The last paragraph says it all and its from a NOW spokesperson... Daaa.. This is what pro-lifers have been saying since the beginning.. That the child has rights too even in the womb before birth...
I will be very interested to see where this goes...
I'm a little confused, Jade. I fail to see what this has to do with either 'forced' fatherhood or what possible connection there is to 'pro-lifers'.
quote: Blaise said:
I don't think men should be forced to pay child support.
It's very simple: If they don't want child-support.....they should make sure they don't get anyone pregnant.
Really is the bottom line. The man has the ulitmate control in this situation. He can, at anytime prior to pregnancy, stop it from happening. After it happens, there is no right to complain about the consequneces. Obviously there are situations involving vindictive or selfish/greedy mothers taking advantage of the father, but that is a separate issue.
quote:Obviously there are situations involving vindictive or selfish/greedy mothers taking advantage of the father, but that is a separate issue.
Where is this coming from?...And the men are totally innocent ..
Remember if its willing it takes two to tango...and if a pregnancy emerges its both of their responsibilites for prenatal expenses as well as after birth till 18 years of expenses. The man cannot force the woman to get an aboriton and he cannot forcer her to have the baby either... Where is the father's rights other than to give most of his paycheck to her...This is why casual sex or promiscous activity is never a good thing..
In this very case, the woman knew he did not wanted to have some children and she repeatdly said him that she could not be pregnant.
quote:He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant
She cheated him and now she tries to force him to pay 500$ a month. She's the one who should be sued.
Jade: Sure the child has some rights, but so do the mother and the father. In this case, again, the father has been duped and I failed to how/why he should be forced to support the child. If he's willing to do so, fine. Otherwise, the society can well afford 500$ a month, unless the mothed is tossed (?) and have to support the child alone.
quote:Remember if its willing it takes two to tango...
except in one case that is dear to your convictions
In this very case, the woman knew he did not wanted to have some children and she repeatdly said him that she could not be pregnant.
Well....so he says. Or...more accurately...so the reporters say....
quote:
She cheated him and now she tries to force him to pay 500$ a month. She's the one who should be sued.
Bottom line: he still had the choice to ensure precautions were taken. I don't understand where this feeling of some sort of "right" to casual unprotected sex comes from...
~shrug~
If you're going to be in that situation, you either make sure to take the proper precautions or you prepare to accept the consequences.
Wait a minute.. For him to totally trust her and believe her is all together a different issue...Because she got pregnant, he deserves to be duped.....It just proves my point too...because you can never be absolutely sure...just because someone says they don't want to have children and have sex and then they get pregant doesn't mean they should suffer the consequencs alone. To be with child is a new experience and she may have changed her mind and softened to the idea of motherhood.. Isn't she allowed that?....Was she suppose to get him to sign a legal document before they had sex so as to insure he would not have to pay for his own child's upbringing in case she got pregnant?
DL-44: I didn't say one has right to casual unprotected sex. Sorry if I was unclear. My post was focused on the case depicted in the article, nothing more.
jade: she repeatedly said that because of a physical condition she could not get pregnant. Doctors don't put such a diagnostic like they do for a benine disease. Women neither say that lightly nor to anyone.
If she physically couldn't get pregnant and they both were fidels, why the hell would have they used any "precautions" ? ... who knows, she might well be unable to get pregnant and she got a daughter by the divine intervention of God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or my Little Pony, ... bu then, why should the guy be force to support a kid than is not his.
I return you the quesion : was the guy supposed to ask her her medical examinations and the diagnostic of her doctors ?
OK. Poi... All I am saying is that the girl could of lied about her medical condition and he got her pregnant....So what should a guy do in this case?... Regardless, he was willing...He took a chance that she was maybe not sincere, so it was his call too...Now she carried the baby to full term.. Just because she may have lied doesn't make it ok for him not to have any involvement with the child be in upbringing or financial...
The same thing happend to a person I know. Her son was having sex with his girlfriend and since she was in school she wanted to wait after she finished college and then marry and have babies... But the guy started seeing someone else and she got scared of loosing him so she got pregnant on purpose...Though she did do this it sitll his repsonsiblity because you take the chance everytime you have sex.
I return you the quesion : was the guy supposed to ask her her medical examinations and the diagnostic of her doctors ?
The point is, you have to be prepared for the consequneces. Let me say again: you're taking the reporter's version of his side of the story as absolute truth. Let's not get carried away with one side of the story - you are making a lot of assumptions.
There are any number of circumstances where a person might reasonably expect a certain result. However, when involved in such a relationship, the bottom line, once again, is that you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences. The potential consequnces of a sexual relationship, even if the 'proper precautions' are used, include the birth of a child.
I really don't get what there is for debate. Childbirth is one of the possible outcomes. If you are not willing to deal with that outcome, then don't put yourself in that situation.
DL I agree with your arguments probably entirely and the fact that your communication style suits me (lucid ) I'd like to use your words and ask you a few questions.
quote: DL-44 said:
There are any number of circumstances where a person might reasonably expect a certain result. However, when involved in such a relationship, the bottom line, once again, is that you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences. The potential consequnces of a sexual relationship, even if the 'proper precautions' are used, include the birth of a child.I really don't get what there is for debate. Childbirth is one of the possible outcomes. If you are not willing to deal with that outcome, then don't put yourself in that situation.
I can't believe abortion hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, is the argument that unclear, unassociated with this, or are all respondents avoiding it? Really?
Someone who says
quote:if you are not willing to deal with that outcome, then don't put yourself in that situation
would also say, to a woman that ("made up" quote
quote:abortion is your choice, it's your body, regardless of what the father says
Can you explain to me how you reconcile holding those 2, I'd think opposing, points of view?
JK - the quick answer, for me, is this: I said you have to be prepared to deal with the outcome. Abortion, for better or worse, is one way of dealing with that outcome.
I will never beleive that abortion is a good thing. But I will never believe that the government (or the father) has the right to tell a woman she can't do it - in the same way that the government (or the father) has no right to force her to have an abortion.
I don't see those statements as in any way opposing, though I can understand how you might. I didn't mention abortion because I do see that as a completely separate sub-set of the topic.
I do see your point, I knew you'd have one, you seem a pretty steadfast guy that doesn't blow where the wind takes you.
I'm an "extremely limited government intrusion on personal space" guy as well, and I do think that ultimately abortion is the woman's decision. I wouldn't mind if there was laws against it one bit, but I'm not dumb enough to think that would suddenly stop the "option". In most cases I truly don't care what the law of the land is, I always endeavor t obey it sure, but in the end I measure my actions against what I believe to be a higher standard than that. So in most cases, I don't care what the laws are and try not to get too caught up in it or the debate of it.
It's funny how close together our views probably are. It's interesting to me that what we'd likely find ourselves emphasizing/spinning in public debate might well leave listeners coming away with the impression that we're nowhere near one another in terms of pov. We're preachers
Back to the topic at hand... oh yeah, I'm finding it hard to care about weighing in on this here
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 03-16-2006 19:16
I think if a man fathers a child, then he should be held accountable. That said, I also think that it should be legal for him to insist on a DNA test, without having to have the woman's permission to do so.
I truly wish that DNA tests were manditory upon birth of a child.
1/4 of all children born are from a different man than the supposed father.
But not wishing to accept the responsibility of ones actions? I just don't accept that. Even a woman that has an abortion, is having to accept the responsibility of her actions.
It is like getting drunk, driving, crashing, killing someone, then saying "Well, I didn't mean to get drunk, my friends did it to me, the bastards! After that, I don't remember too much...I wanted to go home, I guess" and expecting to get off because they didn't mean to kill the person while driving drunk.
Sometimes, sneaky and dirty things happen. If you wish to avoid those, then prevention is the key. And it starts with one person, and one person only - you.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: North Coast of America Insane since: Dec 2001
posted 03-17-2006 05:01
quote: WebShaman said:
Sometimes, sneaky and dirty things happen. If you wish to avoid those, then prevention is the key. And it starts with one person, and one person only - you.
I'm with WS on this one. Sex and deception have a long history together. "I can't get pregnant" and "I'm on the pill" are right up there with "I'll pull out" and "I won't cum in your mouth."
And let us not forget, never tell someone the truth if they're ugly, because you won't be getting any.
quote: poi said:
I return you the quesion : was the guy supposed to ask her her medical examinations and the diagnostic of her doctors ?
Well... yeah.
Now I'm not equating the two results here, but the concept of presuming deception applies equally.
In my crowd, the pre-tumble question is not "Are you on the pill", but "Are you (HIV) negative?" Only a fool would assume everyone told the truth about their status. So for many of us, the rule is play safe no matter what someone tells you about their status. If it gets serious, you get tested and hear the results together. (Although there's still potential for deception here as to fidelity.)
The point being, I accept the possibility that a guy will lie to me in order to get into my shorts. If I want to have sex and avoid risk of HIV, we'll both be wearing condoms, no matter what he says.
Why are hetero guys unwilling to accept the possiblity that a woman will lie to get into their shorts? If he wants to have sex and avoid risk of pregnancy, then he'll be wearing latex, no matter what she says.
And no, I don't like having to wear the damned things either.
I have to echo much of what has been stated already: If you are willing to do the deed, you have to be willing to accept the consequences. That may include financial support for your progeny. WS, I think a DNA test is not unfair - if a man is going to be providing financial support to a child he should at least have the choice to decline if it is not his.
This is not necessarily in defense of the woman mentioned above, but just a couple of points to ponder. It very well could be that her physicians thought she was incapable of bearing children. Her medical records could have stated such, thus requesting to view them would have gained this man nothing as far as assurances. Endometriosis is one condition that can cause women to be "incapable" of bearing children. However, I know women who have had severe cases of this who have gone on to bear children. One with fertility intervention, one was completely spontaneous. I also know a woman whose husband fathered a child with her 6 weeks after having a vasectomy. You really never can be too careful if you want to avoid making babies if the parts are present to make them.
I agree with most of what has been said but I have a few further issues with how things seem to actually happen. Yes, people having sex need to be responsible for their actions... BOTH people, financially and in parenting (depending on how they choose to deal with the situation). In other words. If the father is forced to pay for the child he should be granted, by default, equal time with the child (barring legal issues of safety) unless he chooses not to accept it. I don't agree with the guy being bled dry without ever being involved in the child's life. That isn't support. That's funding. Financial support from one side of the equation and parenting from the other side of the equation doesn't wash with me. It seems to me that too many times it defaults to the mother getting money and the father getting limited or no access to the child regardless of how interested he is in being there for the kid. The system is loaded in one direction and, so far as I can see, it only leads to anger and poor parenting situations for the kids.
quote:will never beleive that abortion is a good thing. But I will never believe that the government (or the father) has the right to tell a woman she can't do it - in the same way that the government (or the father) has no right to force her to have an abortion.
I believe new life issues are very personal ones and the government should not have any business in forcing anyone to terminate or to give new biological life... that is why the government had no business in determining the outcome of the Roe vs Wade case. The goverment role is to protect lives... all lives..The government has no business in determining who lives or who dies in regard to the womb. Its a very personal biological matter. The right decision in regard to the unborn lay with the mother who would have no other alternative but to give life if the government had not granted relief in the case.
Are not we all created equal even in the womb? Is that infant in the womb considered human? If the body in the womb of the mother is not human, what is it? What would you call it... When we try to end violence, let try to start with the human in the womb. The truth is, however, that the pro-life movement does not seek to impose by law any religious or theological belief, whether about the soul or anything eise. Such an effort is both misguided and unnecessary. Suppose, for example, that I do not believe that you have a soul. Does that give me the right to kill you? No. it does not. Your life is still protected by the law, despite my beliefs. Does the law that protects your life require me to believe that you have a soul? No it does not. It doesn't even require me to believe that souls exist at all. What it requires is that whatever I believe, I refrain from taking your life. The law protects both the right to believe and the Iife of the believer.
That is what the pro-life movement wants. We are simply calling for the protection of all human beings. We also uphold religious liberty. This means that religious beliefs should be embraced freely, not imposed by the law. We also recognize that to invoke religious liberty to destroy another's life is an intolerable abuse.
If someone does not believe the child in the womb has a soul, that is his or her business. But to go on to say that because one doesn't believe that, it should be legal to kill the child, is equally as unjust as to say that because one doesn't believe you have a soul, it should be legal to kill you. The law doesn't care about the belief: It regulates the action. Do you agree?
But whether a baby lives or dies should not depend on whether or not everyone in society has acknowledged that truth. Human life needs protection always.. The freedom "not to believe" should never be confused with freedom to destroy others potential humans inthe womb.
If a government can decide that one group of human beings are not persons, and that they can be killed, it can decide the same for other groups as well. If freedom of belief justifies violence against a baby, it justifies violence against anyone. This is why the abortion fight will never end. The abortion battle is not a matter of pro-life wins or pro-choice wins, but rather of pro-life wins or nobody wins
So.. I would hope in this particular case in where the father didn't choose being a father, just accept it and move on.. love that creation..
quote:If a government can decide that one group of human beings are not persons, and that they can be killed, it can decide the same for other groups as well. If freedom of belief justifies violence against a baby, it justifies violence against anyone.
As far as I know, government very well does decides who lives and dies and why. It's pretty much the most common instinct of civilization. Government will always kill something/someone in order to protect the interest of their own agenda. Roman's persecuted/killed Christians, Christians persecuted/killed pagans/"witches"/Jews, Nazi persecuted/killed Jews, American's persecuted/killed Communists/Vietnamese/and now Arabs, so on and on.
It's silly to assume that government's role is to protect "everyone" due to the fact that it never will. Apparently government has no problem carrying out capital punishment. Sure you could argue that the person is "dangerous" and must be terminated, but wouldn't it be a hypocrisy? I don't mind so. Same thing goes for Abortion.
I think the biggest issue revolves around how people perceive life nowadays. Due to the market capitalism, reality seems to be a bit distorted by commerce and advertising. Babies are viewed as some cuddly and cute Johnson&Johnson products. Scientifically speaking life is pretty much everywhere including plants and parasites. Humans just simply have tendencies in changing value of life in order to make their civilization functionable.
Death will happen and killing will happen, you can't prevent it, but you could control it. Thats why there are rules that separate manslaughter from first degree murder.
I think jade that your emotions and subjective reasoning prevents you from seeing a bigger picture. I have read your posts and in the end I am not sure I can follow your arguments.
From: In labyrinths of coral caves Insane since: Aug 2005
posted 03-25-2006 02:38
I read the link, and I've read all responses. GD points out my(underlined) idea on the subject.
quote:GrythusDraconis said:Yes, people having sex need to be responsible for their actions...BOTH people, financially,
Most of what I have read here is that the MAN is the soul source of "child support". Where is the womans financial support? From what I know child support is based on a percentage of what a man makes. Meaning a man's child support has nothing, or very little to do with what income the woman makes. In this story, he's a computer programmer,............and she's? I wonder who's income is higher?
In short, "If you're going to be in that situation, you either make sure to take the proper precautions or you prepare to accept the consequences.", and this should be equally shouldered by both the man AND the woman. And until that exists as a fact, men will always get the raw end of the deal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" Overhead the albatross, hangs motionless upon the air "
Most of what I have read here is that the MAN is the soul source of "child support". Where is the womans financial support? From what I know child support is based on a percentage of what a man makes. Meaning a man's child support has nothing, or very little to do with what income the woman makes.
You are clearly very ignorant on the subject.
1) In many of the cases you talk about, where the man pays a significant amount, the child is living with the mother. Last I knew, providing a child with a place to live, food to eat, and all the other necessities of life cost money. From the cases I've seen, it takes a whole lot more than just the father's financial contribution to accomplish this.
2) Child support is based on the income of both parties. There are mathematic formulas in place to determine child support, and GENDER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH them.
From my experience, most men who make the kind of complaints that you represent here Zynx, were very involved in the decisions that led to the pregnancy, but disappear shortly thereafter, offering no support during or after the pregnancy. Then act victimized when they have step up and help out.
Quite frankly, it's disgusting, and so is this lawsuit.
I heard the lawyer being interviewed on the radio thismorning, and my opinion dropped steadily until I had to change the station.
You know DL, by assuming that I have NO experience on this issue, and for you to automatically concede that I am "very clearly ignorant on the subject", sickens me!
Ok, Alex I'll take " OzoneAsylum posters who concede that other OzoneAsylum posters are ignorant on an issue ", for a thousand. "
and for you to automatically concede that I am "very clearly ignorant on the subject", sickens me!
I have not "automatically conceded" anything. You have demonstrated several times your ignorance on the subject, including with your previous post. Having had personal involvement does not preclude ingorance. Do you imagine you are the only one who has been through such a situation?
Bottom line is that this prejudice against men that so many people imagine is the problem - while clearly does exist to some extent, in some cases - is in most cases not a factor. The prejudice that many men suffer in these cases is caused entirely by their actions and NOT by their gender.
I *will* make the assumption at this point that you automatically took offense at my use of the word ignorant and as a result simply ignored the rest of my post
quote:DL-44 said:that you automatically took offense at my use of the word ignorant
Your are absolutely right DL.
Yet you also said "including with your previous post." Since that was my first post within THIS thread, I took offense by you making your point in this thread, based on some other post of mine in SOME OTHER thread. Look I'm not trying to be a "FAKE" here, but sometimes I'm liberal on many issues, and conservative on others. So whatever my "previous post" meant, or whatever context it was written in, or whatever you derived from it, try & stop your assumption of others!
~`~`~`~`~`~`~
" Wherever you go,....There you are. "
~`~`~`~`~`~`~
Yet you also said "including with your previous post." Since that was
my first post within THIS thread, I took offense by you making your
point in this thread,
We've discussed this very issue before, and you have made comments very much like those you made above. Are you saying I am not allowed to remember what you have previously posted on this subject
I made the same point in *that* thread that I make in *this* thread, in response to you saying the same type of thing. What there is for you to take offense at is quite beyond me...
quote: Zynx said:
try & stop your assumption of others!
As I have said: I am basing my statements on what you are saying. This is not assumption. Your statements above are ignorant. If that offends you, then rectify it.
I certainly mean no offense, but I also won't allow the possibility of you taking offense to get in the way of what I have to say.
bottom line, as has been pointed out already, is don't have sex unless you're willing to deal with the consequences. period.
that being said, i don't feel like women who purposely dupe a man into getting them pregnant should benefit from it. nor should all the 'don't worry baby i'll pull out's get away with it either. there's just no way of separating them out so we're back to the 'don't play if you can't pay' thing.
i do feel like a lot of fathers get shafted when it comes to child support. it's quite common in industries where wages fluctuate from job to job, like construction, that mothers will petition the court to raise the child support when the father is working at a higher paying job. however, once that job is over and the next job is a lower wages, the father has no recourse to get the child support lowered again. because of situations like this, my ex-husband was required to pay $800/month to his first wife for one child. i think that's completely unreasonable.
quote: DL-44 said:
1) In many of the cases you talk about, where the man pays a significant amount, the child is living with the mother. Last I knew, providing a child with a place to live, food to eat, and all the other necessities of life cost money. From the cases I've seen, it takes a whole lot more than just the father's financial contribution to accomplish this.
child support is not alimony. the mother would have to provide herself with food, housing etc even if she didn't have a child. yes, obviously, it costs money to raise a child, but there's no reason for men to have to pay huge amounts. by requiring men to pay huge amounts, states are basically saying that the man should be more financially responsible for the child than the woman.
quote: DL-44 said:
2) Child support is based on the income of both parties. There are mathematic formulas in place to determine child support...
i have to disagree with this as well, as it hasn't been my experience. on the flip side of the coin, we had a close friend that was only required to pay $25/month. that's hardly a sufficient amount. he was a business owner and she was a cashier. i'd like to see the formula that justifies that.
also, if a woman goes on welfare with the child, the state takes the child support to pay for her being on welfare. they only give the mother $50, regardless of how much was paid. that's not child support, it's alimony. that's flat out wrong.
you have to take into consideration states that punish the father for inability to pay by either chucking them in jail, seizing the tools of their trade or their vehicle or all of the above. how that makes any sense is completely beyond me.
then of course, there's the issue of child support not being used for the child. i?ll not even get into that.
i?m not saying that all men are getting screwed here, as there?s a good portion that are getting away without paying their fair share, but overall, it is unfairly slanted.
fwiw, when my ex and i got divorced, i didn't ask for child support. i asked that he pay for things that he would have paid for if we had stayed together. 50% of clothes, provide medical insurance, pay for extracurricular activities and school pictures. of course, he never did any of that stuff, but i feel my reasoning was on the mark. the judge thought i was out of my mind and told me, in open court, that when i came to my senses to come back and see him and he'd 'fix' it for me.
child support is not alimony. the mother would have to provide herself with food, housing etc even if she didn't have a child.
I'm talking about the cost of providing for the child, not the mother. Housing for 2 costs more than housing for 1. Food for 2 costs more than food for 1.
I realize there are cases where the father gets screwed. There are cases where the mother gets screwed. I never said it was a perfect system
I stand by the statement following the block you quoted, that very often the father's actions, and not hsi gender, is what causes him to be screwed. Not always. But very often. On the other hand, very often the father completely gets away with being a total bastard. What can you do...
As for the next quote - surely things will vary by state, and surely a judge's interpretation will come in to play at times, but the formulas are there. Good lawyers will always find loopholes, and the custody arrangement will be a very big factor. But they are there
I'm sure everyone knows a father who has been screwed by the courts and/or the mother, and I'm sure everyone knows a mother who has also. But the bigger picture, in my experience is not as one sided as is being presented by the people involved in this lawsuit who are essentially looking for the freedom to be irresponsible without consequence.
quote:DL-44 said:Are you saying I am not allowed to remember what you have previously posted on this subject?
Not at all, but a link might be nice. Or am I supposed to just take your word for it?
quote:DL-44 said:From the cases I've seen, it takes a whole lot more than just the father's financial contribution to accomplish this.
I agree. And yet the cases I have personally witnessed, the man supports the majority of the total costs for the child, never the woman.
quote:DL-44 said:, but disappear shortly thereafter, offering no support during or after the pregnancy. Then act victimized when they have step up and help out.
"Dead-Beat-Dads", yes we're all aware of this. But the laws today, leave little or no room for the man to question the support demanded of him.
And while you might not like this sort of lawsuit, South Dakota created a law, which will inevitably be challenged in a court of law, and will be struck down as unconstituional. Why?
1) To put pressure on the Supreme court,
2) To get R-V-Wade in the news,
3) To get more people to re-think the landmark decision,
4) In hopes of over-turning the case,
5) Which is a Federal law
Now if a US state can create such a frivolous law, knowing full-well that it will fail the scrutiny of the Supreme court, why would you deny this man his day in court?
In this case, there is not a more suitable phrase than; " What's good for goose, is good for the Gander".
Are you for real? You were the one talking about it... If I have some spare time, I'll take a look for which thread it was, if you think that will help.... However, as I said above, I referred to what you said in *THIS* thread, and simply alluded to the fact that you have said the same before.
quote: Zynx said:
I agree. And yet the cases I have personally witnessed, the man supports the majority of the total costs for the child, never the woman.
But what are the circumstances of the custody arrangements, the involvement of the father, and the income of both parties?
quote: Zynx said:
why would you deny this man his day in court?
I don't recall saying anything to that effect.
I disagree with the premise of the lawsuit. I disagree with what seems to be a semi-pervasive view of a father's legal standing.
I never said anything about denying anyone's right to argue a point, legally or otherwise.
quote: Zynx said:
In this case, there is not a more suitable phrase than; " What's good for goose, is good for the Gander".
I don't see any partiuclar suitability in this case, and have given numerous reasons above...
{{edit -
Oh:
quote:"Dead-Beat-Dads", yes we're all aware of this.
I'm not talking about deadbeat dads. That term applies to those who don't pay their court-ordered child support.
I'm talking about before that point.
quote:DL-44 said: Are you for real? You were the one talking about it... If I have some spare time, I'll take a look for which thread it was, if you think that will help....However, as I said above, I referred to what you said in *THIS* thread, and simply alluded to the fact that you have said the same before.
DL, you've gained my respect here at Ozone, so from now on I WILL take your word for it. I guess I found it a wee-bit tacky to debate an issue with what a person PREVIOUSLY mentioned without posting a link to it. Now I don't want to be a hypocrit here, so if that becomes an issue please post the link, but I will concur with you that I did say the SAME thing before in another thread. I just don't want to be hypocritical with my opinions/posts. Nuff said.
quote:Zynx said: I agree. And yet the cases I have personally witnessed, the man supports the majority of the total costs for the child, never the woman.
quote:DL-44 said:But what are the circumstances of the custody arrangements, the involvement of the father, and the income of both parties?
OK, here goes;
1st partie = Custody: Mother first, Father second
2nd partie = Custody: Mother-Father = Equal/Share
1st partie = involvement: Mother first, Father second
2nd partie = involvement: Mother-Father = Equal/Share
1st partie = Income: Father first, Mother second
2nd partie = Income: Father first, Mother second
" 1st party; eventually the woman gave up parental rights, due to her lack of holding down a job, and an un-safe living enviornment. Father now has FULL parental rights.
2nd party; eventually they amicably split, and yet the Father now deals with TAX deductions, with a sharing of those deductions, to offset child support. Mother is completely understanding of the issue.
quote:Zynx said: why would you deny this man his day in court?
quote:DL-44 said: I don't recall saying anything to that effect. I disagree with the premise of the lawsuit. I disagree with what seems to be a semi-pervasive view of a father's legal standing. I never said anything about denying anyone's right to argue a point, legally or otherwise.
DL, your disgusted with this lawsuit, so it was a valid QUESTION. I am not trying to put words in your mouth.
But why is this lawsuit more disgusting, than the South Dakota debacle?
posted 03-15-2006 17:35
