeling outrage at being treated in such a manner. And
this is only for being allowed to shop in the mall! Here, we are
talking about basic human rights, like being legally recognized as
parent of your own child.

- Ron ^*^

  #29  
Old June 10th 05, 09:22 PM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
newsH4qe.28786$iU.25102@lakeread05...

news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...



Pay the reasonable charges for support of the child out of whose pocket?



Doesn't matter as long as the child gets their reasonable needs met. It
could be the mother's income, money from relatives, welfare benefits, a
husband's income, child support received, or support from someone she lives
with.



What I am hearing over and over is, "Signing this document is not a big
deal". But if it were not such a big deal, why would the state be so
insistent on my signing the document?



One of the performance factors the federal government has in place to drive
the amount of federal bonus money paid to state CS systems is based on how
close the state comes to their "paternity establishment" goals. States
encourage unmarried fathers to sign the paternity acknowledgement
immediately after the child is born while they are caught up in the
emotional aspect of child birth.

States also know unmarried mothers will rarely disclose any doubts about
paternity options in front of an unmarried father who supports her during
child birth. That is why state laws allow the father to seek DNA testing,
and allow for reversals to deny the paternity acknoledgement within a
stipulated timeframe after the birth.

If signing the birth certificate

is tantamount to agreeing to accept financial responsibility of the
child, then why force me to sign another document accepting financial
responsibility in order to get my name on the birth certificate?



Most states do not allow a father to sign the birth certificate.


That is not a valid argument for the practice. "Most states permit the
enslavement of Blacks", etc.


Posters
have reported here some states allow father's to sign the birth certificate.
I have children born in two different states and neither state allowed me,
as a married father, to sign anything. My name is on the children's birth
certificates because my ex-spouse certified I was "the child's father to the
best of my (her) knowledge."

Why

not just let me sign the birth certificate and then let the same legal
route revealing responsibility for the mother reveal responsibility for


me?

You'll have to take your suggestions up with congress and your state
legislature. Right now the laws in place establish parental rights and
financial responsibility for the mother when her child is born. Married
fathers get the rights and responsibility by default. Unmarried fathers
have to sign the paternity acknowledgement form to secure their rights and
responsibility.


By treating me differently than they treat the mother -- by forcing me
to sign a special document in addition to the birth certificate in order
to get the same things the mother gets for merely signing the birth
certificate -- they are treating my class (fathers) differently from her
class (mothers). This is illegal. You are already backing down by
falling back to the defense that "you'll have to take it up with
congress". This is what people do when they know they are wrong. They
step aside and let the marshmallow defense of bureaucracy handle the
situation, because they have run out of viable arguments.

In essence, you are saying that I am right, but that that fact won't do
me any good because it would be so difficult to make a change. This is
a bogus argument for the same reason it is a bogus argument for keeping
any societal evil in place.

I still have no problem with signing the document, if they would only
alter the wording to make it equitable. As it stands, leaving in
objectionable clauses and then telling me that I cannot be legally
recognized as the father unless I sign is a frightening abuse of power
on the part of the State. Would they be justified in telling me that
unless I signed a document agreeing to raise my child in a Christian
church, I would not have any legal rights or recognition as a parent? I
think not, but by their logic, that would be just A-OK.

- Ron ^*^

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CA Court Overturns Paternity Fraud- Finally Andre Lieven Child Support 3 July 21st 04 01:54 PM
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court Wizardlaw Child Support 12 June 4th 04 02:19 AM
Mother's Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court Case TrashBBRT Child Support 8 May 21st 04 05:52 PM
Sample US Supreme Court Petition Wizardlaw Child Support 28 January 21st 04 07:23 PM
Sample Supreme Court Petition Wizardlaw Child Support 0 January 16th 04 04:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.