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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the fraud). The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too. I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can be proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is culpable as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1) profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud. Phil #3 as well as pain and suffering with, and this is an important factor, the backing of state statute that makes producing a child through cuckolding and hiding the fact from the husband. This in addition to neonatal paternity testing, which would eliminate much of the problem early on. The problem is that law and logic rarely collide. Laws for the past 60-100 years are primarily based on emotion, resulting in legal problems such as this which should not be a problem. Phil #3 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"teachrmama" 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] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. The whole idea is so disgusting!! As if a child is owed money from a man--any man--and to not receive the money from whatever man mom points to is child abuse! Where do these idiot politicians get their ideas? You've got to wonder if the lot of them have children by "outside interests" where other men are paying what they, themselves, should be paying. The above is a classic response from one who does not understand the relationship between rights and responsibilities. What? You are NUTS, Chris! I said I think it is ridiculous that the law says that a child is owed money by a man--any man--whether he is the father or not. I, myself, do not believe that--but that is what the law says, Chris. Why do you think non-bio men are forced to keep paying even when it is proved that they are not the fathers? I think Chris may have misunderstood your statement. I know I did the FIRST time I read it. After re-reading I understood what you were saying but the first time it sounded like you supported the idea that "any man..." should be held liable but knowing you better than that, I re-read and understood. I'll be the first to admit that I don't always understand what others clearly say. When I misunderstand what is spoken out loud, I can fall back on the fact that I'm nearly deaf but in reading, I don't have an excuse. Phil #3 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the fraud). The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too. I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can be proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is culpable as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1) profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud. I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all know that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it is a win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held responsible for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible for their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things are. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" 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] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. The whole idea is so disgusting!! As if a child is owed money from a man--any man--and to not receive the money from whatever man mom points to is child abuse! Where do these idiot politicians get their ideas? You've got to wonder if the lot of them have children by "outside interests" where other men are paying what they, themselves, should be paying. The above is a classic response from one who does not understand the relationship between rights and responsibilities. What? You are NUTS, Chris! I said I think it is ridiculous that the law says that a child is owed money by a man--any man--whether he is the father or not. You also said "...what they, themselves, should be paying." I, myself, do not believe that--but that is what the law says, Chris. Why do you think non-bio men are forced to keep paying even when it is proved that they are not the fathers? Because the BIG GUNS say so? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "Bob Whiteside" 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] . . "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. Responsibility exists ONLY where one has a choice. Explain such choice regarding a father and his biological children. A biological father who knows another man is paying CS for the child he fathered has the choice to come forward, acknolwedge his paternity, and take over the CS payments. Currently, the CS laws allow the bio-dad to remain anonymous and dodge any personal responsibility for his role in creating a child. I find that to be absurd. And just what, exactly, is his "role"? You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the fraud). The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too. I found it very telling the politician referred to the adultery/out-of-wedlock pregnancies as "conduct" rather than calling it "misconduct." His words were intended to protect women from any personal responsibility. And, of course, making any argument within the context of it being "for the children" is a dodge. When I hear those words I just cringe. But isn't payment of "child support", which you condone, "for the children"? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the fraud). The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too. I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can be proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is culpable as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1) profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud. How does the mother know which one is the father absent any biological testing? Phil #3 as well as pain and suffering with, and this is an important factor, the backing of state statute that makes producing a child through cuckolding and hiding the fact from the husband. This in addition to neonatal paternity testing, which would eliminate much of the problem early on. The problem is that law and logic rarely collide. Laws for the past 60-100 years are primarily based on emotion, resulting in legal problems such as this which should not be a problem. Phil #3 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the fraud). The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too. I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can be proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is culpable as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1) profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud. I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all know that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it is a win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held responsible for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible for their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things are. Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the fraud). The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too. I found it very telling the politician referred to the adultery/out-of-wedlock pregnancies as "conduct" rather than calling it "misconduct." His words were intended to protect women from any personal responsibility. And, of course, making any argument within the context of it being "for the children" is a dodge. When I hear those words I just cringe. But isn't payment of "child support", which you condone, "for the children"? No. If CS was for the children there would be tracking of both parent's required contribution and a full accounting of how it was spent. And children would be the judgment creditors for the money. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "Bob Whiteside" 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] . . "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. Responsibility exists ONLY where one has a choice. Explain such choice regarding a father and his biological children. A biological father who knows another man is paying CS for the child he fathered has the choice to come forward, acknolwedge his paternity, and take over the CS payments. Currently, the CS laws allow the bio-dad to remain anonymous and dodge any personal responsibility for his role in creating a child. I find that to be absurd. And just what, exactly, is his "role"? The same role your bio-dad played in creating you. Ask your mother if you need more details. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FL: Child-support bill clears panel | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | April 15th 06 10:49 PM |
CO: Bill Would Take Casino Winnings To Pay Child Support | Dusty | Child Support | 7 | April 6th 06 05:53 AM |
SC: Man ordered to pay 28-year-old child support bill or go to jail | Dusty | Child Support | 22 | January 26th 06 07:44 PM |
FL: Governor Signs Child Support, Paternity Bill | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | May 24th 05 02:17 AM |
LA: Bill would criminalize non-payment of child support | Dusty | Child Support | 28 | June 23rd 04 04:11 AM |