Congress Supports Deadbeat Dads and Loose Women

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | September 29, 2004 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

ping

[sauropod]

Here is another case of fiduciary jackbootism.

[Amalie]

Another reason to get married, stay that way, and only shack up with your wife.

[Casloy]

Congress Supports Deadbeat Dads and Loose Women

One out of two ain't bad.

[dagoofyfoot]

This is how it is in California also...The claim is that the childs welfare comes before any sense of real justice...


This is so wrong!

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

That soldier should sue for full custody of the child on gronds the mother is a bad example. Once the mother realizes the child might be taken away from her, she'll stop demanding child support.

[Logic n' Reason]

I'm all for the "loose" women!

For as long as I've been alive, I've never met one. Not one.

So before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I certainly hope the government provides one to me!

If you already are a "loose" woman and you're on FR, write to me by e-mail and we'll talk.

Hell, at my age, that's all thats left.

[Arrowhead1952]

Here is another case of fiduciary jackbootism.

This is a case of too many lawyers and judges having nothing better to do than to deny the opportunity to challenge paternity. These idiots should have to pay the child support after a fair paternity hearing.

[muawiyah]

Not really ~ in fact the only "jackboots" in sight are those that would leave a young child without support simply because the papa found out he was "shooting blanks".

This man willingly entered into fatherhood, and whether or not he has any close blood relationship with the child is irrelevant to that estate.

[Stu Cohen]

Not really ~ in fact the only "jackboots" in sight are those that would leave a young child without support simply because the papa found out he was "shooting blanks".

If he was "shooting blanks", than he can't be the "papa".

Oh, and 1+1=2 and grass is green.

[Stu Cohen]

For as long as I've been alive, I've never met one. Not one.

Is this guy on a deserted island by himelf?

Satellite internet?

[Logic n' Reason]

What's the definition of "is"???

For that matter; what's the definition of "loose"???

[muawiyah]

Uhhh, you ever been around a farm ~ they use artificial insemination these days ~ been doing that for a long time in fact ~ and they even use it with human beings these days.

Millions of daddies out there shoot blanks. Science and good friends come to their rescue all the time!

Are you telling me that none of those men is a "real daddy"?!

I suggest you take that issue up with them, not me.

[L98Fiero]

This man willingly entered into fatherhood, and whether or not he has any close blood relationship with the child is irrelevant to that estate.

Oh jeez. What about the paternal father? You know the one who didn't "shoot blanks". HE is the one who is the "papa", as you put it. Where does his responsibility lie?

Sounds to me like a great racket. Run around knocking up married women and leaving their unsuspecting (or suspecting in this case) to foot the bill. No worries mate, we have people like muawiyah looking out for us.

[logic]

I think the problem here is that is what was attempted by the man, but his wife was not willing to abide by the contract on either count!!! It sounds much like the old "she was asking to get raped by the way she was dressed" argument.....

[muawiyah]

Actually, it is a great racket ~ been that way for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

The deal is, if she's your wife any kids she produces are yours. There has been some tinkering with the laws regarding "evidence" in recent times, but the fundamental principle, if nothing else, remains intact!

This standard applies even if you have more than one wife, or even if your divorce wasn't yet final. It doesn't apply if you are not married to the woman ~ other laws apply. As far as the government is concerned if child support is provided, that's as far as the question needs to be taken.

Way back in the good old days a man was happy enough to have children, whether they were his or someone else's.

[Homo_homini_lupus]

The claim is that the childs welfare comes before any sense of real justice...

Is there any talk of having the child's biological father pay up?

[dagoofyfoot]

Nope! They're just interested in collecting the money from who ever's convenient at the time.


If a young lady claims you're father, (even if you're not) and starts collecting welfare on the child, YOU MUST REPAY THE STATE AND START YOUR CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS regardless of who the real father may be.


If you have money and can prove you are not the father it's still no guarantee that you'll be off the hook...Crazy!

[dagoofyfoot]

Nope! They're just interested in collecting the money from who ever's convenient at the time.


If a young lady claims you're father, (even if you're not) and starts collecting welfare on the child, YOU MUST REPAY THE STATE AND START YOUR CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS regardless of who the real father may be.


If you have money and can prove you are not the father it's still no guarantee that you'll be off the hook...Crazy!