 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / October 2007Deadbeat Parent and Enabler list
I am so tired of listen to men who have to pay child support bitch, and moan. If they were taking care of thier children to begin with then thier ex-wives and ex-girlfriends would not have the need for a court order to point out what thier obligation to thier kids are. Because there are too many a.sholes that owe, and have a million and one excuses as to why the shouldn't have to pay child support, but not one reason why they should, this list is dedicated to them. First on the list is my friends deadbeat and Enabler, the second person listed is just proof that child support is established for women not just men. David Martinez (Deadbeat) Owes over $40,000.00 for two cases (my friends case amount is not included) Jacqueline Griselda Martinez (Enabler) Hides him from responsibility 4812 Powder Mill Rd Beltsville, MD 20705 301-595-9399 Ilona J Martinez (Deadbeat) Owes over $6,000.00 for her son to her ex- husband. She was proven to be an unfit parent 11235 OAK LEAF DR #420 SILVER SPRING MD 20901 Please feel free to add any deadbeat parent to the list <winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in > Because there are too many a.sholes that owe, and have a million and > one excuses as to why the shouldn't have to pay child support, Who said they don't want to help and love their kids, what they object to is extortionate amounts of money that is forced from them under any conditions with no regard for their quality of life. You are a self righteous blimp that is only interested in getting money for yourself and using the CS cause as a vehicle to forward your own greed. Be warned that you could be sued for publishing private and personal information on the internet. > <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Be warned that you could be sued for publishing private and personal > information on the internet. Hate all you want to, bitch-made. It's not private information, it is a matter of public record. Dill-the information posted is not private, and can be obtained from the maryland judiciary case records,therefore; you can not be sued. DB-we don't care, nor do we want an opinion from you. If you like, feel free to post yourself. > <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Be warned that you could be sued for publishing private and personal > information on the internet. It is only O.K to collect child support if you are a man attempting to collect from a woman by your own words. At one point you say there is no such thing as a child support debt on another thread, and then on this one I have copied below you show your true colors. Can anybody say closet queen? This guy wants to be a woman, and is jealous that he isn't one. DB View profile<gsmo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news: 1189551974.021008.47600@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >I live in Western New York. My ex-wife has filed for disability and > is claiming she cannot work (not for the first time). She is taking > me to court (again), petitioning that she should not have to pay child > support. Throw the bum in jail until she pays! Her meal ticket does not have to pay for her child, where is the law to enforce her payments? More options Sep 12, 12:44 pm Newsgroups: alt.child-support From: "DB" <D...@sbcglobal.net> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:44:34 GMT Local: Wed, Sep 12 2007 12:44 pm Subject: Re: Child Support Issue Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author <gsmo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news:1189551974.021008.47600@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >I live in Western New York. My ex-wife has filed for disability and > is claiming she cannot work (not for the first time). She is taking > me to court (again), petitioning that she should not have to pay child > support. Throw the bum in jail until she pays! Her meal ticket does not have to pay for her child, where is the law to enforce her payments? The law is soooo cruddy, but there you are yelling for it to enorce a mans cs order. So, so, so, sad! >> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > The law is soooo cruddy, but there you are yelling for it to enorce a > mans cs order. So, so, so, sad! oh, so when you can't win an argument because you don't have the mental faculties to handle it, you break out the homophobic slurs?  SignatureSarah Gray > winchester1...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Just showing him his true colors. Isn't that what closet queens do? Hate on women because they can't be one? Closet queen is not a homophobic phrase, it is used by gay men to describe other gay men who will not come out of the closet. Mind you, if my closets had half of the stuff thiers have in them, I would be reluctant to come out as well, but I wouldn't say it is o.k for a woman to do something, but not a man, and the reverse. >> winchester1...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > well, but I wouldn't say it is o.k for a woman to do something, but > not a man, and the reverse. My point is that you act like being gay is a bad thing. That someone you don't agree with must be gay. That's f.cked up. SignatureSarah Gray ><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Be warned that you could be sued for publishing private and personal >information on the internet. You can obtain ones name, address, and info. simply by googling or using various aided sites such as Intellus. Furthermore, its amusing at the excuse you just landed for why a deadbeat is a deadbeat. Extorition of money? LOL! When awarding child support, a disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid by the NCP. The NCP's income is used to determine amt. owed. You cant pay? You get a better job. It is not the CP's responsibility to pick up the NCP's slack. As far as your vocabulary and name calling. It leaves alot to be desired. Id assume you cant get your point across without using such vulgarity. Your immaturity shows. Please go back and finish school. When awarding child support, a > disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid by > the > NCP. The NCP's income is used to determine amt. owed. You cant pay? You > get a > better job. It is not the CP's responsibility to pick up the NCP's slack. Can't you see how this doesn't make sense? You say, reasonable amount to be paid by the npc, and then, you can't pay? Get a better job. Nonsense!!! > When awarding child support, a >> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Can't you see how this doesn't make sense? You say, reasonable amount to be >paid by the npc, and then, you can't pay? Get a better job. Nonsense!!! What part exactly are you confused on? When CS is set, they base it on income. If for any reason a job is lost or one becomes unemployed, THEN they whine, I feel no sympathy. Apparently you are the enabling hand holding kind. >> When awarding child support, a >>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > whine, I > feel no sympathy. Apparently you are the enabling hand holding kind. I'm saying that If It's a reasonable amount, why would, or SHOULD they have to get a second job. And since you want to "assume" about me, I think you are a money grubbing idiot. >>> When awarding child support, a >>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >to get a second job. And since you want to "assume" about me, I think you >are a money grubbing idiot. Who said anything about getting a second job? You are really reaching and enjoy putting situations out on the table that do not exist? Brilliant one, he has no job NOW, let alone a 2nd one. LOL Money grubbing idiot. I enjoyed that. You are amusing. Apparently you dont take critism well when one pushes you into a corner. You cant hold a healthy debate without attempting name calling. Good call there turbo. Take a breather sweetheart and come back when you can collect yourself and continue the healthy debate of OPINIONS. > >>> When awarding child support, a > >>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > take critism well when one pushes you into a corner. You cant hold a healthy > debate without attempting name calling. Good call there turbo. "Turbo"? What was it you were saying about not being able to hold a healthy debate without attempting name calling? > Take a > breather sweetheart and come back when you can collect yourself and continue > the healthy debate of OPINIONS. Opinons are meaningless in any debate since they are subjective comments. Statements, which are either true or false, is at the heart of ANY debate. >>>> When awarding child support, a >>>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > continue > the healthy debate of OPINIONS. YOU did you dumb Idiot. Do you forget what you type? lol And, you started with the insults first lady. Man, you are daft.... >YOU did you dumb Idiot. Do you forget what you type? lol And, you started >with the insults first lady. Man, you are daft.... Are you speaking to me? If so, try using some maturity when addressing me instead of using such pointless rubbage (ie-dumb idiot) ;o) You quoted something that didnt fit with your reply to me. If you are speaking to me and are calling out who started what, all I can ask you is are you in freaking high school? Whats up with this who started what. I feel like Im typing to a bunch of uneducated rednecks. >>YOU did you dumb Idiot. Do you forget what you type? lol And, you started >>with the insults first lady. Man, you are daft.... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > like > Im typing to a bunch of uneducated rednecks. Conveniently snipping posts shows your lack of IQ and nothing to back up your arguments. "Shadow36" <no@no.com> wrote in > YOU did you dumb Idiot. Do you forget what you type? lol And, you started > with the insults first lady. Man, you are daft.... She's a Numpty! >"Shadow36" <no@no.com> wrote in > >She's a Numpty! Can you speak English please? I didnt take Ebonic's Immaturity 101. >"Shadow36" <no@no.com> wrote in >She's a Numpty! How old are you again? Do you speak English or just this new age Urban crap? Kids these days! Geesh! Taken from the URBAN Dictionary... Numpty Scottish usage: a) Someone who (sometimes unwittingly) by speech or action demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misconception of a particular subject or situation to the amusement of others. b) A good humoured admonition, a term of endearment c) A reckless, absent minded or unwise person a) "No. That wisnae wit she meant, ya big numpty!" b) i.e. "Silly billy", "You big dafty" c) "That numpty's driving with no lights on!" >> "Shadow36" <no@no.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > c) "That numpty's driving with no lights on!" yeah, you cow. It's *Scottish*. Lots of black folk there, you know. SignatureSarah Gray >YOU did you dumb Idiot. Do you forget what you type? lol And, you started >with the insults first lady. Man, you are daft.... **When one resorts to slams, its a sheer sign of feeling backed into a corner with nothing intelligent to add.** You are amusing, keep the smile going on my face ;o) >> When awarding child support, a >>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > whine, I > feel no sympathy. Apparently you are the enabling hand holding kind. == This makes no sense. The NCP shouldn't request a modification when their income drops for reason(s) beyond their control? When income frops in an intact family, spending is reduced to compensate. That's life. >> When awarding child support, a >>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > whine, I > feel no sympathy. Apparently you are the enabling hand holding kind. When an NCP father loses his job he has real financial concerns and only unemployment to rely on. When a CP loses her job she has a vast array of government provided safety net programs like unemployment, TANF, food stamps, WIC, subsidized daycare, job training, state medical programs, etc. that give her up to 5 years of taxpayer supported public money benefits. Do you see a difference? >>> When awarding child support, a >>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Do you see a difference? Its not the CP's fault the NCP lost his job. Go out there and bust our arse to find another one. Not my problem. Not the childs problem either. I like your label of HER as a CP and have those benefits...men can obtain that too. I am not on those programs. Do I see the difference of someone getting aid? No. They are equal to both. Its funny how you have eluded of abuse in those benefits, but dont state the abuse that NCP's hide under unemployment fraud. Ya see the difference there? ;o) >>>> When awarding child support, a >>>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I like your label of HER as a CP and have those benefits Is that anything like your reference above to an NCP as having lost "his" job? ...men can obtain > that too. I am not on those programs. Do I see the difference of someone > getting aid? No. They are equal to both. Okay - Explain how a man can get custody of children he can't afford to support over a woman who can't get custody of children because she can support them. The norm is a woman can get custody of children she can't support over a man who can support them. Its funny how you have eluded of > abuse in those benefits, but dont state the abuse that NCP's hide under > unemployment fraud. Ya see the difference there? ;o) The attempts to sound smart are falling on deaf ears. >The attempts to sound smart are falling on deaf ears. It is because you have nothing intelligent to further add. I am not attempting to sound smart, I am giving my opinion, which you clearly want to turn the other cheek. As for loosing a job out of your control, that is a different story. I am speaking of those who skirt the system by hiding hidden employment and taking the unemployment system for a ride at the cost of an innocent child. Yes. I am hard nosed. Yes I am harsh. Yes I am blunt, and no, I do not give slack when it comes to an obligation. I left a deadend marriage, picked myself up and moved 3,000 away to provide a better enviroment for my child and I. I got a job right after, not once using the "single mom syndrome" excuse. I bust my a$$ every day at my job to provide for my child. I may be more fortunate than some, but it is all because I gave and continue to give all for my child. You want to whine and bitch about child support and how one cant afford this and that, go somewhere else. I will not wipe someones a$$ when they shyt. Thats the way it is. Simple as that. "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > Yes. I am hard nosed. Yes I am harsh. Yes I am blunt, and no, I do not > give > slack when it comes to an obligation. Fantastic, your obligation for the current national debt is $166,000! When are you going to start paying your obligation? >>The attempts to sound smart are falling on deaf ears. > It is because you have nothing intelligent to further add. I am not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > taking > the unemployment system for a ride at the cost of an innocent child. There you go again - Snipping the first two challenges to your self serving thinking so you don't have to deal with your intellectual inconsistencies, changing the subject on your third point (the one you didn't snip above) away from your prior position, and then spouting off a bunch of nonsense to make yourself feel good by attacking other posters. > Yes. I am hard nosed. Yes I am harsh. Yes I am blunt, and no, I do not > give [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > else. I will not wipe someones a$$ when they shyt. Thats the way it is. > Simple as that. Nobody here cares about any of that. > >The attempts to sound smart are falling on deaf ears. > It is because you have nothing intelligent to further add. I am not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > speaking of those who skirt the system by hiding hidden employment and taking > the unemployment system for a ride at the cost of an innocent child. Yet another fool who bought into the "child support" propoganda. > Yes. I am hard nosed. Yes I am harsh. Yes I am blunt, and no, I do not give > slack when it comes to an obligation. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > else. I will not wipe someones a$$ when they shyt. Thats the way it is. > Simple as that. "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote ........................ > I left a deadend marriage, picked myself up and moved 3,000 away to > provide a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > somewhere > else. === We were here first. == == > "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote > ........................ [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > == > == She is right, deadbeats were here first. That's why the child support is here now, because of the deadbeats. >> "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote >> ........................ [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > She is right, deadbeats were here first. That's why the child support > is here now, because of the deadbeats. Which posters here are deadbeats? >>> "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote >>> ........................ [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Which posters here are deadbeats? Thats what I'd like to know too... she spouts on and on about It, but i'm pretty sure everyone here pays thier CS. Because we talk about how bad the system Is, how we have to pay more than what It takes to actually raise a child, we are labled deadbeats by miss multiple personality. How many different names Is she up to now? I feel sorry for her kids. Especially, If she has sons. > > "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote > > ........................ [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > She is right, deadbeats were here first. That's why the child support > is here now, because of the deadbeats. The fact that the "child support" people go after men who are the sole breadwinners taking care of the wife and children tells a different story. >>The attempts to sound smart are falling on deaf ears. > It is because you have nothing intelligent to further add. I am not [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > else. I will not wipe someones a$$ when they shyt. Thats the way it is. > Simple as that. Address ALL of his points or get out. >Address ALL of his points or get out. Ahhh. Are you the webmaster? If not, STFU. It is my right to post here. If you dont like what I have to say, leave your Urban Dictionary Ebonics bs at the door.I have addressed ea. claim, it is you and some others who seem to get hot around the collar when I post. hahaha >>Address ALL of his points or get out. > Ahhh. Are you the webmaster? If not, STFU. It is my right to post here. If > you dont like what I have to say, leave your Urban Dictionary Ebonics bs > at > the door.I have addressed ea. claim, it is you and some others who seem to > get hot around the collar when I post. hahaha When did I speak ebonics? You are a liar and have no crdibilty with anything you say. > >>The attempts to sound smart are falling on deaf ears. > > It is because you have nothing intelligent to further add. I am not [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - How yo going to tell somebody else to get out. The Focus here is DEADBEATS, AND ENABLERS. If you don't have a deadbeat, are not an enabler, or are a deadbeat, then you are the one that needs to get out! "child support owed by deadbeats" <laneaparge@yahoo.com> wrote in > How yo going to tell somebody else to get out. The Focus here is > DEADBEATS, AND ENABLERS. If you don't have a deadbeat, are not an > enabler, or are a deadbeat, then you are the one that needs to get > out! You keep bringing up the word Dead Beat, does your Ex frequent this forum as he's the only one you seem to have a problem with. >> >>The attempts to sound smart are falling on deaf ears. >> > It is because you have nothing intelligent to further add. I am not [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > enabler, or are a deadbeat, then you are the one that needs to get > out! Why? People are not permitted to express opinions? What if a person is neither an deadbeat nor an enabler, but they disagree with you? That is not ok? > >>>> When awardingchildsupport, a > >>>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Your ears are deaf because nobody has said anything. As for the lady's statements, you are not smart enough to counter her words with anything containing fact, so you attempt to write something smart. Not a good attempt, Bob. >> >>>> When awardingchildsupport, a >> >>>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > anything containing fact, so you attempt to write something smart. Not > a good attempt, Bob. LOL Bob states more facts than you can ever hope to come up with. It's YOU miss multiple personality that can't argue the facts, so you resort to name calling and child antics... "Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > Its not the CP's fault the NCP lost his job. Go out there and bust our > arse > to find another one. People like you are great for demanding that other people just replace their lost jobs as if it were as easy as going on line and getting hired by another company around the corner! There's a thing called reality, and the reality of the work place competition has never changed! Older workers are replaced with younger workers who work for cheaper wages, and many well paying manufacturing jobs have disappeared down south or migrated overseas. I suppose you have good advice for all those NCP's that survived 9/11 but couldn't find jobs again! > "Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I suppose you have good advice for all those NCP's that survived 9/11 but > couldn't find jobs again! She does! We wave our magic wand!! > >>> When awarding child support, a > >>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I like your label of HER as a CP and have those benefits...men can obtain > that too. How does a man obtain WIC? > I am not on those programs. Do I see the difference of someone > getting aid? No. They are equal to both. Its funny how you have eluded of > abuse in those benefits, but dont state the abuse that NCP's hide under > unemployment fraud. Ya see the difference there? ;o) >>>>> When awarding child support, a >>>>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > How does a man obtain WIC? Have a low income, and children under 5 in their home, under their care. >> I am not on those programs. Do I see the difference of someone >> getting aid? No. They are equal to both. Its funny how you have eluded of >> abuse in those benefits, but dont state the abuse that NCP's hide under >> unemployment fraud. Ya see the difference there? ;o) SignatureSarah Gray > >>>>> When awarding child support, a > >>>>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Have a low income, and children under 5 in their home, under their care. Do you know what WIC stands for? > >> I am not on those programs. Do I see the difference of someone > >> getting aid? No. They are equal to both. Its funny how you have eluded of > >> abuse in those benefits, but dont state the abuse that NCP's hide under > >> unemployment fraud. Ya see the difference there? ;o) >>>>>>> When awarding child support, a >>>>>>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Do you know what WIC stands for? yes. It stands for Women, Infants and Children. It was established to provide certain nutrient rich foodstuffs for pregnant women, infants, and small children. Men can get WIC coupons if they are low income and are raising small children. >>>> I am not on those programs. Do I see the difference of someone >>>> getting aid? No. They are equal to both. Its funny how you have eluded > of >>>> abuse in those benefits, but dont state the abuse that NCP's hide under >>>> unemployment fraud. Ya see the difference there? ;o) SignatureSarah Gray >>>>>>>> When awarding child support, a >>>>>>>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > small children. Men can get WIC coupons if they are low income and are > raising small children. I believe that is factually correct with the caveat that men must get the WIC benefits through women who qualify for WIC. I followed a man through the check stand at the local Safeway a couple of weeks ago and he used a WIC cash value card to pay for WIC approved items. I asked the checker about men getting WIC benefits and he said the law changed to allow men who have access to WIC cards to use their partners cash value cards to make purchases on behalf of the women. >>>>>>>>> When awarding child support, a >>>>>>>>>> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > to allow men who have access to WIC cards to use their partners cash > value cards to make purchases on behalf of the women. You know, I looked it up after I posted, and I did not realize that men cannot apply for WIC benefits themselves. Frankly, I am appalled, but I stand corrected. SignatureSarah Gray "Sarah Gray" <anisaerah@duhyahoo.com> wrote in > You know, I looked it up after I posted, and I did not realize that men > cannot apply for WIC benefits themselves. Frankly, I am appalled, but I > stand corrected. Just another indication of how biased society is! > > When awarding child support, a > >> disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid by [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What part exactly are you confused on? When CS is set, they base it on income. Correction: They base it on IMPUTED income............... next. > If for any reason a job is lost or one becomes unemployed, THEN they whine, I > feel no sympathy. Apparently you are the enabling hand holding kind. > ><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > a deadbeat. Extorition of money? LOL! When awarding child support, a > disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. "Reasonable" is a matter of opinion subject to the author, thus a meaningless term. Care to try again? > to be paid by the > NCP. The NCP's income is used to determine amt. owed. You cant pay? You get a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > assume you cant get your point across without using such vulgarity. Your > immaturity shows. Please go back and finish school. You may want to follow your OWN advice. Apparently, you never learned that no debt exists without an accompanying benefit. ><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Be warned that you could be sued for publishing private and personal >information on the internet. You can obtain ones name, address, and info. simply by googling or using various aided sites such as Intellus. Furthermore, its amusing at the excuse you just landed for why a deadbeat is a deadbeat. Extorition of money? LOL! When awarding child support, a disomaster is used by the judge to obtain a reasonable amt. to be paid by the NCP. The NCP's income is used to determine amt. owed. You cant pay? You get a better job. It is not the CP's responsibility to pick up the NCP's slack. As far as your vocabulary and name calling. It leaves alot to be desired. Id assume you cant get your point across without using such vulgarity. Your immaturity shows. Please go back and finish school. >><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > get a > better job. It is not the CP's responsibility to pick up the NCP's slack. == Hmmm...but it is the NCPs responsibility to pick up the CPs slack? Interesting perspective. >>><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Hmmm...but it is the NCPs responsibility to pick up the CPs slack? >Interesting perspective. Did I say that? No. Think a bit more clearly here... It is NOT the CP's responsibility to pick up the NCP's obligation towards child support. Assuming the CP is providing for their child. >>>><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It is NOT the CP's responsibility to pick up the NCP's obligation towards > child support. Assuming the CP is providing for their child. == Precisely. And since we have no way of monitoring that, we should not automatically assume she is simply because she is the mother. Many, many CP mothers refuse to do their share while demanding the dad pick up the entire tab. >>>>><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >share while demanding the dad >pick up the entire tab. I dont think you are understanding my stance. If the NCP is 100% neglectful and not in the picture whatsoever, why knit pick at the CP? Why let the NCP off the hook with such a bullshit excuse of, "wahhhhhhhhhhh I cant payyyyyyyyyy"? There will never be a monitoring system set in place for the CP. If thats the case, lets round up all those NCP's who evade the system by working under the table. Those who find codependent enablers who will support their deadbeat a.s. I'll gladly fork over my monthly bills. Then the NCP can quit his bitching and see just exactly HOW MUCH it costs to raise a child. I have no sympathy and never will for neglectful NCP's (I say NCP's because there are mothers who are neglectful as well). I am currently dating a single father who has raised all 3 of his children by himself as the mother is a deadbeat. >>>>>><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>pick up the entire tab. > I dont think you are understanding my stance. == I understand it. IF child support were ordered according to common need rather than an imaginary "lifestyle," there would be no problem with accountibility. But, when the government mandates that one class of parent (NCP) provide a percentage of their income to the other parent to do with as she/he wishes, under the guise of best interest of the child, yet provides no accountability to be sure the child actually receives the lifestyle, the courts are doing no less than sanctioning child neglect on the backs of NCPs. How do you think it would go over if the government mandated that parents in intact families spend a percentage of their income on their children? Odd, isn't it--But, for some reason, some think it is OK to order NCPs to do just that--even to the extent of tossing them in jail if they don't. Think about it a while. It is this take-em-for-all-you-can mindset that is the biggest contributor to "deadbeatness" (and the destruction of the father/child relationship. But, we don't hear many CPs griping about that, do we?). == > I'll gladly fork over my monthly bills. Then the NCP can quit his bitching > and see just exactly HOW MUCH it costs to raise a child. == Why not just give him equal custody? == >>>>>>><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Why not just give him equal custody? >== You didnt answer my inital question on recording where monies are being allocated towards the NCP's. If you do for one, do for the other. Like I previously stated, I have no problem showing proof of where child support goes. However, in my case, my ex owes $10,000 in arrears. The only time CS is awarded to my daughter is when he is drug into court thru court enforcement. It is either jail or pay up. He has been to jail-spent a few hrs., then family bailed him out. That money went towards CS. In my case, court enforcement and jailtime works. He is bailed out and fined which goes towards the arrears. I do not understand what you mean by "imaginery lifestyle". Are you assuming that CP's crap it away? I am sure there are some. I am new to this board and have read some of these posts, and it seems that there are some pretty catty women on here that are venting their frustrations. We are all entitled to. Maybe their way of expressing comes off as money hungry, but to elude that they are golddigers and are out to screw the NCP is ridiculous. In response to your "give him equal custody"- he lives 3,000 away and has not seen his daughter since I left and divorced him over his pot and alcohol addiction when my daughter was 3 mo. old. She just turned 5. My divorce was uncontested and default, this includes anything to do with custody/visitation. He was granted supervised visitation, but has yet utilized his rights. If he was not ill and was able to provide a stable role model for her, he is more than happy to. (Yeah. Everyone has a story huh?) I gave you a tid bit background on my situation. So I will gladly reinterate my stance on CS and the system. No sympathy for those who sit on their butt and whine they feel they are getting screwed. I do not feel this way at all. If CS comes, it comes. If it doesnt, it doesnt. The state is taking care of it and out of my hands. Im just having a ball raising my daughter and watching all the amazing things she is doing. He will only sit and wonder the more he digs himself a hole. I dont hold hands nor coddle. We are all adults. "Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote .................. > You didnt answer my inital question on recording where monies are being > allocated towards the NCP's. If you do for one, do for the other. == I don't understand what you're trying to say here. NCPs must present their expenses to the court and usually to the CP as well. (More Below) == Like I > previously stated, I have no problem showing proof of where child support > goes. However, in my case, my ex owes $10,000 in arrears. The only time CS [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I do not understand what you mean by "imaginery lifestyle". == The government (states/courts) mandate that NCPs provide the same standard of living post divorce as the children would enjoy if the family were intact. It is imaginary in that there are two households to support, not one and there is little way such a lifestyle can be maintained for two households. The state has no business mandating a a "lifestyle" anyway--unless it is willing to mandate the same for intact families. == Are you assuming > that CP's crap it away? I am sure there are some. == I am saying that if the government is going to require the NCP to provide it, it should mandate the CP to provide it as well (and intact families). == I am new to this board and > have read some of these posts, and it seems that there are some pretty > catty > women on here that are venting their frustrations. We are all entitled to. > Maybe their way of expressing comes off as money hungry, but to elude that > they are golddigers and are out to screw the NCP is ridiculous. === In your opinion. === > In response to your "give him equal custody"- he lives 3,000 away and has > not [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > a > hole. I dont hold hands nor coddle. We are all adults. == It sounds like you are raising your child with love and dignity. She is a fortunate child. == == >"Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote >.................. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >and usually to the CP as well. >(More Below) >== > Like I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> I do not understand what you mean by "imaginery lifestyle". >== >The government (states/courts) mandate that NCPs provide the same standard >of living post [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >== >== Maybe in most cases. However, in my case, this did not happen. He was not in court. I was represented by a family law attorney. When asked about CS, all that was asked was what he was making when we were married at the time. At THAT time, he held a job (he had a poor work ethic. I was taken off work at the law firm I was at due to my high risk pregnancy and 2 previous preterm losses.) The judge did not ask me what my income was. It very well could have mattered had the ex husband been in court..the judge slammed him with his words of choosing not to have a voice in regards to the well being of his child if he so ever cared to be a part of. I am raising with plenty of love and dignity. We are surrounded by healthy, sane, unconditional love, normal people ;o) >"Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote >.................. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >and usually to the CP as well. >(More Below) >== > Like I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> I do not understand what you mean by "imaginery lifestyle". >== >The government (states/courts) mandate that NCPs provide the same standard >of living post [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >== >== Maybe in most cases. However, in my case, this did not happen. He was not in court. I was represented by a family law attorney. When asked about CS, all that was asked was what he was making when we were married at the time. At THAT time, he held a job (he had a poor work ethic. I was taken off work at the law firm I was at due to my high risk pregnancy and 2 previous preterm losses.) The judge did not ask me what my income was. (when I came back to my homestate, I got a job a month later..before the divorce) It very well could have mattered had the ex husband been in court..the judge slammed him with his words of choosing not to have a voice in regards to the well being of his child if he so ever cared to be a part of. I am raising with plenty of love and dignity. We are surrounded by healthy, sane, unconditional love, normal people ;o) >>"Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote >>.................. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > the law firm I was at due to my high risk pregnancy and 2 previous preterm > losses.) The judge did not ask me what my income was. == Some states use only the NCPs income to set CS. Other states use the income shares model. Both models set support according to "lifestyle" rather than basic needs, as expected for intact familes and custodial parents. Therein lies the problem and the reason many NCPs get behind in support. == > "Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote > .................. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > mandate the same for intact families. > == The real BS aspect of the CS system is it provides financial rewards for never married women who have had children out of wedlock with the same lifestyle support as women who were married to the fathers of their children. IOW - The sluts get the financial benefits of marriage without going through the ceremony! "Bob Whiteside" <robertg@teleport.com> wrote in > The real BS aspect of the CS system is it provides financial rewards for > never married women who have had children out of wedlock with the same > lifestyle support as women who were married to the fathers of their > children. IOW - The sluts get the financial benefits of marriage without > going through the ceremony! Marriage was an institution where commitment reaped many benefits and rewards! No need for that anymore when you have the government stepping in and guaranteeing all the rewards with no commitment. With marriages on the decline, the birth rate dropping, and manufacturing jobs disappearing offshore, and the national debt climbing to a point of no return, the future of this country is bleak at best! Well done Uncle Sam, everything is under control! NOT > "Bob Whiteside" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Well done Uncle Sam, everything is under control! NOT once again, the issue is chils support, deadbeats, and enablers. On Oct 11, 7:16 am, child support owed by deadbeats <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Bob Whiteside" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dude, you're already at work? What time did you leave? "Bob Whiteside" <robertg@teleport.com> wrote in > The real BS aspect of the CS system is it provides financial rewards for > never married women who have had children out of wedlock with the same > lifestyle support as women who were married to the fathers of their > children. The CS system is another lame brained government program that are invented by those who think they are smarter than the rest of the population. We can't think or do for ourselves, so the government needs to control everything. Hillary says that she is tossing the idea of a $5,000 baby bonus. Golly, I wonder why that would be? Truth is, she drove that wreck into the electoral parking lot and it dented far too many fenders. So ... when one income redistribution plan fails, just roll in another. See if this one will do better. So ... here is Hillary Rodham's latest great idea for a new entitlement program. American Retirement Accounts. Hillary proposes that every citizen have a 401(k)-type retirement account. You can put up to $1,000 annually in the account and the government will match 100% of it (if you make less than $60,000). How will she pay for this? Taxes!! The $20 to $25 billion cost of this entitlement program would be paid for by death taxes levied on estates of more than $7 million per couple. She says that this will help "narrow the gap" between the evil rich and the "unfortunate" people who don't have enough savings for retirement. OK .. rather than going through a long narrative on Hillary's latest tax-and-spend plan, let me just give you some bullet points. For every dollar families earning less than $60,000 a year put into their account the federal government will match that dollar - up to $1000. This will be called a "refundable tax credit." Refundable tax credits are a scam. In the mid 1970s I purchased my first home. Builders were having a tough time selling homes back then, so the government instituted a $2000 tax credit for anyone purchasing a newly-built home. This meant that I could take when I filled out my tax return I would subtract whatever I owed the government by $2000, and pay the difference. If my tax liability minus $2000 equaled zero or less, then I simply didn't pay any federal income taxes, and that was the end of the story. That is not the way "refundable" tax credits work. With the modern invention of the "refundable" tax credit you once again subtract the credit from the taxes you owe the federal government. BUT ... if the tax credit is more than the taxes you owe, the government pays you the difference! In other words, the government uses its police power to seize the difference between the amount of taxes you owed and the amount of your credit from some other individual, and then hands that money over to you. Income redistribution ... pure and simple. Hillary's little savings scheme isn't going to cost the "government," as she say, $20 to $25 billion. Much of that money is simply seized by the government and handed over. Now .. if Hillary gets her little entitlement plan passed, let me tell you what the future holds in store. In campaign after campaign Democrats will tell the voters "Vote for me and we'll increase the contribution limit for your American Retirement Account. Vote for that evil Republican running against me and he will take your money away! By the way ... you don't have to work to get this handout. Of course if you don't work, you don't have income. If you don't have income you don't owe income taxes. That would mean that every single non-working person in this country would just have to find $1000 somewhere to put into this account and the government would rush forward to match it with someone else's money. Illegal aliens? I don't know. She hasn't said yet. Maybe someone will ask this dangerous woman if she plans to set up these accounts for illegals. The answer should be interesting. Something else interesting: Hillary says that less than half the families in the U.S. have retirement savings accounts. Another lie. Ever heard of Social Security? Now instead of creating this new entitlement program, why not just establish private accounts for each and every poor sap paying into Social Security right now? Oh wait, I forgot. The politicians need those Social Security taxes to fund their vote-buying programs. Watch this woman. All she seems to be doing lately is coming up with ideas for government entitlement programs ... and government entitlement programs are nothing more than wealth redistribution programs. Check your scorecard we have: a.. Nationalized Health Care. b.. The Baby Bonus c.. American Retirement Accounts d.. Hillary's idea of government involvement in our children's education even before kindergarten! In the meantime ... have you heard one single idea from Hillary that would increase your personal freedom? Have you heard one single idea that would decrease the intrusiveness or the power of the Imperial Federal Government? How about one idea that would promote competition in the free market? You're right ... you haven't. You haven't because Hillary Clinton worships the God of Government. This is a woman who feels that there are only a select few in this country who are capable of ordering and living their own lives without guidance from those smarter and more capable than they. This is a woman who believes to the depth of her soul that you can't exist without embrace of government guiding your every step and picking you up every time you stumble. To Hillary Rodham Clinton, self sufficiency is a vice. What's next? Stay tuned, it should only take a day or two to figure that out. > > "Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote > > .................. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > children. IOW - The sluts get the financial benefits of marriage without > going through the ceremony! And you'd think that if the woman is enjoying marriage benefits from the man, the least she could do is reciprocate by providing conjugal benefits to him. > > "Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote > > .................. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Just as the whore mongers get the same benifits as a divorced male, without the spousal support, or the other stuff you claim is the reason NCP's are upset. I notice in your statement YOU ONLY MENTION CHILD SUPPORT, I am sorry you feel you shouldn't have to support your children, Bob. >> > "Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote >> > .................. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > CHILD SUPPORT, I am sorry you feel you shouldn't have to support your > children, Bob. Uh....that's what this forum is about....child support. > >> > "Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote > >> > .................. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Uh....that's what this forum is about....child support. Not to mention, paying "child support" and supporting children are not the same thing. >>>>> "Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote >>>>> .................. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Not to mention, paying "child support" and supporting children are not the > same thing. ok, well what would you consider "supporting" children? Food, shelter and clothing cost money, you know. SignatureSarah Gray >> > "Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote >> > .................. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > CHILD SUPPORT, I am sorry you feel you shouldn't have to support your > children, Bob. I decided several years ago I was not going to pay any more CS. I dropped out of the system on my terms. I haven't paid a nickel since and there is nothing CSE can do about it. .................... >> Just as the whore mongers get the same benifits as a divorced male, >> without the spousal support, or the other stuff you claim is the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > out of the system on my terms. I haven't paid a nickel since and there is > nothing CSE can do about it. == :-) Ah geez, now you've gone and done it. Ok, You've shamed me into confession--I haven't *ever* paid a dime of child support and never will! Let em try to catch me! > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192100766.570156.146030@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If you stopped paying child support, WHAT do YOU do for your kid(s)? >> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> messagenews:1192100766.570156.146030@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > If you stopped paying child support, WHAT do YOU do for your kid(s)? Whatever I want to do, whenever I want to do it. > >> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > >> messagenews:1192100766.570156.146030@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > Whatever I want to do, whenever I want to do it. Just like a CP (mother). I wonder if she has a problem with THAT? > >>>>>><winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Why not just give him equal custody? > == Did he share equal pregnancy, labor, or delivery? Did the child lie under the fathers heart for 9 months? Just because you chose to push your child off doesn't mean other mothers want to. Just like the deadbeats were crying that men don't make children, and don't bring them into the world, well they don't carry children, go through labor and delivery, therefore; it makes no sense to give them equal custody, especially when child support doesn't cover even half of the material costs of raising a child. >>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > especially when child support doesn't cover even half of the material > costs of raising a child. Yes, it does. In fact, court-ordered child support is generally *MORE* than what half of the actual cost of raising a child is. The USDA puts out a study every year, updated monthly, as to average grocery costs at four income levels are. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/2007/CostofFoodAug07.pdf For a five year old, that ranges from $91.10 a month (the "thrifty" level; what they base food stamp monies on; to $172.00 a month (the "liberal" level). No one *needs* to spend 1600 a year on clothing, whether for an adult or a child. Costs of the child's share of shelter, transportation, and the like are less than a few hundred dollars a month. SignatureSarah Gray > childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > - Show quoted text - First of all I live in Maryland, and Child support is based on both parents income. I say his amout he is supposed to pay (which he doesn't) doesn't cover half of ANYTHING. So don't try to tell me it does! I will dress my child good if I want to, and you have no right to tell me I can't. I work 70 hours a week 6 days a week, and after paying all of my bills, I feel I want to buy my son good quality cloths (which I save all of my son's old cloths), then you are not going to tell me I can't! If you want your kids trolling the streets looking like trailer trash, that's on you. Don't try to talk smack and insinuate that I don't carry all of the responsibility. As for the gay thing-my faggy is my BFF. If my BFF said I can use any term describing gay's because I'm no hater, how are you going to tell me I'm wrong? >> childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > going to tell me I can't! If you want your kids trolling the streets > looking like trailer trash, Child support should be only marginally based on income. It is no parent's job, no matter the situation, to provide for their child according to income level. Just to ensure their child had food, clothing, shelter, etc. at an adequate level. My daughter, dressed in inexpensive clothing, does not look like "trailer trash". She puts her own outfits together and gets compliments on her general appearance on a regular basis. Some of the trashiest people I have known make an effort to dress themselves to look like they have class, when actually, they have none. Your slip is showing, my dear. >that's on you. Don't try to talk smack and > insinuate that I don't carry all of the responsibility. > As for the gay thing-my faggy is my BFF. If my BFF said I can use any > term describing gay's because I'm no hater, how are you going to tell > me I'm wrong? SignatureSarah Gray > childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > - Show quoted text - No bitch, I work 70 hours a week because I like to spoil my son. Your slip is showing? Bitch please, at least I can afford one. You don't know what class is, if you did, you would be working more, and judging less. My husband doesn't help me with my son, because (as I told him) it's not his place. That's my child, and I make the rules on that point. I dress him, feed him, cloth him, and I pay for his education. If your complaining about money and you have to be frugal, take you kid out of private school, it is obviously a luxary you can't afford. It really doesn't matter if I have to work a lot of hours to buy my son the best, a bitch like you wouldn't know the meaning of that type of work. You live frugal because you are too lazy to better your financial situation, or your kids wardrobe. You talk about me, but YOU ARE GETTING money. That $75.00 is more than I have ever gotten from my ex and if you spend $5 dollars on cloths then where is the other $70 at? It is supposed to be for your kid, not your habits, so go lie somewhere else. I never said I expect him to pay for half of my sons CLOTHS, you are just making things up, but if you want to go that route, the NCP is supposed to make sure the childs standards of living don't go down due to seperation. I worked more when I didn't have my son. I have always been a worker, and before I had my son, I decked my niece out all the time. Choke on that $75 bitch, but at the end of the day, you won't have no water to wash it down with. >> childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > bitch, but at the end of the day, you won't have no water to wash it > down with. And yet you accuse us of name calling against you LOL If you choose to buy overpriced, expensive things for your child, then you have NO right to complain about money. It's ALL your fault. >>> childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > overpriced, expensive things for your child, then you have NO right to > complain about money. It's ALL your fault. especially when you barely make more than minimum wage. SignatureSarah Gray "Sarah Gray" <anisaerah@duhyahoo.com> wrote in >> And yet you accuse us of name calling against you LOL If you choose to >> buy overpriced, expensive things for your child, then you have NO right >> to complain about money. It's ALL your fault. > especially when you barely make more than minimum wage. It's their Mantra, they have to work themselves to the bone to claim hardship! Regardless is he had a child or not, she still has to pay rent and hold a job like any normal adult, but she seeks approval and a pat on the head for doing the norm. > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192122442.383801.93580@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I wasn't complaining about money, deadbeat a.shole, I was complaining about all you deadbeat crybabies. >> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192122442.383801.93580@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... >> [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > I wasn't complaining about money, deadbeat a.shole, I was complaining > about all you deadbeat crybabies. Why don't you get a better job so you can stop neglecting your child? SignatureSarah Gray "child support owed by deadbeats" <laneaparge@yahoo.com> wrote in > I wasn't complaining about money, deadbeat a.shole, I was complaining > about all you deadbeat crybabies. Who is a dead beat? - > I wasn't complaining about money, deadbeat a.shole, I was complaining > about all you deadbeat crybabies. Again, who are these deadbeats? I've already stated I pay CS, so your statement Is false. Do tell us, who are the deadbeats? > - > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > statement Is false. > Do tell us, who are the deadbeats? It's a secret. LOL >> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> messagenews:1192122442.383801.93580@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... <snip> >> And yet you accuse us of name calling against you LOL If you choose to >> buy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I wasn't complaining about money, deadbeat a.shole, I was complaining > about all you deadbeat crybabies. OK--so that is one on the list of deadbeats here, right? You were responding to Shadow36, and you called him a "deadbeat crybaby," and a "deadbeat a.shole." So your list is: 1) Shadow 36. Now, who else goes on that list? >>> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>> messagenews:1192122442.383801.93580@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Now, who else goes on that list? == Oooh, oooh pick me, pick me!!! > >>> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > >>> messagenews:1192122442.383801.93580@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I see all of you deviated from the subject. I see a bunch of comments but no addition to the list. I had to se what was going on, and why people were commenting out of the subject context. You are all confused, and can't stay on topic. <Illiana_01@hotmail.com> wrote in > I see all of you deviated from the subject. I see a bunch of comments > but no addition to the list. Are you saying a dead beat is somebody that doesn't like to pay back a debt? He is a list of deadbeats! The American Government: $47 Trillion The American Tax Payer: $166,000 These dead beats start programs they can't afford and Tax Payers want all the services but don't want to pay more taxes to pay for it, and they still want a nice big fat government pension when they retire. That's it, go after the little guy that doesn't have any money, but just ignore everything else for long enough and you all will pay for their errors. > > >>> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > >>> messagenews:1192122442.383801.93580@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > people were commenting out of the subject context. You are all > confused, and can't stay on topic. Which is? >> childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > No bitch, I work 70 hours a week because I like to spoil my son. Apparently wasting money on clothes he doesn't appreciate is more important to you than spending time with him. Your > slip is showing? Bitch please, at least I can afford one. I can afford one. I don't like them, they are itchy and make me sweat. >You don't > know what class is, if you did, you would be working more, and judging > less. What does working more have to do with class? I've been pulling 50 hour weeks since June. I am not "high class". I do consider myself a fairly decent and ethical person, and that is good enough for me. At least I don't need people admiring my child's expensive clothes to feel good about myself as a parent. My husband doesn't help me with my son, because (as I told him) > it's not his place. That's my child, and I make the rules on that > point. I dress him, feed him, cloth him, and I pay for his education. Who takes care of your son when you are working 12-hour days plus weekends? As I said before, your husband's income subsidizes some of your costs, but instead of saving the money for a useful purpose, you squander it on clothes. I really should thank you. It's idiots like you who make it so I can buy nice looking outfits for my daughter for cheap at the thrift store. > If your complaining about money and you have to be frugal, take you > kid out of private school, it is obviously a luxary you can't afford. My daughter is not in private school. I am not sure where you got that idea from. Oh yeah, from your a.s, like all the rest. BTW, "luxary" is not a word. > It really doesn't matter if I have to work a lot of hours to buy my > son the best, a bitch like you wouldn't know the meaning of that type > of work. You live frugal because you are too lazy to better your > financial situation, or your kids wardrobe. I live frugally so that I do not have to worry about whether I can afford next month's rent. I find it ironic that you call me lazy, yet you are stealing time from your employer to argue on the internet. > You talk about me, but YOU ARE GETTING money. That $75.00 is more than > I have ever gotten from my ex and if you spend $5 dollars on cloths > then where is the other $70 at? For one thing, I never said I spent $5 a month on cloths for her. I didn't even say I spend that little on *clothes*. For someone that supposedly has so much class, you sure cannot spell for sh.t. It is supposed to be for your kid, not > your habits, so go lie somewhere else. as if the only expenses children have are for clothes. child support is for the basic needs of a child. In my case, this is well over $150 a month. I never said I expect him to > pay for half of my sons CLOTHS, you are just making things up, but if > you want to go that route, the NCP is supposed to make sure the childs > standards of living don't go down due to seperation. Since when? In addition, "seperation" is not a word either. I worked more > when I didn't have my son. I have always been a worker, and before I > had my son, I decked my niece out all the time. Choke on that $75 > bitch, but at the end of the day, you won't have no water to wash it > down with. What, you want a medal or something for working? Bitch, please! You're sounding more and more like a reject from 'flavor of love' with every post. SignatureSarah Gray > No bitch, I work 70 hours a week because I like to spoil my son. no, you work 70 hour workweeks because you have a shitty job. At least I got off my a.s and found a better job. I'm not lazy, just efficient. I work only 70% of the hours you do, but make more money. I'm sure when your son gets older, he'll have all the girls admiring his slick gear. Maybe he'll knock one up and you can see how f.cked up the system is from the other perspective. to wit: (scroll down to the fifth comment; I'm sure Lanea knows what I am talking about) http://www.topix.com/forum/city/manassas-va/TIOPBBPGI3QDL4TMM SignatureSarah Gray > > childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > you want to go that route, the NCP is supposed to make sure the childs > standards of living don't go down due to seperation. And therein lies the problem. The NCP is saddled with the responsibilities while the CP enjoys all the rights. That you fail to see the lopsided equation escapes me; but then again, not surprising due to your "they owe me" mentality, even though you did NOTHING to earn it. > I worked more > when I didn't have my son. I have always been a worker, and before I > had my son, I decked my niece out all the time. Choke on that $75 > bitch, but at the end of the day, you won't have no water to wash it > down with. >> >>>>>><winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Did he share equal pregnancy, labor, or delivery? Did the child lie > under the fathers heart for 9 months? Why do you think that the factthat women experience the biological reality of pregnancy and childbirth, they should have a right to make post-conception decisions for men? That makes no sense. Just because you chose to push > your child off doesn't mean other mothers want to. When did she do that? Just like the > deadbeats were crying that men don't make children, and don't bring > them into the world, well they don't carry children, go through labor > and delivery, therefore; it makes no sense to give them equal custody, What!!!!!! Aer you saying that FATHERS are not important enough to care for their children, love their children, guide their children? I cannot imagine my life without my father. I certainly never had the idea that my mother was the most important parent because she had gone through pregnancy and childbirth. I can't imagine my daughters' lives without their father. Children deserve to have 2 active, involved parents--not one "parent" and one money provider!! What a narrow, twisted life you must have led to be able to cut fathers off in such a cold way!! > especially when child support doesn't cover even half of the material > costs of raising a child. Child support awards are hight enough to supply half the *needs* of a child (for the most part). If the mother (according to you the important parent, deserving of custody) wants her child to have more than basic needs metm then she needs to provide them herself. "teachrmama" wrote ................... > Child support awards are hight enough to supply half the *needs* of a > child (for the most part). If the mother (according to you the important > parent, deserving of custody) wants her child to have more than basic > needs metm then she needs to provide them herself. === No, no, no--See her job was carrying and birthing. She's apparently finished. > "teachrmama" wrote > ................... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, no, no--See her job was carrying and birthing. She's apparently > finished. I think I figured it out...yes, they are "government acknowledged hookers"... You see, they did their job, now they want to get paid...lovely... Obviously, it was a lousy job they did, otherwise, the men might've stayed around...haha "whatamess" <mudanzapr@yahoo.com> wrote in >> No, no, no--See her job was carrying and birthing. She's apparently >> finished. > > I think I figured it out...yes, they are "government acknowledged > hookers"... I've figured it out too! CP = Cash Parent, the one that receives all the cash! NCP= Non Cash Parent, the one that all the cash is taken from! > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192098963.988355.192180@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I am saying that the same men trying to force abortion, want to make a bunch of kids then don't want to pay child support for those kids, (you actually called ray out on this one) and insist that men don't make children only women do, are the same people that are screaming that they should be able to have 50/50 custody, and that they are pushed out of thier kids lives. I cut tha f.cker off because I'm not his nigger, and my son isn't a niglet. I have given up on the dad, and for good reason. And I do provide all the extras by myself, andI enjoy making my son happy. So what is your point? I changed my views since I read what crazy ideas these men have, and I think they deserved what the ex's gave them. "child support owed by deadbeats" <laneaparge@yahoo.com> wrote in > I changed my views since I read what crazy ideas these men have, and I > think they deserved what the ex's gave them. Hmmm, wasn't your country founded on some crazy ideas of not paying taxes by some whiny men that hated paying all that money to a government that didn't give them any benefit from their money? >> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> messagenews:1192098963.988355.192180@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > that they should be able to have 50/50 custody, and that they are > pushed out of thier kids lives. I do not know whether some of these men actually want 50/50 custody. However, I think if 50/50 custody were the default position, and anything else had to be applied for in court, and the need proved, we wouldsee far fewer single parent homes. Fathers *are* inportant! Just as important as mothers. > I cut tha f.cker off because I'm not his nigger, and my son isn't a > niglet. I have given up on the dad, and for good reason. > And I do provide all the extras by myself, andI enjoy making my son > happy. So what is your point? Each case is an individual case. If your son's father really is as you say he is, and he wants nothing to do with the boy, then 50/50 custody would not work in your case, would it? > I changed my views since I read what crazy ideas these men have, and I > think they deserved what the ex's gave them. But the majority of the people here do not say that men should have no responsibility for their children. > > >>>>>><winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Did he share equal pregnancy, labor, or delivery? Did the child lie > under the fathers heart for 9 months? Your true colors exposed. > Just because you chose to push > your child off doesn't mean other mothers want to. Just like the > deadbeats were crying that men don't make children, and don't bring > them into the world, well they don't carry children, go through labor > and delivery, therefore; it makes no sense to give them equal custody, Nor does it make any sense for them to to have to pay her free money for her SOLE choice to give birth. > especially when child support doesn't cover even half of the material > costs of raising a child. > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192098963.988355.192180@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > - Show quoted text - But you cry about not being able to have a say in how the kid is raised. Why would any woman want someone like you putting any idea's into a childs head? Free money? How about the freedom you have of not having to take care of your kids, and then take credit for being a father when the child is successful? That money isn't free, you just feel that way because you want to controll the money. > > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192098963.988355.192180@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > But you cry about not being able to have a say in how the kid is > raised. No I don't. > Why would any woman want someone like you putting any idea's > into a childs head? Free money? How about the freedom you have of not > having to take care of your kids, and then take credit for being a > father when the child is successful? With all due respect, what the heck are you talking about? > That money isn't free, you just > feel that way because you want to controll the money. Correction: It IS free. Why? Because it is UNEARNED! That's why. >>>>>> <winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > There will never be a monitoring system set in place for the CP. Why not? That seems like a completely fair idea. I would gladly save and show receipts and pay stubs, etc. if it meant that the system treated CP and NCP more equally. Why shouldn't a woman go to jail for keeping her child from their father? If thats the > case, lets round up all those NCP's who evade the system by working under the > table. Those who find codependent enablers who will support their deadbeat > a.s. > > I'll gladly fork over my monthly bills. Then the NCP can quit his bitching > and see just exactly HOW MUCH it costs to raise a child. But, as you have already explained, your monthly bills are unreasonably high. Your kid's father should not have to pay for half of a winter coat bought at Macy's instead of K-Mart just because you are a label snob. > I have no sympathy and never will for neglectful NCP's (I say NCP's because > there are mothers who are neglectful as well). I am currently dating a single > father who has raised all 3 of his children by himself as the mother is a > deadbeat. SignatureSarah Gray >>>>>>> <winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> father who has raised all 3 of his children by himself as the mother is a >> deadbeat. To state again, I will fork over what it costs me in necessities per month. Where are you getting my bills are high? Did I state they were? NO. Its amusing you attempt to put words in my mouth to better fit your weak argument. Label snob? Did I say that? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. Try again. Where do you get this? LOL >>>>>>>> <winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Label snob? Did I say that? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. Try again. Where do you get this? > LOL You said that you spent over $1500 on clothes for your son for the upcoming year. It seems foolish to me to buy expensive clothing for a person who will soon grow out of it. SignatureSarah Gray >>>>>>>>> <winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >upcoming year. It seems foolish to me to buy expensive clothing for a >person who will soon grow out of it. You are directing this at the wrong person. I did not say that. I dont have a son. >>>>>>>>>> <winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > You are directing this at the wrong person. I did not say that. I dont have a More options Oct 8, 9:14 am Newsgroups: alt.child-support From: child support owed by deadbeats <laneapa...@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:14:41 -0700 Local: Mon, Oct 8 2007 9:14 am Subject: Re: Dad's Visitation Responsibility Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author On Oct 6, 1:27 am, "DB" <D...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Shadow36" <n...@no.com> wrote in > > 564 a month? wow It doesn't cost anywhere close to that amount to support > > my 14 year old... > That's supposed to represent 50% of the total cost to raise a child! > Sure is a lot of new shoes, shirts and jeans every month! > Think I spent a total of $200 last year on new clothes. Where are YOU buying cloths for your kids to spend ONLY $200.00 for the year. I seem to be buying new wardrobes every 6 months or so, and my kid is only about to be 5. I must know where you have gotten wardrobe for your kids for that price. You must share this with all of us. Winter is on the way, and my little one has grown a lot over the summer. He went from 3'5 to 3'9 3/4. All of his jeans, shirts, jackets, and coats are too small. I spent close to $1,100.00 last winter, and close to $500.00 this summer. SignatureSarah Gray >>>>>>>>>>> <winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > jackets, and coats are too small. I spent close to $1,100.00 last > winter, and close to $500.00 this summer. I just realized I was mistaken. I thought you were another name for someone else who keeps changing their handle. SignatureSarah Gray >I just realized I was mistaken. I thought you were another name for >someone else who keeps changing their handle. Thats what I thought. Damn, ya'll a bunch of paranoid people. >>I just realized I was mistaken. I thought you were another name for >>someone else who keeps changing their handle. >> > Thats what I thought. Damn, ya'll a bunch of paranoid people. == For good reason. You wouldn't believe the riff raff that comes through here. > >>>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Show's how smart you are. What is the other handle? >Where are YOU buying cloths for your kids to spend ONLY $200.00 for >the year. I seem to be buying new wardrobes every 6 months or so, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >jackets, and coats are too small. I spent close to $1,100.00 last >winter, and close to $500.00 this summer. I am Momof1, I did not write that message about buying winter coats and clothes. Watch who you are replying to. I live in Southern California, it NEVER gets cold enough to buy winter coats. We dont even have to wear coats... LOL. Are you directing this towards me? If so, pay attention, I NEVER SAID I SPEND ANY MONEY AWAY ON THAT. IN FACT, IVE NEVER EVEN MAPPED OUT INCOME LEVELS ON HERE. "Sarah Gray" wrote ................ > Where are YOU buying cloths for your kids to spend ONLY $200.00 for > the year. I seem to be buying new wardrobes every 6 months or so, and > my kid is only about to be 5. === Try eBay. I have a 14 yr old who is now 6'1" and weighs 190--Talk about outgrowing clothes every few months! He doesn't care at all where his clothes come from--just so they are comfortable. Unfortunately, my 12 yr old does care about fashion and wouldn't be caught dead in his brother's clothes. === > >>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Sarah Gray I don't see where I spent $1,100.00 on a coat. " I spent close to $1,100.00 last winter, and close to $500.00 this summer." It is not unusual to spend close to $2,000.00 a year on cloths and foot wear for a young child. I don't see what you point is, or why you don't feel I have the right to spend MY HARD EARNED MONEY on my child. What is sad is the fact that you don't feel the NCP should help with anything. You have C.E.S which is classic enabler syndrome. >>>>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > What is sad is the fact that you don't feel the NCP should help with > anything. You have C.E.S which is classic enabler syndrome. First off, the word is "clothes", not "cloths". It is *very* unusual to spend that much, unless you have a very high income. Kids will do fine in $5.00 bought-on-sale stuff at a mass merchandiser or items from a thrift store. You have the right to spend your money any way you please. You do not have the right to expect your ex to subsidize your exorbitant spending habits. Again, do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I *do* think that *both* parents should shoulder the financial responsibilities of raising a child, but at a reasonable level. I think that CPs should have to prove what they are actually spending on the child. If you are receiving support for a child, you should be able to back it up with evidence that you are spending it on the child, at a reasonable level. SignatureSarah Gray > >>>>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > I *do* think that *both* parents should shoulder the financial > responsibilities of raising a child, but at a reasonable level. And what's reasonable is that BOTH parents have the SAME EQUAL right to spend their OWN money on the child, including how much (if any) and what for, just like the mother does. Do you agree? > I think > that CPs should have to prove what they are actually spending on the > child. If you are receiving support for a child, you should be able to > back it up with evidence that you are spending it on the child, at a > reasonable level. > >childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You go ahead and wait for the deadbeat to spend his money, from the other state he moved to, without reagrd for you or your kid. He loves his child so much he gave 12 hours notice he was leaving-lol You be old and gray before he spends a dime on his own. You're going to need that court order!lol > > >childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > You be old and gray before he spends a dime on his own. You're going > to need that court order!lol It is unclear what you find humorous, since it is unclear what you are attempting to say. > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192123247.585325.172320@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Only to the stupid... > > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192123247.585325.172320@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > > Only to the stupid... In YOUR opinion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > spend their OWN money on the child, including how much (if any) and what > for, just like the mother does. Do you agree? NO. I think both parents have an obligation to their child to contribute half of the monies necessary to pay the costs of raising said child. I truly cannot understand why you have such fear of children being supported by their fathers at all. >> I think >> that CPs should have to prove what they are actually spending on the >> child. If you are receiving support for a child, you should be able to >> back it up with evidence that you are spending it on the child, at a >> reasonable level. SignatureSarah Gray > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > NO. I think both parents have an obligation to their child to contribute > half of the monies necessary to pay the costs of raising said child. To WHO do they contribute, WHO should determine the amount, and WHY? > I > truly cannot understand why you have such fear of children being > supported by their fathers at all. I have no such fear. > >> I think > >> that CPs should have to prove what they are actually spending on the > >> child. If you are receiving support for a child, you should be able to > >> back it up with evidence that you are spending it on the child, at a > >> reasonable level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > To WHO do they contribute, WHO should determine the amount, and WHY? I f.cking give up. Fine, Women should forever shoulder all of the costs accrued with childrearing, but guys get to come and go as they please without contributing a thing. sounds like a wonderful world to live in. >> I >> truly cannot understand why you have such fear of children being [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>> back it up with evidence that you are spending it on the child, at a >>>> reasonable level. SignatureSarah Gray > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > accrued with childrearing, but guys get to come and go as they please > without contributing a thing. sounds like a wonderful world to live in. Did someone say guys should be able to come and go as they please without contributing a thing? . > >> I > >> truly cannot understand why you have such fear of children being [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >>>> back it up with evidence that you are spending it on the child, at a > >>>> reasonable level. >> >>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > It is not unusual to spend close to $2,000.00 a year on cloths and > foot wear for a young child. Yes It Is. I don't see what you point is, or why you > don't feel I have the right to spend MY HARD EARNED MONEY on my child. You do have the right to waste 2000 a year > What is sad is the fact that you don't feel the NCP should help with > anything. Whats sad Is you severly overspend, and complain about not getting money from the NCP. Cut back your spending. >> >>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > What is sad is the fact that you don't feel the NCP should help with > anything. You have C.E.S which is classic enabler syndrome. On our household, we do not spend that much on clothes for our entire family of four in a year. You are certainly entitled to spend your hard-earned money as you want to. But I do think it is a little far-fetched to think that the child's father should be forced to pay for your choice of expensive clothes. CS is supposed to be for *needs*--not for luxuries. And expensive clothing is a luxury. "teachrmama" <teachrmama@iwon.com> wrote in > On our household, we do not spend that much on clothes for our entire > family of four in a year. You are certainly entitled to spend your > hard-earned money as you want to. Having to work 70 hours a week is strictly her choice if she wants to keep up with the Jones Family! > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192101107.325243.124960@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I never f.cking said that he should have to pay for half of my sons cloths. >> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192101107.325243.124960@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > I never f.cking said that he should have to pay for half of my sons > cloths. what kind of cloths are you talking about? washcloths? tablecloths? I am confused. SignatureSarah Gray > >> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192101107.325243.124960@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > what kind of cloths are you talking about? washcloths? tablecloths? I am > confused. Maybe it's loincloths. :) > > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192101107.325243.124960@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > I never f.cking said that he should have to pay for half of my sons > cloths. What's up with this "Hide quoted text ->> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text ->> - Show quoted text -"? It's a senseless distraction incorrectly attributing the quote to the previous poster. > >>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Do you work? If so, do I tell you how to spend your money? IT'S MY MONEY TO SPEND ON MY SON BECAUSE I EARNED IT-not deadbeat Dave. Deadbeat Dave doesn't pay for ANY of his kids (of which I have the oldest about to be 5), why don't you get you stuff right. And you replying to the wrong person, smarty. >>>>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > oldest about to be 5), why don't you get you stuff right. And you > replying to the wrong person, smarty. Yes, I work. I am extremely frugal, and that is the only reason I can support my daughter on my income. You really ought to be saving that money for your son's college education, instead of wasting it on clothes he will outgrow. You have no right to act like you *have* to spend the amount you do and then claim your ex should shoulder half the cost of it. SignatureSarah Gray > > >>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > MONEY TO SPEND ON MY SON BECAUSE I EARNED IT-not deadbeat Dave. > Deadbeat Dave doesn't pay for ANY of his kids And "deadbeat Dave" has no rights to your child, nor is he responsible for your SOLE choice to bring your child into the world either. > (of which I have the > oldest about to be 5), why don't you get you stuff right. And you > replying to the wrong person, smarty. > >>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You must be trying to reply to what I wrote, and let me tell you that I do not bust my hump at work for 70 hours a week to buy my child no name things. I buy my son what he wants with the money that I earn. His biological father is over $20,000.00 in arrears in just one case alone (he has 3 cases), so don't tell me I'm a label snob, because I myself have nothing name brand. My son has everything name brand because I work for him to have such things. If you want your kids to walk around like some trash that's on you, but children reflect on us as parents. I didn't say that the NCP or No children present has to pay for it, but he does need to pay his child support (which doesn't even cover 1/2 of child care or food). Unless you ave a deadbeat or enable to add to the list, I don't see why you would even make any type of comment, let alone an enabler comment. >>>>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > myself have nothing name brand. My son has everything name brand > because I work for him to have such things. Well, then that is *your* decision. It is not up to his dad to send you money so you can turn your kid into a snob. >If you want your kids to > walk around like some trash that's on you, but children reflect on us [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > enable to add to the list, I don't see why you would even make any > type of comment, let alone an enabler comment. Actually, I am a CP (well, right now we actually have "joint physical custody", but he moved out of state giving me less than 12 hours notice, and does not have the wherewithal or cojones to move back any time soon). I receive a small amount of child support that I am attempting to get raised to a reasonable amount. I am also all for father's rights, and think that the current system for child custody and child support is totally biased against men. I agree with much of what even Chris has to say about post-conception rights and the like (though I do think that once someone, man or woman, has taken on the responsibility of raising a child, they should be obligated to help support that child until they are of legal age.) I think that CPs who prevent their children's fathers from seeing them should be treated the same as "deadbeats" are by the law. My own father owes my mon tens of thousands in child support, but she has gone out of her way to write letters to the friend of the court, trying to keep him out of jail. Even when he did not provide financial assistance to my sister and brother (when my parents divorced, I had already moved out of their house), he was always in their lives. Children having a relationship with both of their parents is more important than money, with the exception of situations where the children have *subadequate* food, clothing, shelter, etc. In that case, *neither* parent, CP, or NCP, is doing their job. I agree with you that men like your ex are deadbeats. Then again, we don't know his side of the story. SignatureSarah Gray > childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > - Show quoted text - How much does it cost you a year to dress your child, and how much does the NCP help you with that? Hit me back when you are doing it all alone for your child, like me. >> childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > does the NCP help you with that? Hit me back when you are doing it all > alone for your child, like me. Well, currently I am receiving not even $75 a month in child support. (I think the actual amount is $66 and change) It costs me about $2-300 a year to clothe her right now, and it would be less if she were not required to wear a uniform at school. Latchkey is $180 a month, so in effect, I *am* doing it all alone for my child. And you are not doing it alone. You have a husband, whose income subsidizes a portion of *your* rent and food, allowing you to spend more of your income on your child than I can. Your decision to make poor financial choices is the reason for your 70-hour workweek, not your status as a CP. SignatureSarah Gray > > childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > does the NCP help you with that? Hit me back when you are doing it all > alone for your child, like me. You also get to HAVE the child "all alone", and you made the choice to bring your child into the world "all alone". Or did you forget those lil' details? > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192103203.879336.25750@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > > - Show quoted text - More nonsense excuses from another deadbeat. So brave you deadbeats are to write your opinion of your chldren on a chat board, with your crybaby selves. PAY YOUR CHILD SUPPORT, and stop hating. Get a job, pay what the judge told you, and stop crying. Nobody told you to break it off with you baby's mama's and nobody told you to treat them badly so thay would leave you. You all are crying about paying, but you wasn't crying when the making was going on. "child support owed by deadbeats" <laneaparge@yahoo.com> wrote in > More nonsense excuses from another deadbeat. Any you know that Chris is a Dead Beat how? You seem to confuse a person complaining about the system with someone that doesn't support or care about their child. > > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192103203.879336.25750@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > > [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > > More nonsense excuses from another deadbeat. Call it what you like, but my claims are still true. And just what makes me a "deadbeat"? > So brave you deadbeats > are to write your opinion of your chldren on a chat board, with your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so thay would leave you. You all are crying about paying, but you > wasn't crying when the making was going on. I'm sorry, but I don't speak ebonics. >> > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > messagenews:1192103203.879336.25750@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 190 lines] > > I'm sorry, but I don't speak ebonics. ROFL > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192124249.557753.110160@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...> On Oct 11, 12:32 pm, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote: > > > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 186 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Or English > > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192124249.557753.110160@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...> On Oct 11, 12:32 pm, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 187 lines] > > Or English You're right. I ONLY read & write English. >> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> messagenews:1192103203.879336.25750@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 162 lines] > so thay would leave you. You all are crying about paying, but you > wasn't crying when the making was going on. You certainly do have a talent for making sweeping judgements without adequate facts to back them up! Every man who is paying child support either broke it off with the child's mother or did treated the mother badly so she left him?????? You mean to tell me that women are always the pure, good ones, and men are always the ones at fault? "teachrmama" <teachrmama@iwon.com> wrote ........................... Every man who is paying child support > either broke it off with the child's mother or did treated the mother > badly so she left him?????? You mean to tell me that women are always the > pure, good ones, and men are always the ones at fault? == TM, I'm really shocked that you just discovered this! ;-) > >> "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > >> messagenews:1192103203.879336.25750@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 168 lines] > so she left him?????? You mean to tell me that women are always the pure, > good ones, and men are always the ones at fault? That's what their lesbian "child support" lawyers tell them; so they MUST be right. > > >>>>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > walk around like some trash that's on you, but children reflect on us > as parents. Translation: My ex owes me money so that I can look classy. > I didn't say that the NCP or No children present has to > pay for it, but he does need to pay his child support (which doesn't > even cover 1/2 of child care or food). Unless you ave a deadbeat or > enable to add to the list, I don't see why you would even make any > type of comment, let alone an enabler comment. > >>>>><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I'll gladly fork over my monthly bills. Then the NCP can quit his bitching > and see just exactly HOW MUCH it costs to raise a child. Until you are willing to swap positions with the father, you are full of hot air. > I have no sympathy and never will for neglectful NCP's (I say NCP's because > there are mothers who are neglectful as well). I am currently dating a single > father who has raised all 3 of his children by himself as the mother is a > deadbeat. >> >>>>><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in >> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> father who has raised all 3 of his children by himself as the mother is a >> deadbeat. Tell me what makes you think anyone would swap positions to willfully become a neglectful parent? Are you high? You are just talking nonsense now. Another attempt to land excuses for neglectful parents. How utterly sad of you. > >> >>>>><winchester1977@yahoo.com> wrote in > >> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Tell me what makes you think anyone would swap positions to willfully become > a neglectful parent? NOT what I was referring to. Nice red herring. > Are you high? You are just talking nonsense now. Another > attempt to land excuses for neglectful parents. How utterly sad of you. "Momof1" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > Furthermore............ <Snip> all verbal diarrhea! LOL, another name! Hahaaaaaa I agree with you on this one. Now, I am NOT saying that MOST men don't want to support their children, but like in my sons fathers case. He refussed to pay, he refussed to help with uncovered medical expenses, etc........ It took a court order and a judge to spell out his responsibilities as a father! Now, if he would have helped in the first place and instead of trying to tell me what he should and should not have to do he would be paying LESS a month than he is now, because I tried settling with him for less a month!!! BUT he refussed to pay and refussed to abide by the law so I had no choice but to have the court system step in and define his responsibilities. Wouldn't you believe, he is mad and hates me now because he has to pay "so much a month"! Why is he mad at me? I tried working it out with him, I tried having him pay less, and HE is the one that made the choice NOT to support and NOT to help with his sons needs. So, I think MOSTof you fathers give MOST mothers a bad rap!!!! >I am so tired of listen to men who have to pay child support bitch, >and moan. If they were taking care of thier children to begin with [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Please feel free to add any deadbeat parent to the list "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote in > I tried working it out with him, I tried having him pay > less, and HE is the one that made the choice NOT to support and NOT to > help > with his sons needs. So, I think MOSTof you fathers give MOST mothers a > bad > rap!!!! I notice you're not giving him any change back! LOL Change back? What does that mean? Why would I give an idiot that is unwilling to communicate, cooperate, and get his head out of his A-- a break? Because of his stupidity I had to spend money on court fees, travel fees to attend court, etc.... If someone is going to be that difficult when the other party is so willing to try and work things out, that is the lesson they get for their stupidity! Maybe next time he will learn from the lesson and be more willing to cooperate. If your employer gave you extra income a month, would you give them back the change? HELL NO!!!!!! >"Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I notice you're not giving him any change back! LOL > Change back? What does that mean? Why would I give an idiot that is > unwilling to communicate, cooperate, and get his head out of his A-- a > break? If he has all those flaws, why did you sleep with him and risk getting pregnant? Doesn't your current characterization of the father of your child indicate you made some very poor choices about men you were willing to invite into your life? Yes, exactly.........I was 17 when we met and you should know at that age, you are stupid and make stupid mistakes. We never got married (thank god) and we broke up before I found out I was pregnant. I used to be very good friends with his wife that used tosay "aren't you glad you never married him". YES!!!!!!!!!!!! I grew up and realized how bad of a person he was and made the good choice "not to marry just becuase I was pregnant". But poor choices does not mean he shouldn't pay his support that is ordered and that I should feel sorry for him. I gave him years to comply and years to pay less than what could be ordered, but there was always an excuse for not helping with his son, so when the courts stepped in that was his fault, not mine!!!!! All you men just like to HATE every women that receives child support and that isn't right! >> Change back? What does that mean? Why would I give an idiot that is >> unwilling to communicate, cooperate, and get his head out of his A-- a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >indicate you made some very poor choices about men you were willing to >invite into your life? > Yes, exactly.........I was 17 when we met and you should know at that age, > you are stupid and make stupid mistakes. We never got married (thank god) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you men just like to HATE every women that receives child support and that > isn't right! Receiving "child support" isn't right either. > >> Change back? What does that mean? Why would I give an idiot that is > >> unwilling to communicate, cooperate, and get his head out of his A-- a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >indicate you made some very poor choices about men you were willing to > >invite into your life? > > Change back? What does that mean? Why would I give an idiot that is > > unwilling to communicate, cooperate, and get his head out of his A-- a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > indicate you made some very poor choices about men you were willing to > invite into your life? I say the same to the deadbeats that complain about the women they father children with. Look at all of you crying and whining about the child support. Why don't you take your own advice? You ex is greedy-why didn't you think about that before you laid down with her? >> > Change back? What does that mean? Why would I give an idiot that is >> > unwilling to communicate, cooperate, and get his head out of his A-- a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You ex is greedy-why didn't you think about that before you laid down > with her? Because there was this 14 year span between meeting my future wife and getting divorced. You are mixing up men who got a woman pregnant out of wedlock with men who were married to the mother's of their children. There a huge differences in attitudes between men who knock up their girlfriends and men who marry and plan on having a family. Conversely, the women who were married are more greedy because they not only want CS but also spousal support, property settlements, insurance coverage, the family home, retirement benefits, etc. and their "half" of marriage assets can be what the courts call the "long half" which is much closer to 2/3 than 1/2. > <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - But the poeple on here are not complaining about spousal support, properity settlements, insurance coverage, the family home, retirement benifits! They are only complaining about having to pay child support. That's all, child support; except when they are trying to force abortion on a woman, and trying to get people to believe that a woman is a fault when she is raped. Other than that, it's all about the child support, and how they feel the system is so unfair to give a custodial parent rights to open a child support case. >> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > child support, and how they feel the system is so unfair to give a > custodial parent rights to open a child support case. You are generalizing from the posts of a couple of people onto this intire newsgroup. That is really unfair of you. "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote in > If your employer gave you extra income a month, > would you give them back the change? HELL NO!!!!!! Where's your so called morality now? You claim you only needed a much lesser amount before Kourt, now that the Kourt has awarded you more than you actually need, you see no reason to give back the excess money and keep it for yourself. So how much did the DA charge you to file a CS case? > "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So how much did the DA charge you to file a CS case? If deadbeat dad had paid what the court order had stated in the first place, he wouldn't be going back to court for the second time. Lady, take him for everything you can get out of him. I have to go to court for a modification. I was not going to fight my deadbeat on a lower amount, but after these a.s holes on here, I don't think I should give him any slack. I did the calculator and seems that the $117.00 a month I agreed to in 2002 is far below the state guidelines of $940.00. Since he filed for the modification in December of 2006, When I ask for the state required amount, all those hundreds of dollars will be added to the arrears from Jan to current. Thank you, all the deadbeats, for showing me that you all are just a bunch of low lives who don't deserve to be around your children because you don't care about them enough to pay the child support. That is junkie behavior to be so tight with your money. It's not even child support, it's the fact that it goes to the ex! That person was good enough for you to sleep with, knock up, but not good enough for you to support the kids. Sick, and sad is what you lot are! >> "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > good enough for you to sleep with, knock up, but not good enough for > you to support the kids. Sick, and sad is what you lot are! Again, you are lumping everyone together and assuming that everyone here is trying to avoid child support. I do notice that you spend the majority of your effort on the couple of people who want to have sex with no accountability whatsoever--and you seem to assume that everyone here has that same attitude. Or maybe you have just been looking for areason to try to get more from the man you thought enough of to have sex with and create a child. That's sad. >>> "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote in >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >to get more from the man you thought enough of to have sex with and create a >child. That's sad. I'm not sad, these guys are. Mostlythat gini broad. She must be super greedy if the money paid to the children in question stopped being paid out over 10 years ago. Hypocrite's are what I see posting about the CS sstem. Did you read what DB had to say. I put a comment up about him, and proved him to be a hater. >>> "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote in >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >to get more from the man you thought enough of to have sex with and create a >child. That's sad. Now I am. I do everything and he does nothing for our son. All I have done is allowed him the financial ability to procreate all over the place. There dickheads on here have shown me that I have been stupid to not have taken the stateguidelines requested CS amount. He and his wife get welfare, so I have been supporting his other kids on my tax dollar, so now he can start paying for his kid too. You talk about "getting more", but I haven't gotten ANYTHING. Nothing, Ziltch, Zero is what I've gotten. >>>> "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote in >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > ANYTHING. > Nothing, Ziltch, Zero is what I've gotten. Well there is this thing called equal rights. When mothers are on welfare they are presumed to not be able to pay CS. It cuts both ways - When men are on welfare they too are presumed to not be able to pay CS. Are you suggesting different welfare and CS laws for men and women? "Bob Whiteside" <robertg@teleport.com> wrote ............. You talk about "getting more", but I haven't gotten >> ANYTHING. >> Nothing, Ziltch, Zero is what I've gotten. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Are you suggesting different welfare and CS laws for men and women? == Well, ya see--When men are on welfare it's because they are lazy. When women are on welfare it's because they're "victims." >== >Well, ya see--When men are on welfare it's because they are lazy. When >women are on welfare it's because they're "victims." Funny. Cause I kind of see you playin' the victim right here. A bunch of whinning comming from those who think having an amt. set to support their child, in turn, they play victim. Ironic. HA. > Gini wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whinning comming from those who think having an amt. set to support their > child, in turn, they play victim. Ironic. HA. == What you "kind of see" is irrelevent to the majority of humans--fortunately. BTW, I take back all the nice things I said about you. >>== >>Well, ya see--When men are on welfare it's because they are lazy. When >>women are on welfare it's because they're "victims." > Funny. Cause I kind of see you playin' the victim right here. A bunch of > whinning comming from those who think having an amt. set to support their > child, in turn, they play victim. Ironic. HA. Interesting.....since the person you responded to has never had a child support order either for or against her. <chuckle> > >>>> "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote in > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Are you suggesting different welfare and CS laws for men and women? Why not? They have different laws for men and women regarding being parents; it's called CP and NCP. > >>> "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote in > >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > for his kid too. You talk about "getting more", but I haven't gotten ANYTHING. > Nothing, Ziltch, Zero is what I've gotten. Why should ANYBODY pay you free money for your SOLE choice to bear a child? "child support owed by deadbeats" <laneaparge@yahoo.com> wrote in > for a modification. I was not going to fight my deadbeat on a lower > amount, but after these a.s holes on here, I don't think I should give [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for the state required amount, all those hundreds of dollars will be > added to the arrears from Jan to current. You go right ahead Dear, get everything the system will extort for you on behalf of "YOUR" child's name! Why should you be any different than the rest of them? > "child support owed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > behalf of "YOUR" child's name! > Why should you be any different than the rest of them? It's not extortion, stupid hypocrite, according to you. Your comment to the man that was owed child support was completely different than your comment regarding women who are supposed to get child support. Go cry your fag-rag tears elsewhere! > > "child support owed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It's not extortion, Yes it is. Anytime money is unjustifiably taken by force or threat thereof, it's extortion. > stupid hypocrite, according to you. Your comment > to the man that was owed child support was completely different than > your comment regarding women who are supposed to get child support. Go > cry your fag-rag tears elsewhere! > Change back? What does that mean? Why would I give an idiot that is > unwilling to communicate, cooperate, and get his head out of his A-- a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > month, > would you give them back the change? HELL NO!!!!!! == Because of HIS stupidity? Maybe next time you'll put a little thought into whom you chose to father your children. That is kinda important, you know. You told us that you chose an "idiot" with his head in his a.s to father your children--and you want us to believe you are a victim of this man? That's funny. "Gini" <gini@verizon.com> wrote in > You told us that you chose an "idiot" with his head in his a.s to father > your children--and you want > us to believe you are a victim of this man? That's funny. Well he did force her to get pregnant and she deserves all the protections the law can provide as she had no protection at the time! LOL > "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote> Change back? What does that mean? Why would I give an idiot that is > > unwilling to communicate, cooperate, and get his head out of his A-- a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > you want > us to believe you are a victim of this man? That's funny. Maybe next time you would do well to keep your mouth shut. We don't need unfit mothers chiming in because she had to pay child support in Floridia. >> "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote> Change back? What >> does that mean? Why would I give an idiot that is [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > need unfit mothers chiming in because she had to pay child support in > Floridia. <chuckle> Again, you do not know what you are talking about here. She never had to pay any form of child support. She and her ex worked together to rear their children. >> "Gini" <g...@verizon.com> wrote: >>> "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote> Change back? What [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> > to >>> > attend court, etc.... .................................. >>> == >>> Because of HIS stupidity? Maybe next time you'll put a little thought [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > never had to pay any form of child support. She and her ex worked > together to rear their children. == Heh, She must have run out of intelligent things to say :-) > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192013392.477945.161500@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Then why is she bitching? That's right, she is an enabler. She is pissed because her husband had to pay for his kids until 12 years ago. How pressed for money she must be to STILL be complaining about it after 12 years. >> "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote> Change back? What does that mean? Why would I give an idiot that is >>> unwilling to communicate, cooperate, and get his head out of his A-- a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > need unfit mothers chiming in because she had to pay child support in > Floridia. I love how she thinks as if that is the worst thing you could call a woman, but it's fine to label *every* man that has difficulty making their child support payments a deadbeat. SignatureSarah Gray > childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I didn't call every man a deadbeat, I called everyparent that doesn't pay thier child support a deadbeat. IF THERE IS AN ORDER OF CHILD SUPPORT AGAINST YOU, IF YOU BE MAN OR WOMAN, IF YOU DO NOT PAY YOUR COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT, YOU ARE A DEADBEAT. >> childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > SUPPORT AGAINST YOU, IF YOU BE MAN OR WOMAN, IF YOU DO NOT PAY YOUR > COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT, YOU ARE A DEADBEAT. do you have problems with reading comprehension? SignatureSarah Gray > > childsupportowed by deadbeats wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > SUPPORT AGAINST YOU, IF YOU BE MAN OR WOMAN, IF YOU DO NOT PAY YOUR > COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT, YOU ARE A DEADBEAT. Not according to Webster's. You don't think people change after 18 years???? When I first met him I was only 17 years old. Every 17 year old does stupid things and fall for people that are not right for them. I learned after a couple of years. Everything was fine, our break up was fine, etc.... I was even great friends with his wife, he even played on a baseball team with my husband, we all got along..... .. But HE changed and started getting into drugs, abusing his wife and kids, etc......... Thats when the sh.t hit the fan and he became a horrible father and person. He started refusing to pay for his responsibilites, so after giving him many chances, he failed......I had no other option but to have a judge spell out his responsiilites as a father because he could no longer figure that out on his own. And so now of course he bitches and complaines about paying his "big" amount of child support, but that the same time he was fired from his job, having marital problems and decided to bring another life into this world with his wife. Talk about STUPID and I am supposed to feel sorry for him for having to pay child support??? >> Change back? What does that mean? Why would I give an idiot that is >> unwilling to communicate, cooperate, and get his head out of his A-- a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >you want >us to believe you are a victim of this man? That's funny. On Oct 9, 1:49 pm, "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> wrote: > I agree with you on this one. Now, I am NOT saying that MOST men don't want > to support their children, but like in my sons fathers case. He refussed to [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - All of the deadbeat parents that have a problem with child support: Shortcuts through rough times may lead to shortcomings later down the road. Let's learn to ask God what we are supposed to learn from a rough situation..instead of asking God to remove that thing entirely. > On Oct 9, 1:49 pm, "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" <u37991@uwe> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > the road. Let's learn to ask God what we are supposed to learn from a > rough situation..instead of asking God to remove that thing entirely. Let's also remember to ask God to help us see the other side of the issue before judging those who are living that side of the issue. > I am so tired of listen to men who have to pay child support bitch, > and moan. If they were taking care of thier children to begin with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is just proof that child support is established for women not just > men. The problem with the above rant is that in order for any debt to exist, there must first be some benefit realized by the debtor. In the case of a phony "child support" debt, no benefit exists; thus no debt exists. The author may or may not be aware of this fact; but either way, they advocate extortion. > David Martinez (Deadbeat) Owes over $40,000.00 for two cases (my > friends case amount is not included) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Please feel free to add any deadbeat parent to the list > <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Only your claims are phoney, because my court order is for real. All of your "Feel sorry for me", bull sh.t isn't going to fly over here. You better go run to your mens choice group and plan your all next forced abortion proposal. As far as I am concerned, and from what I have read in the other places, you are just a small group of noncustodial deadbeat loosers who want a trophy for complying partialy with a court order of child support. What you need to do is go kiss you baby's mama's feet fro taking care of the kids. I am sure she was there for sickness, hurt feelings, cuts, and bruises, and probably every significant thing the child experienced. Unfortunately you and others like you had thier heads too far up thier a.ses to have noticed what was going on with you all kids. "child support owed by deadbeats" <laneaparge@yahoo.com> wrote in > What you need to do is go kiss you baby's mama's feet fro taking care of > the kids. Why, are the mothers of today doing anything different that hasn't been done for generations, but you want a special recognition award! > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why, are the mothers of today doing anything different that hasn't been done > for generations, but you want a special recognition award! This comming from a hypocrite like you??? I see how you do! Child support is O.K only when the man is on the recieving end. Go somewhere else where other deadbeats share your opinion. This particular post is for those who are owed child support, not for those makeing excuses as to why not to pay it. > > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > recieving end. Go somewhere else where other deadbeats share your > opinion. "Deadbeat" is simply a feel good term so that the extorionists can feel good about their wrongdoing. And it WORKS too. > This particular post is for those who are owed child support, "Child support" is a phony debt, thus cannot be owed. > not for those makeing excuses as to why not to pay it. > <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You can call it a phoney debt all you want to, fact is, you fear the reality of that court order (which states the debt, and the obligation). It costs well over the amount of child support awarded to raise a child. You bitch, and cry all you want to. How many nights did you stay up with you children when they were sick? That's just on thing out of a hundred that CP's don't get child support for. It is awarded to help with child care, food, shelter, and standard of living for the child. You're just a controll freak that wants to controll the money, how it is spent, and how much to spend, but only the present parent that shoulders all of heartache, pain, love, and joy in raising a child can do so. NCP also stands for "No Children Present"! >> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > obligation). It costs well over the amount of child support awarded to > raise a child. Yeah, there's the half that *you* need to kick in. It is not your son's dad's fault that you choose to live beyond your means. >You bitch, and cry all you want to. How many nights did > you stay up with you children when they were sick? That's just on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > parent that shoulders all of heartache, pain, love, and joy in raising > a child can do so. NCP also stands for "No Children Present"! SignatureSarah Gray > >> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Yeah, there's the half that *you* need to kick in. It is not your son's > dad's fault that you choose to live beyond your means. .........and made the SOLE choice to bear the child. Or do we simply ignore that lil' inconvenient fact? > >You bitch, and cry all you want to. How many nights did > > you stay up with you children when they were sick? That's just on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > parent that shoulders all of heartache, pain, love, and joy in raising > > a child can do so. NCP also stands for "No Children Present"! >>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > .........and made the SOLE choice to bear the child. Or do we simply ignore > that lil' inconvenient fact? While it is true that she made the sole choice to not abort the child, the decision to bear and raise a child with another is a *joint* decision.SO are women to assume that all men are sh.ts who will lie about supporting their child until it's born, and then they run? Since when has fatherhood become irrelevant? >>> You bitch, and cry all you want to. How many nights did >>> you stay up with you children when they were sick? That's just on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> parent that shoulders all of heartache, pain, love, and joy in raising >>> a child can do so. NCP also stands for "No Children Present"! SignatureSarah Gray > >>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > the decision to bear and raise a child with another is a *joint* > decision. STOP! Stop right there! Backup. You said "decision to bear and raise". The "bear" part is what makes your claim false. True, two people can jointly decide to raise a child together; but only ONE can make the decision to "bear" the child. > SO are women to assume that all men are sh.ts who will lie > about supporting their child until it's born, and then they run? > Since when has fatherhood become irrelevant? Since the government people made it so. > >>> You bitch, and cry all you want to. How many nights did > >>> you stay up with you children when they were sick? That's just on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >>> parent that shoulders all of heartache, pain, love, and joy in raising > >>> a child can do so. NCP also stands for "No Children Present"! >> >>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > decide to raise a child together; but only ONE can make the decision to > "bear" the child. OK, so the woman becomes pregnant, and the 2 decide to RAISE the child together. But, when the child is 6, the man decides that he does not any longer wish to RAISE the child together. He should be able to just walk away because he did not have a choice in the original BEARING of the child? > >> >>>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > longer wish to RAISE the child together. He should be able to just walk > away because he did not have a choice in the original BEARING of the child? So long as the mother has the right to boot him out, then he too should have the SAME right to boot out himself. Is there a defect in my equation? > > <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > You can call it a phoney debt all you want to, Because that is EXACTLY what it is. Ya got a dictionary? > fact is, you fear the > reality of that court order No I don't. > (which states the debt, and the > obligation). It costs well over the amount of child support awarded to > raise a child. No it doesn't. > You bitch, and cry all you want to. How many nights did > you stay up with you children when they were sick? That's just on > thing out of a hundred that CP's don't get child support for. Are you suggesting they should? > It is > awarded to help with child care, food, shelter, and standard of living > for the child. You're just a controll freak that wants to controll the > money, how it is spent, and how much to spend, Well duh! What fool doesn't want some OTHER control freak controlling their money? > but only the present > parent that shoulders all of heartache, pain, love, and joy in raising > a child can do so. Untrue. > NCP also stands for "No Children Present"! Present just ONE example where a CP is a CP against their will. >>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Present just ONE example where a CP is a CP against their will. Myself. I would rather have joint custody, with no money changing hands. My daughter's father opted out of that. SignatureSarah Gray > >>> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Myself. WHO forced you to be a CP, and HOW did they do it? > I would rather have joint custody, with no money changing hands. > My daughter's father opted out of that. >> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > obligation). It costs well over the amount of child support awarded to > raise a child. As well it should!! Do you really think that the courts expected CPs to be able to rear their children on CS alone? With no contribution coming from the CPs? You bitch, and cry all you want to. How many nights did > you stay up with you children when they were sick? That's just on > thing out of a hundred that CP's don't get child support for. Um.....that's part of being a parent. And if you choose to be the sole parent, you choose to do all the work---choice, not paid job. Why would anyone expect to be paid for rearing their own child? It is > awarded to help with child care, food, shelter, and standard of living > for the child. "to help with" are the operative words. Not to cover all expenses. You're just a controll freak that wants to controll the > money, how it is spent, and how much to spend, but only the present > parent that shoulders all of heartache, pain, love, and joy in raising > a child can do so. Again--CHOICE--if a person does not want the full time job of parenting, they should be glad to agree to 50/50 joint custody. Sorry--no medals for choosing to be a single parent,. NCP also stands for "No Children Present"! REally? What weird dictionary do you use? > >> <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > parent, you choose to do all the work---choice, not paid job. Why would > anyone expect to be paid for rearing their own child? Should my mother tell me that she was PAID to raise me, I would be devastated! Guess I'm just wierd about that, huh. > It is > > awarded to help with child care, food, shelter, and standard of living [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > REally? What weird dictionary do you use? On Oct 10, 12:09 pm, winchester1...@yahoo.com wrote: > > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > opinion. This particular post is for those who are owed child support, > not for those makeing excuses as to why not to pay it. Wow! Amazing...So the women receiving child support are NOT happy attempting to control their ex husband...they now have to also control what the new wife/girlfriend does? It never ceases to amaze me how when an ex husband attempts to father his children the ex's claim he steps over the line and that the child can do anything they want at the CPs house, not the NCPs business, although it is THEIR child...but it's ok for the ex-wife to also go after the new wife and attempt to control her??? I guess the older the kids get, the more desperate you become as you realize that your gravy train will soon run out... Now, if the new wife/girlfriend went to court with him, you'd be the first one complaining that she has NO business in the decision or even being in court because it's not HER problem, yet you are the one attempting to include her for YOUR benefit... You are one poor excuse for both a woman and a mother... I feel sorry for any children who will learn from you such horrible tactics...It was you who slept with a man before knowing his character...don't blame the rest of society for your mistakes... Be a real woman and acknowledge your mistake and move on... You are as much a deadbeat as the ex is for going for anyone associated with him who did NOT sleep with you, therefore, owe you NOTHING... > On Oct 10, 12:09 pm, winchester1...@yahoo.com wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > associated with him who did NOT sleep with you, therefore, owe you > NOTHING... The above implies that anyone who "sleeps with her" owes her for the privilige. Isn't there a name for such an arrangement? On Oct 10, 12:09 pm, winchester1...@yahoo.com wrote: > > "childsupportowed by deadbeats" <laneapa...@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > opinion. This particular post is for those who are owed child support, > not for those makeing excuses as to why not to pay it. And by the way, how SAD that you feel anyone should kiss your a.s for taking care of your own children...go figure...You complain about the men who pay support and how they think they are heroes for doing what a father should do anyway, yet you want people to kiss your a.s for doing your job as a mother? I can assure you that had the father had the opportunity to do such things, he wouldn't be telling everyone that they had to kiss his a.s for being a father...How sad that your children will grow up feeling they were a burden on you because you are so darn angry at their father (YOUR OWN mistake), that you resent having to do the things that any loving parent would do for their children...Mind you, yes, you have the child...that's only because YOU had a choice...You could've just as easily given the child up for adoption and stated then that you did it FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD...You see, when you are a mother...if you keep the kid, you are wonderful because you are keeping them and deserve praise...if you give them up, you are wonderful because you are unselfish and gave them a better life...However, if you are a dad your choices are to support him, whether you wanted to have a child or not...and even then, you are harrassed by the mother if you don't do everything they say...You make me sick... and yes, I am a mother...one who does NOT forget the "priviledge" that it is to take care of my child when he is sick... > > <winchester1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Only your claims are phoney, because my court order is for real. Wow! That follows........... > All > of your "Feel sorry for me", bull sh.t isn't going to fly over here. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Unfortunately you and others like you had thier heads too far up thier > a.ses to have noticed what was going on with you all kids. It is very clear to me by being on this board for a day, that there are some deep seeded issues going on within the deadbeats on this forum. I am sure that you (and I mean this in the broad sense) do not like to hear how you dont support your child and have become neglectful. Who does? Fact is, you get steamed when someone speaks the truth, because hiding it and conjuring up a lame excuse is easier to accept the pitiful life you must lead, knowing you will be going thru that revolving door of the court system and be subjected to countless days, hours, and fines from a judge who slams you and tells you to be a father to your child. I say to those deadbeats, grab your balls, buck up, and support your child. No one is going to give you a pat on the back and say, "oh baby. I understand. It must be hard." Must be a pretty sucky life eh? Thats why when a woman (myself) comes onto this board and tells you to swallow your pride and aspire to be that best caring loving parent who supports their child really makes your blood boil. This goes out to the truely neglectful. Those who do not see their children. Those who hide behind the "theres no jobs" excuse. I am fully aware there are deadbeat mothers. This is not a slam on one sex. Instead of bitching in a forum about the unfairness, DO something about it. No one is going to sit and listen to your whinning excuses on a chat board. If the job you are at is deadend and you are not making the money you want to pay your bills, you obtain a new one. Is it that easy? Of course not. No one said life is easy. When I moved back to my home state, I started a brand new life for my then newborn and I. I gained employment after a month, yes, I lived at home with my parents for that short time. I realize not all are lucky enough. I looked in the paper for jobs, temp agencies, and emailed resumes. I obtained a job that I stayed at for over 4 yrs. The money was not paying enough for my daughter and I to live, so I took long lunch breaks to go on my "secret interviews". I came in an hr. late to meet with one. All the while, making sure that I kept up with my current bills. Not one slipped and my child did not suffer. I have never been and never will be on any assistance/welfare. I did all this for all those yrs. with NOT ONE DIME in child support. So dont give me any LIP about life and jobs and CS not being fair. Life is what we choose to make of it. We can sit and wallow in our pity about never having any money or we can DO something about it. I am proud to say that I have and continue to succeed as a wonderful single mother. I work hard to give my daughter a great lifestyle. And if I am labeled a "snob" and "idiot" from a bunch of strangers on a chatboard so be it. I laugh. I pity you. It is clearly obvious when a strong woman shows her successes, you label because you yourself, cant face your reality. Be a PARENT. Be a RESPONSIBLE PARENT. Take care of your kids! "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > I am proud to say that I have and continue to succeed as a wonderful > single mother. Good for you Peggy Sue, what are you expecting a Hat and a Balloon for doing something that has been done without regret for generations? Get over yourself, you don't have a government putting you in prison when times are tough! DB, and whos fault would that be? YOURS. You dont want to go to jail, THEN ABIDE BY THE LAW. That goes for any crime. Not paying your court ordered child support is a crime. Grow up. If you go to jail and sit in a piss smelling cell, you deserved it. Nah, dont want a medal, Im not on here preaching, but it seems you are a tad miffed that I take care of my responsibilities and you dont sweetie. ;o) > DB, > and whos fault would that be? YOURS. You dont want to go to jail, THEN > ABIDE > BY THE LAW. That goes for any crime. Not paying your court ordered child > support is a crime. Grow up. If you go to jail and sit in a piss smelling > cell, you deserved it. Can you quote me where I refused to pay CS? What crime are you talking about? > Nah, dont want a medal, Im not on here preaching, but it seems you are a > tad > miffed that I take care of my responsibilities and you dont sweetie. ;o) SO what are you doing here? Sureeeeeeeeeee! I'll be glad to quote you sweetie! DB, you said: "Get over yourself, you don't have a government putting you in prison when times are tough!" To me, that sounded like an omission. If this is not the case, perhaps make yourself clearer next time. If you are speaking of that in a general sense and speaking out for those neglectful parents, I still stand by my claim. Tough shyt if one goes to jail then. The "govt" doesnt put innocent people in prision. If you go there, there is a reason for it. You failed to abide by the law, and I feel not ONE OUNCE of sympathy for those sitting in a rotted piss smelling cell. >Can you quote me where I refused to pay CS? >What crime are you talking about? > >SO what are you doing here? Uhmmm, maybe because the same reason you and others are? Having a discussion? Im sorry, is there some sort of sign of who can and cant be on a PUBLIC message board? > Sureeeeeeeeeee! I'll be glad to quote you sweetie! > DB, you said: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > rotted > piss smelling cell. Um, I'm just curious here, but just exactly do you know that cells smell like piss? >Um, I'm just curious here, but just exactly do you know that cells smell >like piss? I work in law enforcement. >>Um, I'm just curious here, but just exactly do you know that cells smell >>like piss? > I work in law enforcement. They don't clean the cells where you work? Isn't that a bit unsanitary? Probably against health codes, too. Sureeeeeeeeeee! I'll be glad to quote you sweetie! DB, you said: "Get over yourself, you don't have a government putting you in prison when times are tough!" To me, that sounded like an omission. If this is not the case, perhaps make yourself clearer next time. If you are speaking of that in a general sense and speaking out for those neglectful parents, I still stand by my claim. Tough shyt if one goes to jail then. The "govt" doesnt put innocent people in prision. If you go there, there is a reason for it. You failed to abide by the law, and I feel not ONE OUNCE of sympathy for those sitting in a rotted piss smelling cell. > It is very clear to me by being on this board for a day, that there are > some > deep seeded issues going on within the deadbeats on this forum. == What deadbeats would that be? Gini, I dunno, are you a deadbeat? Guilty conscious? Surely you can figure out the definition of one: Any person on this board not paying their court ordered obligation. > Gini, > I dunno, are you a deadbeat? Guilty conscious? Surely you can figure out > the > definition of one: Any person on this board not paying their court ordered > obligation. == You claim there are deadbeats here. Name names. Waiting. BTW, I am in an intact family-- No CS orders. Still waiting..... Gini, I dont need to name names. Its pretty obvious to me. The fact that there are ones so passionate to make excuses is quite astounding. I dont care what your situation is, whether you have an intact family or not. FYI: I have an intact family as well. My family is the perfect family of 2. We are intact. (think about that. point to ponder) > Gini, > I dont need to name names. Its pretty obvious to me. == You do need to name names if you wish to have the slightest shred of credibility for your accusations--Otherwise you come off sounding just plain silly. Of course, if that doesn't bother you, carry on with your baseless accusations and I'll accept your postings purely for entertainment value. == The fact that there are > ones so passionate to make excuses is quite astounding. I dont care what > your > situation is, whether you have an intact family or not. == LOL! But, you wish to peg me as a deadbeat? :-) I guess you just don't know what a deadbeat is. I could care less if I have any credibility with your or not. Im not on here to make friends and stroke ego's. Think Im silly, be my guest. You have a right to have that opinion. You are just a name on a computer to me, as I am to you. I am not accusing anyone, however, I find it amusing you think that I am always speaking about you when I talk about my stance on deadbeats. No, it really doesnt bother me. Should it? Im taking care of my responsibilities. Accept my postings or not, have fun with it or not. Happy posting!! ;o) >I could care less if I have any credibility with your or not. Im not on >here [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Happy > posting!! ;o) PLONK! > I could care less if I have any credibility with your or not. Im not on here > to make friends and stroke ego's. Think Im silly, be my guest. You have a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > responsibilities. Accept my postings or not, have fun with it or not. Happy > posting!! ;o) YOU made the claim that there are deadbeats (by whatever twisted definition you go by) in this forum. When asked to reveal who they are, you refused. Why is it secret? Your claim is like a judge sentencing someone to prison for a crime, but not telling the convict what the crime is. LOL I can see Ive ruffled some feathers in here. LOL I do not recall calling anyone in this forum a deadbeat. What I DO recall, is challanging ones views on the whinning bitchfests that Ive seen some of you partake in. When I address the situation, I am speaking in a general sense. Not my fault some care to always think I am pointing the finger at them. What is this secret you speak of? As if this is a big conspiracy..geez. Lighten up. How easily rauled up some of you get when someone spouts off an opinion you dont like..lol >YOU made the claim that there are deadbeats (by whatever twisted definition >you go by) in this forum. When asked to reveal who they are, you refused. >Why is it secret? >Your claim is like a judge sentencing someone to prison for a crime, but not >telling the convict what the crime is. LOL >I can see Ive ruffled some feathers in here. LOL People asking you to post a list of those on this forum you claim are deadbeats is "ruffling feathers"? <chuckle> You certainly are finding a lot of ways to avoid answering that question. Most likely because you realize that you have NO IDEA whether or not ANYONE on this forum is a deadbeat. You made the statement, but do not want to attempt to back it up. > I do not recall calling anyone in this forum a deadbeat. How's this: "It is very clear to me by being on this board for a day, that there are some deep seeded issues going on within the deadbeats on this forum." That's a quote from a post of yours. Apparently you do believe there are deadbeats on this forum. The only question is, do you have the guts to name names? What I DO recall, is > challanging ones views on the whinning bitchfests that Ive seen some of > you > partake in. When I address the situation, I am speaking in a general > sense. > Not my fault some care to always think I am pointing the finger at them. Again, exactly is it that thinks you are pointing the finger at them? What > is this secret you speak of? As if this is a big conspiracy..geez. Lighten > up. > How easily rauled up some of you get when someone spouts off an opinion > you > dont like..lol Ah--that explains it--you are "spouting off." <chuckle> > I can see Ive ruffled some feathers in here. LOL > I do not recall calling anyone in this forum a deadbeat. PRECISELY. You make reference to "the deadbeats on this forum", yet you fail to support your claim by calling someone, ANYONE a deadbeat. WHO are these deadbeats? > What I DO recall, is > challanging ones views on the whinning bitchfests that Ive seen some of you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Your claim is like a judge sentencing someone to prison for a crime, but not > >telling the convict what the crime is. LOL >I could care less if I have any credibility with your or not. Im not on >here [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that I > am always speaking about you when I talk about my stance on deadbeats. Where did she (or anyone) say they thought you were talking about them? You have said there are deadbeats on this forum. I really want to know who they are--and how you know they are deadbeats. > Gini, > I dont need to name names. Its pretty obvious to me. The fact that there > are > ones so passionate to make excuses is quite astounding. But which ones aren't paying? Which ones are actual deadbeats? Does complaining even while you are paying make you a deadbeat? You are going to have to be more specific. I dont care what your > situation is, whether you have an intact family or not. > > FYI: I have an intact family as well. My family is the perfect family of > 2. > We are intact. (think about that. point to ponder) ............................ >> I dont need to name names. Its pretty obvious to me. The fact that there >> are >> ones so passionate to make excuses is quite astounding. > > But which ones aren't paying? Which ones are actual deadbeats? == Well, Bob's says he's not paying. Then there's me--I'm not paying. Never will. They can chase me all over the earth if they wish. Ever since FL told me I'm an unfit parent, I decided I've had it. They'll never get a dime out of me. Come to think about it, you're not paying either. > ............................ >>> I dont need to name names. Its pretty obvious to me. The fact that there [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > They'll never get a dime out of me. Come to think about it, you're not > paying either. Nope--never have, never will. Come to think of it, neither my mom nor my dad ever paid CS. So I guess they are deadbeats, too. <sigh> I was raised by deadbeats. Guess that gives me a lot of excuses in life, doesn't it. > > ............................ > >>> I dont need to name names. Its pretty obvious to me. The fact that there [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > dad ever paid CS. So I guess they are deadbeats, too. <sigh> I was raised > by deadbeats. Guess that gives me a lot of excuses in life, doesn't it. Ya mean BOTH of my parents are deadbeats too? : ( > It is very clear to me by being on this board for a day, that there are some > deep seeded issues going on within the deadbeats on this forum. I am sure [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Be a PARENT. Be a RESPONSIBLE PARENT. Take care of your kids! this is not a "chatboard". This is a newsgroup on Usenet. Pay attention, this will be on the test. SignatureSarah Gray > > It is very clear to me by being on this board for a day, that there are some > > deep seeded issues going on within the deadbeats on this forum. I am sure [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > - Show quoted text - This is a chat board, and my friend posted this DEADBEAT and ENABLER LIST, so YOU need to pay attention. >>> It is very clear to me by being on this board for a day, that there are some >>> deep seeded issues going on within the deadbeats on this forum. I am sure [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > This is a chat board, and my friend posted this DEADBEAT and ENABLER > LIST, so YOU need to pay attention. This is emphatically *not* a chatboard. Just because you use a web portal to access Usenet, does not change what this group is. SignatureSarah Gray >>>> It is very clear to me by being on this board for a day, that there are some >>>> deep seeded issues going on within the deadbeats on this forum. I am sure [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >This is emphatically *not* a chatboard. Just because you use a web >portal to access Usenet, does not change what this group is. You don't feel that “childsupportowedbydeadbeats” should not get anything from her kid's dad, but you should get child support from your ex? What do you care if she works and blows her money on her kid, or how much she makes so long as she is making it? It doesn't let the father off of the hook for his court ordered child support. If you should see fit to spoil your child, would that let your ex off of the hook? When you saw the subject, and if you are so against child support, why did you open the post? Does it matter what the group is when the subject is clearly stated? ( Because the subject was clearly stated.) Did you open it to add your ex to the list, or check to see if he was already there? Your reasons are suspect, and your comments are hypocritical. >>>>> It is very clear to me by being on this board for a day, that there >>>>> are some [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You don't feel that "childsupportowedbydeadbeats" should not get anything > from her kid's dad, but you should get child support from your ex? == The difference is that deadbeats is a moron who slept with a moron and then expected him to not be a moron. > You don't feel that "childsupportowedbydeadbeats" should not get anything > from her kid's dad, the C$ doesn't effect you, move along! >the C$ doesn't effect you, move along! You get easily offended and have a quick temper dontcha? You might want to work on curbing that. Its not healthy. > >the C$ doesn't effect you, move along! > > You get easily offended and have a quick temper dontcha? You might want to > work on curbing that. Its not healthy. Neither is advocating extortion. But then again, ya gotta be sick in the first place to behold such a position. >Neither is advocating extortion. But then again, ya gotta be sick in the >first place to behold such a position. So upholding someone who chooses to be unemployed, to their court ordered obligation to child support is considered extortion? LOLOLOLOL Classic! Just classic! You must be one of those who do not own up to responsibilities. Good job! You go on wit yo' bad self! You sound like a real winner! HAH >>Neither is advocating extortion. But then again, ya gotta be sick in the >>first place to behold such a position. > So upholding someone who chooses to be unemployed, to their court ordered > obligation to child support is considered extortion? LOLOLOLOL Classic! > Just > classic! You must be one of those who do not own up to responsibilities. There you go again making assumptions about people you know absolutely nothing about! Maybe he's just pissed off that the standard $1400 per month is garnished from his hard earned wages! Fascism in America is alive and well, quality of life in this country has sunk to an all time low!!!! >There you go again making assumptions about people you know absolutely >nothing about! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Fascism in America is alive and well, quality of life in this country has >sunk to an all time low!!!! Im speaking about the neglectful parent Im dealing with (there you go thinking this is always about YOU) If hes pissed, not my problem, dont take your bitterness out on one who has a different view. (I knew I pegged a shytload of bitterness on this site) ;o) >>There you go again making assumptions about people you know absolutely >>nothing about! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>Fascism in America is alive and well, quality of life in this country has >>sunk to an all time low!!!! > Im speaking about the neglectful parent Im dealing with (there you go > thinking this is always about YOU) No you weren't you were speaking directly to Chris's situation! > If hes pissed, not my problem, dont take your bitterness out on one who > has a > different view. (I knew I pegged a shytload of bitterness on this site) > ;o) The only shitload is in your head, you don't know how to think for yourself. You need a man to do that for you! >No you weren't you were speaking directly to Chris's situation! > > The only shitload is in your head, you don't know how to think for >yourself. >You need a man to do that for you! When I initally stated "unemployed" I was speaking of my ex. Boy, you sure do need someone to hold your hand and guide you in conversations dont you? My 5 yr. old follows better directions than you...lol >>No you weren't you were speaking directly to Chris's situation! >> >> The only shitload is in your head, you don't know how to think for >>yourself. >>You need a man to do that for you! > When I initally stated "unemployed" I was speaking of my ex. Speaking of your Ex, I'm a confused here from all the many stories! BTW, how is that petition coming along, do you have more than 3 people yet? LOL Your personal war on dead beats doesn't seem to exist, so you try to change the whole state to suit your own personal needs. It's a nice day out, think I'll go enjoy life for awhile! >There you go again making assumptions about people you know absolutely >nothing about! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Fascism in America is alive and well, quality of life in this country has >sunk to an all time low!!!! Im speaking about the neglectful parent Im dealing with (there you go thinking this is always about YOU) If hes pissed, not my problem, dont take your bitterness out on one who has a different view. (I knew I pegged a shytload of bitterness on this site) ;o) > >Neither is advocating extortion. But then again, ya gotta be sick in the > >first place to behold such a position. > So upholding someone who chooses to be unemployed, to their court ordered > obligation to child support is considered extortion? No, it's considered ADVOCATING such extortion. You DO see the difference, correct? > LOLOLOLOL Classic! Just > classic! You must be one of those who do not own up to responsibilities. Because? > Good > job! You go on wit yo' bad self! ??? > You sound like a real winner! HAH > It is very clear to me by being on this board for a day, that there are some > deep seeded issues going on within the deadbeats on this forum. I am sure [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to countless days, hours, and fines from a judge who slams you and tells you > to be a father to your child. What judge says THAT? > I say to those deadbeats, grab your balls, buck up, and support your child. > No one is going to give you a pat on the back and say, "oh baby. I understand. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > pay your bills, you obtain a new one. Is it that easy? Of course not. No one > said life is easy. Except when you're the NCP mom catching that FREE dough. > When I moved back to my home state, I started a brand new life for my then > newborn and I. I gained employment after a month, yes, I lived at home with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > did all this for all those yrs. with NOT ONE DIME in child support. So dont > give me any LIP about life and jobs and CS not being fair. Non sequitur. > Life is what we choose to make of it. We can sit and wallow in our pity about > never having any money or we can DO something about it. I am proud to say [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Be a PARENT. Be a RESPONSIBLE PARENT. Take care of your kids! Can't, when you don't have them. >What judge says THAT? >Except when you're the NCP mom catching that FREE dough. > >Can't, when you don't have them. Not that it matters, because whatever I say you attempt ways to poke holes to better fit your arguement, however, I work in law enforcement and before that, a law firm. I have witnessed a judge and a case worker say to support your child. In fact, during my court hearing for a divorce, the judge said this (even when his was absent from the hearing). Who says a mom is catching "free dough"? Is that what you think child support is? If so, you are more bitter about CS than I thought. Whether the people on this board are NCP's, enablers, married to men who have a prior obligation or not (Im betting thats the case), the mere fact that you are up in here whinning about an obligation to that child is quite disturbing. It appears a "list" is more important to you than debating other issues revolving CS. You can support your child and be responsible when they are not always physically here with you. Once you have a child, you are a parent for life until you give up your rights. Are you that bitter to have made such an ignorant statement? "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" wrote ........................... > Whether the people on this board are NCP's, enablers, married to men who > have > a prior obligation or not (Im betting thats the case), the mere fact that > you > are up in here whinning about an obligation to that child is quite > disturbing. == Haha--That's funny! You haven't noticed that it's the CPs who are "whinning [sic] about an obligation to that child," and yes, that "is quite disturbing." There are so many deadbeat CPs here lately trying desperately to find someone to give them money--All they do is reveal how incapable they are, what poor decisions they've made about whom to/not to procreate with. Their postings say more about themselves than the idiots they chose to father their children. Now, they are embarrassingly groveling for the state to rescue them from the extraordinary burdon of taking care of their own "blood."...Geez, apparently they aren't bright enough to know it takes a little money to raise kids *before* they have unprotected sex with a moron. >== >Haha--That's funny! You haven't noticed that it's the CPs who are "whinning [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >enough to know it takes a little >money to raise kids *before* they have unprotected sex with a moron. This is true. I have not once complained about being a CP and what it takes to raise a child. I take pride in being a mother who can handle situations all on her own. Ive never once said those CP's should get a free ride here to grovel. Those who take advantage of the system are wrong. No qualms about that. >>== >>Haha--That's funny! You haven't noticed that it's the CPs who are [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > grovel. Those who take advantage of the system are wrong. No qualms about > that. == Great--I'm glad to hear that because, as a woman, I am fed up with the incessant whining of these single mothers who act like they are victims of some idiot man, and rather than pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they will spend hundreds of hours chasing said man for a few pennies they insist is "owed" to them. Then, when they are challenged to stand on their own two feet, they whine louder as if such a thing is far beyond their comprehension. Women, we are not in this world to be held afloat by men and governments, and until you realize that, you are totally useless to society and your children--expecially your daughters. Get some pride; get some backbone; and if you aren't satisfied with the lifestyle you are providing your kids, get educated and work harder. No one owes you, especially not the taxpayers you are expecting to fund your battle with the loser man you *chose* as father of your children. Quit sitting around whining about the moron you opened your legs for and how terrible it is to have to support your kids! Until you can do that, you are NO better than he is--you are a co-deadbeat! >>>== >>> >== >Get some pride; get some backbone; and if you aren't >satisfied with the lifestyle you are providing >your kids, get educated and work harder. ...as I would also say this to those neglectful parents as well. >>>>== >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ...as I would also say this to those neglectful parents as well. === Great--Now if you can, please explain to your forum members how to stop crossposting to alt.child.support.... >>>>== >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ...as I would also say this to those neglectful parents as well. You are the CP with 100% custody, enjoy! :-) >>>>>== >>>>> >[quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You are the CP with 100% custody, enjoy! :-) Yup! And I am ;o) "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in >>You are the CP with 100% custody, enjoy! :-) > Yup! And I am ;o) Fantastic,we're all very happy for you! Now f.ck off! >Fantastic,we're all very happy for you! > >Now f.ck off! That was mature and classy! Way to go! Bitter! Party of one! Testy and aggitated easily arent we? >>>== >>> >== > Get some pride; get some backbone; and if you aren't >satisfied with the lifestyle you are providing >your kids, get educated and work harder. ..and to further expand on that...neglectful parents dont provide for kids, my statement was more or less geared towards those who complain they cannot pay their support that was set. Personally, in MY situation, the amt. was based on what he made at the time. Since then, he was fired from a job and did not seek employment afterwards because he found a woman who would support him, become the breadwinner, and continued to spread his seed to create 2 more children (out of wedlock). Now complains he cannot pay his support. Not my problem he continued to make poor choices which land him in court for non- compliance of the court order. Not my problem he went on to have 2 more children when it is clear he cannot support his first born. Im tired of the whinning period. All I ask is to be responsible. Prioritize. I do it as a single mother. No Im not asking for a reward. Just to support your child. If he cant do that, then he is subjected to the law. Period. >>>>== >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I do it as a single mother. No Im not asking for a reward. Just to support >your child. If he cant do that, then he is subjected to the law. Period. I completely understand your point. I don't know what is wrong with these people to think the non custodial parent should not be held responsible. It is possible that these people don't understand the reason for child support because they are an old generation from when Child Support did not exist. >>>>>== >I completely understand your point. I don't know what is wrong with these >people to think the non custodial parent should not be held responsible. It >is possible that these people don't understand the reason for child support >because they are an old generation from when Child Support did not exist. The problem lies with the ignorant attitude that it because a woman bares the child, therefore, all responsibility lies with them. Therefore, dissolving the man of responsibility. I just love it when one makes the statement of "closing ones legs" as if to insinuate the man didnt unzip and let the snake out. Not all neglectful parents were unmarried. "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > The problem lies with the ignorant attitude that it because a woman bares > the > child, therefore, all responsibility lies with them. No, the child gets to live with the women 100%, so look after them 100%, the same way my father looked after us 3 kids 100%. Why should you be any different? >"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > >No, the child gets to live with the women 100%, so look after them 100%, the >same way my father looked after us 3 kids 100%. > >Why should you be any different? Who said it should be any different for me? He has rights he wishes not to partake in. I do look after my child 100%, but that does not mean the "father" should be absolved of all responsibilty.He has rights he does not utilize. Its your ignorant viewpoint that the NCP should not have responsibility. "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in >>No, the child gets to live with the women 100%, so look after them 100%, >>the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > partake in. I do look after my child 100%, but that does not mean the > "father" should be absolved of all responsibilty. So in other words, you are not capable of looking after this child alone and you need this man's money to pay your bills! >"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > >So in other words, you are not capable of looking after this child alone and >you need this man's money to pay your bills! You really are that dense and narrow minded arent you? I pay my bill's without his help sweetheart. I really know you are trying your hardest to twist darlin', but aint happening. Keep it comming though. You are really amusing me with your ignorant attitude..haha. He was ordered to pay an amt. by the court of law, he is not doing that, therefore, committing a crime. Actually, a felony. It becomes a felony when $10,000 in arrears. "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > Actually, a felony. It becomes a felony when $10,000 in arrears. This law was made from the same Government that is $47 Trillion in arrears and now you owe $166,000 as your share of that arrearage! You are a Dead Beat! >"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > >This law was made from the same Government that is $47 Trillion in arrears >and now you owe $166,000 as your share of that arrearage! > >You are a Dead Beat! Are you freaking high? What is the amt comming from..arrearages in what? I pay my taxes, so yes, I am paying for whatever arrearages you are speaking of. Pull your head out of your a$$. We are speaking about child support. Dont attempt to steer the topic in another direction. You really are off your rocker and not dealing with the full deck. >>"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > attempt to steer the topic in another direction. You really are off your > rocker and not dealing with the full deck. Until you fill your obligation toward the national debt, don't try to talk to others about obligations of any sort! You may not like the idea of being forced to pay more taxes for the services you receive, what youpay now is a pittance of what youshoudl be paying! The people here are being forced to pay more CS against their will and until you wear the same shoes as these people, your word is worthless. It's people like you that make all the sacrifices for freedom a complete waste! Oppression is oppression, you prefer to call it government control under the guise of law. If you want a government to solve all your problems, then go find another country where everything is controlled by the government. "DB" <DaBr@sbcglobal.net> wrote ....................... If you want a government to solve all your > problems, then go find another country where everything is controlled by > the government. == Pssst, DB--That would be us. > "DB" <DaBr@sbcglobal.net> wrote > ....................... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > == > Pssst, DB--That would be us. By Gosh you are so right, and now you have Hilary to the rescue too! Those poor dears will not have to worry about a hair on their childish head, everything is under government control, all is well!!!!!! LOLOLOLOL > "Gini" <gini@verizon.com> wrote >> >> "DB" <DaBr@sbcglobal.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > By Gosh you are so right, and now you have Hilary to the rescue too! == It's not like she has a tough act to follow. >> "Gini" <gini@verizon.com> wrote >> >>> "DB" <DaBr@sbcglobal.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > == > It's not like she has a tough act to follow. We'll he only spent a Trillion on his little goof up! Hilary has lots of great plans that the public can fund too! Which party is proposing a war tax? > > "DB" <DaBr@sbcglobal.net> wrote > > ....................... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Those poor dears will not have to worry about a hair on their childish head, > everything is under government control, all is well!!!!!! LOLOLOLOL "Hi. I'm from the United States government, and I'm here to HELP you". >>>"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in >Until you fill your obligation toward the national debt, don't try to talk >to others about obligations of any sort! >You may not like the idea of being forced to pay more taxes for the services >you receive, what youpay now is a pittance of what youshoudl be paying! The >people here are being forced to pay more CS against their will and until you >wear the same shoes as these people, your word is worthless. Again, we are talking about child support. If you want to whine about government spending, find another place to spew your venom. So, some here are paying more than what their child support order is stated for them to pay? No one can "force" you to pay more than what the ORIGINAL ORDER states unless income has INCREASED and an ORDER granted by the JUDGE is signed. Going by your words regarding wearing the same shoes, touche my dear. Touche. Perhaps step into a CP's shoes dealing with a neglectful NCP alltogether. Then perhaps you might understand the goings on in their mind? But, I highly doubt it, since you are so hell bent on whinning. "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > Going by your words regarding wearing the same shoes, touche my dear. > Touche. > Perhaps step into a CP's shoes dealing with a neglectful NCP alltogether. Sorry, i don't have a f.ck Buddy that I'm trying to bleed some money from! >"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in >Sorry, i don't have a f.ck Buddy that I'm trying to bleed some money from! and I do? Funny. Cause that "fuk buddy" you want to reference to, was my ex husband who fathered my child, not an f buddy. Quite comical though. Keep stating immature unthought out quips. You are making yourself out to be an even bigger fool..lol >>>>"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Again, we are talking about child support. If you want to whine about > government spending, find another place to spew your venom. The best thing to do, if you don't like the direction a conversation is going, is to stop participating in it. None of us has the right to control what others want to talk about. > >"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Who said it should be any different for me? He has rights he wishes not to > partake in. No he doesn't. > I do look after my child 100%, but that does not mean the > "father" should be absolved of all responsibilty.He has rights he does not > utilize. Untrue. > Its your ignorant viewpoint that the NCP should not have > responsibility. No less ignorant than YOUR view that he has rights. >>>>>>== > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>support >>because they are an old generation from when Child Support did not exist. > The problem lies with the ignorant attitude that it because a woman bares > the > child, I hope she only bares the child in the summer when it's warm. Except to give it a bath, of course. therefore, all responsibility lies with them. Therefore, dissolving > the man of responsibility. Hmmm.....not very many people express that attitude. I just love it when one makes the statement of > "closing ones legs" as if to insinuate the man didnt unzip and let the > snake > out. Hmmm....I got the impression that the poster was saying that BOTH parents did the deed. So the woman should not run around complaining that the "evil man" DID this to me, and he should pay, pay, pay. Nobody DID anything to her--it was a mutual deed, snd she is NOT a victim. She should carry herself proudly and do her best to support the child without support--then the support that comes in will be icing on the cake, rather than necessary to just survive. Why would anyone want to be so dependent on another person that they cannot survive without the person contributing? Not all neglectful parents were unmarried. That is true. > >>>>>== > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The problem lies with the ignorant attitude that it because a woman bares the > child, therefore, all responsibility lies with them. She also has all the rights. But we don't talk about that. > Therefore, dissolving > the man of responsibility. I just love it when one makes the statement of > "closing ones legs" as if to insinuate the man didnt unzip and let the snake > out. And that has what to do with "child support"? > Not all neglectful parents were unmarried. "Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in > is possible that these people don't understand the reason for child > support > because they are an old generation from when Child Support did not exist. Some times old ideas are the best! Seems all these new and improve ideas have landed the country in a hole they can't climb out of! Ever been to a country with no wealth? >"Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Some times old ideas are the best! So you saying that you agree with the old generations idea that child support should not exist? >>"Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >So you saying that you agree with the old generations idea that child support >should not exist? No. I think child support is a good idea. If we didn't have it, we would be over populated like China, because people would continue to procreate with out fear of consequence. I also think that if child support has been established, it should be paid. All I have seen is finger pointing and name calling, but that is all. Does anyone think of the children? The comments "you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them", should be directed toward both parents not, just the mothers, because the ones complaining that they can't pay should have been thinking about that too. >>>"Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >directed toward both parents not, just the mothers, because the ones >complaining that they can't pay should have been thinking about that too. I agree too. I was directing that at whoever said they agreed with the old generation. Last time I checked, both the man and woman were responsible for a child when they lay down to bed. If you dont want to have a child, then BOTH parties should be responsible to ensure that does not happen. I also agree that if you cant pay your obligation to a child YOU helped create, then you should be doing everything in your power to make sure they are taken care of. I have more respect for the Mexicans who stand on the corner of Home Depot looking for work because they have to take care of their families vs. those who sit on their butt and whine that the jobs are not handed to them. > >>>"Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in > >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Last time I checked, both the man and woman were responsible for a child when > they lay down to bed. Not according to your government. > If you dont want to have a child, then BOTH parties > should be responsible to ensure that does not happen. > > I also agree that if you cant pay your obligation to a child YOU helped > create, then you should be doing everything in your power to make sure they > are taken care of. The ONLY one who "helps" create a child is the ONLY one who created it; the mother. > I have more respect for the Mexicans who stand on the > corner of Home Depot looking for work because they have to take care of their > families vs. those who sit on their butt and whine that the jobs are not > handed to them. Yet you have no problem with the women who cry that their FREE CASH ("child support") isn't handed to them. >Not according to your government. >The ONLY one who "helps" create a child is the ONLY one who created it; the >mother. > >Yet you have no problem with the women who cry that their FREE CASH ("child >support") isn't handed to them. You are so jaded and bitter I almost feel sorry for you. I honestly cannot even begin to understand how a man has no participation in helping create a child? By your theory, a woman gets pregnant on her own. I think you need to go back to sex ed darlin'. Oh please please PLEASE quote me where I have said I have no problem where a woman cries for free cash. Oh please guide me brilliant one. You are just too too easy! > >Not according to your government. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > even begin to understand how a man has no participation in helping create a > child? By your theory, a woman gets pregnant on her own. Nice strawman. I never claimed that a man "has no participation in helping create a child". I said that the only one who "helps" create a child is the mother. You DID note the quotation marks in the word "helps", right? A man "helps create" a child in the same way that Goodyear "helps create" an automobile. > I think you need to > go back to sex ed darlin'. > > Oh please please PLEASE quote me where I have said I have no problem where a > woman cries for free cash. If you have a problem with your OWN claim "However, in my case, my ex owes $10,000 in arrears.", then I stand corrected. > Oh please guide me brilliant one. > > You are just too too easy! > > >Not according to your government. > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You've been saying that, and that it's a woman's fault when they get raped. >> > >Not according to your government. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You've been saying that, and that it's a woman's fault when they get >raped. Rape is not the fault of the woman. “No” means “No”, and that is final. Any person that feels rape is o.k is a preditor and should seek counseling before he/she offends. I have seen rape victims, it is devastating, and heartbreaking. I’ve wanted to crawl out of my own skin, sickened by what one person can do to another, while in the throws of perversion. > >> > >Not according to your government. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rape is not the fault of the woman. "No" means "No", and that is final. Any > person that feels rape is o.k is a preditor and should seek counseling before > he/she offends. I have seen rape victims, it is devastating, and > heartbreaking. I've wanted to crawl out of my own skin, sickened by what one > person can do to another, while in the throws of perversion. The FORCING of a man to have offspring is not the fault of the man. "No" means "No", and that is final. Any person that feels forced fatherhood is o.k is a preditor and should seek counseling before she offends. I have seen forced fatherhood victims, it is devastating, and heartbreaking. I've wanted to crawl out of my own skin, sickened by what one person can do to another, while in the throws of perversion. >> >> > >Not according to your government. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >heartbreaking. I've wanted to crawl out of my own skin, sickened by what one >person can do to another, while in the throws of perversion. You liken RAPE to having consentual sex, and getting a woman pregnant? I see why you don't have your kids. You're a pervert. If the man was not forced to preform the sex act, he is not forced into parenthood. Your opinion on this topic is that of a sisteen year old boy, and it's sad since you're probably middle-aged or older. >>> >> > >Not according to your government. >>> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > and > it's sad since you're probably middle-aged or older. On the contrary, it's perfectly clear what the previous poster means. This is a case of "there's none so blind as those who WILL not see." The focus is on POST-conception reproductive rights. Whereas in the U.S., men and women are on an approximately equal footing in regard to pre-conception rights (abstention and birth control being available to both sexes), after conception all choices are restricted to the woman, and denied to the man. The woman can choose abortion, including abortion by infanticide through the repellent partial birth procedure, use of the newborn dropoff laws that so many states have, adoption, or keeping the child and making the man pay for her decision. The clarity of the post-conception disparity in rights is in no way obscured by futile attempts to appear condescending, via such phrases as "your opinion on this topic is that of a sisteen year old boy, and it's sad since you're probably middle-aged or older." In this context, as in so many others, personal attacks on an opponent are often a clear signal that the attacker understands the weakness of her position. "Kenneth S." <nimrod@starpower.net> wrote in > The woman can choose abortion, including abortion by infanticide through > the repellent partial birth procedure And again, this is legal so it makes it OK! > >> >> > >Not according to your government. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >person can do to another, while in the throws of perversion. > You liken RAPE to having consentual sex, and getting a woman pregnant? No. > I see > why you don't have your kids. So, tell me all about these kids. > You're a pervert. Well, thank you kindly for your opinion. > If the man was not forced to preform the sex act, he is not forced into > parenthood. And if the woman was not forced to use the laundromat, she is not forced to have sex. [Aren't you tired yet of getting beat up by analogies?] > Your opinion on this topic Not an opinion; a statement of FACT. > is that of a sisteen year old boy, and > it's sad since you're probably middle-aged or older. "Illiana via FamilyKB.com" <u38194@uwe> wrote in > Rape is not the fault of the woman. "No" means "No", and that is final. > Any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one > person can do to another, while in the throws of perversion. What has this got to do with the National Debt? >"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" <u38194@uwe> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >What has this got to do with the National Debt? What has national debt got to do with non custodial parents paying their court ordered child support? >>"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" <u38194@uwe> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What has national debt got to do with non custodial parents paying their > court ordered child support? Point is, what has Rape got todo with C$, this is a CS support group, not the rape crisis center! > >"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" <u38194@uwe> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > Message posted via FamilyKB.comhttp://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/parenting/200710/1 I know, I know...if the NCP pays his child support, then according the to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 payments can begin to be made towards the Deficit. Key word "if" the NCP pays his child support...if not then no one is legally obligated to pay the Deficit back. We keep on working and doing our jobs as parents. How does one depend on money that was never there to begin with? meaning child support...and when it is received a portion will be automitacally paid towards the Deficit...so why complain. Ideally if everyone were doing their part by their court orders, NCP's would be paying, CP's and the National Deficit would be receiving. All dependant upon if the NCP were paying what he is legally obligated to pay. "Very Determined!" <jejenniebear@gmail.com> wrote in > I know, I know...if the NCP pays his child support, then according the > to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 payments can begin to be made > towards the Deficit. Key word "if" the NCP pays his child support... Key Word is always ...... his > > >"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" <u38194@uwe> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Deficit would be receiving. All dependant upon if the NCP were paying > what he is legally obligated to pay. You conveniently left out one minor detail: If the NCP pays his deficit money to the CP, then he has no money to pay toward the deficit. "Houston, I think we have a problem". > > > >Not according to your government. > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > You've been saying that, and that it's a woman's fault when they get > raped. Correction: It is YOU who is saying that. I only presented your inferred claim. >>>>> "Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > The ONLY one who "helps" create a child is the ONLY one who created it; the > mother. this wasn't your standpoint almost two years ago when you wanted your stepkid out of your hair. just saying. >> I have more respect for the Mexicans who stand on the >> corner of Home Depot looking for work because they have to take care of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yet you have no problem with the women who cry that their FREE CASH ("child > support") isn't handed to them. SignatureSarah Gray >this wasn't your standpoint almost two years ago when you wanted your >stepkid out of your hair. > >just saying. Hmmm. This makes much more sense now on why Chris seems to become so adamant and bitter. How sad to want a stepchild out of your hair. Perhaps that child is better off not having a "parent" who doesnt want him around. No wonder his stance is the way it is. >> this wasn't your standpoint almost two years ago when you wanted your >> stepkid out of your hair. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is better off not having a "parent" who doesnt want him around. No wonder his > stance is the way it is. He wasn't that child's parent, can you not read? Jesus. SignatureSarah Gray >He wasn't that child's parent, can you not read? Jesus. You said stepkid. Do you not know what that definition is? Do you even remember what YOU type? Jesus. (grin) Awwwwww. Are we getting testy? >>He wasn't that child's parent, can you not read? Jesus. > > You said stepkid. Do you not know what that definition is? Do you even > remember what YOU type? Jesus. (grin) > > Awwwwww. Are we getting testy? Why would anyone be responsible for their stepkid? >>> He wasn't that child's parent, can you not read? Jesus. >> You said stepkid. Do you not know what that definition is? Do you even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why would anyone be responsible for their stepkid? when said stepkid is pregnant, bragging on the internet about how you are going to throw them out on the street(and hopefully towards their kid's father, who he said should be supporting her and the kid) if they won't do the dishes is kind of heartless. If I knew the girl I might not think so, though. SignatureSarah Gray >>>> He wasn't that child's parent, can you not read? Jesus. >>> You said stepkid. Do you not know what that definition is? Do you even [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the dishes is kind of heartless. If I knew the girl I might not think so, > though. Oh, that is a very sad situation! >>>>> He wasn't that child's parent, can you not read? Jesus. >>>> You said stepkid. Do you not know what that definition is? Do you even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Oh, that is a very sad situation! I agree. SignatureSarah Gray >>>> He wasn't that child's parent, can you not read? Jesus. >>> You said stepkid. Do you not know what that definition is? Do you even [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >won't do the dishes is kind of heartless. If I knew the girl I might >not think so, though. Make up your mind. >Why would anyone be responsible for their stepkid? Uhm, gee, maybe because they love them? They ARE stepchildren.....? Wow. Purdy cold hearted response, but keep them comming. Im learning so much more in regards to the comments sparked from you and others earlier. In order for there to be a true definition of "stepchild" one would marry in and become psuedo parents. They may not be BIOLOGICALLY theres, but, care on a certain level. When I choose to remarry, and that man has child/ren from a previous marriage, you are damn right I would take them in and love them as my own! You speak of responsibility. You are going pretty broad there. If you are using responsibility in terms of child support, no. Unless there was a legal adoption that took place. I would hope to GOD that you would WANT to be responsibile for that stepchild in various situations. But then again, ya lil tight knit bunch seem to "run to the rescue" of others. I'm just going off what was originally typed "wanting the stepkid out of their hair" seems like a pretty bold statement there. But ya know, Im just another observer looking in. (wink) Im beginning to understand the trend of some of you, so by all means, continue! ;o) >>Why would anyone be responsible for their stepkid? > Uhm, gee, maybe because they love them? Maybe the marriage took place after the kid was nearly grown, and the kid did nothing but stir up trouble in the household. I certainly don't know. I do know that there is no law making a step parent liabel for the support of a step child. I'm not willing to judge and require that a step parent LOVE their step child. I'm not sure where you come up with such an odd requirement--especially when you could not possibly know the situation. They ARE stepchildren.....? Wow. > Purdy cold hearted response, Really? And how did you determine that? but keep them comming. Im learning so much more > in regards to the comments sparked from you and others earlier. I actually think that you are looking for ways to judge those who don't agree with everything you say. I don't think you look very deeply at all--just pick out bits and pieces and make jusdgements. What, specifically, have I said that you disagree with? > In order for there to be a true definition of "stepchild" one would marry > in > and become psuedo parents. They may not be BIOLOGICALLY theres, but, care > on > a certain level. I think step parent is one that is married to the bio parent of a child--and the child is present in the household during their minor years. Not all spouses of bio parents are step parents. When I choose to remarry, and that man has child/ren from a > previous marriage, you are damn right I would take them in and love them > as > my own! Well, good. But not everyone feels the same way. Nor is it required legally or morally. Unless you are saying that the way you feel about it is how everyone is required to feel. > You speak of responsibility. You are going pretty broad there. If you are > using responsibility in terms of child support, no. Unless there was a > legal > adoption that took place. Yep. I would hope to GOD that you would WANT to be > responsibile for that stepchild in various situations. Huh? What on earth are you talking about? But then again, ya lil > tight knit bunch seem to "run to the rescue" of others. Again, what on earth are you talking about? I'm just going off > what was originally typed "wanting the stepkid out of their hair" seems > like > a pretty bold statement there. If that is what the person felt, that is sad. But we do not know the circumstances, ages of children, or anything else. How can we judge in any way? It's that whole walk-a-mile-in-my-shoes thing. But ya know, Im just another observer looking > in. (wink) Im beginning to understand the trend of some of you, so by all > means, continue! ;o) Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You need to be a bit more specific. From my perspective, it seems as if you have set yourself up as a moral authority who is kindly being tolerant of those she considers to be inferior to her. Is that really what you are trying to express? >> He wasn't that child's parent, can you not read? Jesus. > > You said stepkid. Do you not know what that definition is? Do you even > remember what YOU type? Jesus. (grin) > > Awwwwww. Are we getting testy? a stepkid is definitively not one's child, unless you adopt them. SignatureSarah Gray >a stepkid is definitively not one's child, unless you adopt them. False. I found this by googling. Take a stab at it, you might learn a thing or 2. BTW, here's the link: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/7C324D42-B642-4B3B-96E1EA7F083F8C67/alpha/S/ Want anymore lessons? A child born to your spouse before your marriage whom you have not legally adopted. If you adopt the child, he or she is legally treated just like a biological offspring. Under the Uniform Probate Code, followed in some states, a stepchild belongs in the same class as a biological child and will inherit property left "to my children." In other states, a stepchild is not treated like a biological child unless he or she can prove that the parental relationship was established when he or she was a minor and that adoption would have occurred but for some legal obstacle. >>a stepkid is definitively not one's child, unless you adopt them. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > relationship was established when he or she was a minor and that adoption > would have occurred but for some legal obstacle. And do you think that a custodial parent can walk into family court armed with the probate court rules and demand child support for the child from the step parent because the probate court in some circumstances will treat the step child like a biological child? Why did you post this about probate court? >And do you think that a custodial parent can walk into family court armed >with the probate court rules and demand child support for the child from the >step parent because the probate court in some circumstances will treat the >step child like a biological child? Why did you post this about probate >court? It was included in the paragraph. The main gist was geared towards stepchild and the legal part of it. >>And do you think that a custodial parent can walk into family court armed >>with the probate court rules and demand child support for the child from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stepchild > and the legal part of it. Really? Why don't you explain the legal part apart from the probate part. What does it mean in terms of child support. And, most importantly, please show where it ways that a step parent is required by law to love their step child. >>> And do you think that a custodial parent can walk into family court armed >>> with the probate court rules and demand child support for the child from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > show where it ways that a step parent is required by law to love their step > child. Hell, plenty of biological parent's don't love their children (or don't act like it.). No law against that, eiher. SignatureSarah Gray >>And do you think that a custodial parent can walk into family court armed >>with the probate court rules and demand child support for the child from the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >It was included in the paragraph. The main gist was geared towards stepchild >and the legal part of it. I like you, Momof1, and teachermama too. You two seem to be the only ones on here that are able to hold a conversation without name calling, and being immature. You are not attacking each other, and that is a healthy debate. >>>"Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > over populated like China, because people would continue to procreate with > out fear of consequence. Do you two boobs share the same brain cell? Funny, we didn't have a single parent crisis back in the old days before CS! Laws don't prevent anything, much like the gun control laws that only effect law abiding citizens! There are those that will never pay any CS regardless of how many laws you pass, but the rest who try to pay their CS will suffer because of your imperial shallow thinking. >Do you two boobs share the same brain cell? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >pass, but the rest who try to pay their CS will suffer because of your >imperial shallow thinking. Now now DB, your immaturity is showing. (tsk tsk) Back then couples stayed together and hashed it out. It would be nice if we lived in the 1950's June Cleaver days, however, we do not. Such is life. Laws dont prevent anything? So I guess you are a rebel law breaker eh? Proud of that I see. True, you cant make a person pay child support. You cant "make" a person do anything. But, think about what you just stated for a second. You many not be able to MAKE a person pay on child support, BUT, you can surely regulate stiff penalities and fines to ensure those consequences. There are consequences to every action. Its a shame you want to rebel so much. The more and more you type, the more you are making yourself look like an a$$ for comming up with comments to absolve an NCP's obligation to pay CS. You are really a peice of work hotlips. "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > Back then couples stayed together and hashed it out. It would be nice if > we > lived in the 1950's June Cleaver days, however, we do not. Such is life. Yes, as you Femwits are happy topoint out, you are free independant women now and equal to men! Only problem is, you still depend on men's money to survive! LOLOLOLOL > True, you cant make a person pay child support. You cant "make" a person > do > anything. But, think about what you just stated for a second. You many not > be > able to MAKE a person pay on child support, BUT, you can surely regulate > stiff penalities and fines to ensure those consequences. LOL, that makes perfect sense, a person doesn't want to pay any money, so you threaten to tell them to pay more money! Only problem with that, it's going to cost you much more money to incarcerate this person than what you're trying to collect from them. Are you willing to pay more taxes for more services? You already owe $166,000 for your fair share of the debt or do you think that is just goingt o go away? >"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Are you willing to pay more taxes for more services? Femwits. Interesting. Bitter much? Cannot handle an smart intelligent woman who can do a man's job? It appears you are kind of testy when a woman can come in and do the same thing a man normally does. Its funny you say "you" all the time, as if to assume I have ANY AUTHORITY in prosecuting these men. The state he resides in does, and by the way of your wording, it seems you pay for this as well if you live in the US. Your comment about threatening to pay more money: No. That is not how it works for some. If you are found in non-compliance with a court order, you are given 6 wks. to come up with a certain amt. owed. When you dont, you appear in court. Most of the time its a repremand and fined to come up with money in an access of 30 days. If not, you are put in jail until one bails you out. In turn, that bail money goes towards the arrearages. The solution is really quite simple: If you care not to be subjected to incarceration, abide by the law. As an example: drunk driving is illegal. You get caught. You go to jail. You broke the law. DB, it appears we can go rounds. If one doesnt want to own up to responsibilities, that is fine. You pay the price. You have a choice. Do the right thing. If not, dont come crying and bitching. You are like a fussy baby who kicks the back of someones chair when they dont get their way. Complaining doesnt get you anywhere. "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote .............. > Complaining doesnt get you anywhere. == Refresh my memory--What brings you to alt.child-support? >== >Refresh my memory--What brings you to alt.child-support? Memory going already? I happen to come across the title that read, "Deadbeat parent and Enabler List", sounded interesting, so I used my freedom of speech and partook in discussion. If you dont like my opinion, take it or leave it, I could care less. We are all entitled to our opinions ;o) > Gini wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > discussion. If you dont like my opinion, take it or leave it, I could care > less. We are all entitled to our opinions ;o) == Well, if you're gonna stay and whine, I wish you'd at least learn to spell "whining." (And, that would be "could NOT care less.") > >"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > money in an access of 30 days. If not, you are put in jail until one bails > you out. In turn, that bail money goes towards the arrearages. And when no one bails them out? Guess the money to incarcerate comes from a tree. > The solution is really quite simple: If you care not to be subjected to > incarceration, abide by the law. As an example: drunk driving is illegal. You [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > who kicks the back of someones chair when they dont get their way. > Complaining doesnt get you anywhere. >And when no one bails them out? Guess the money to incarcerate comes from a >tree. Welp, then maybe they'll think twice about breaking the law next time wont they? Maybe it'll teach them a lesson to keep their nose clean. No sympathy here! ;o) >>And when no one bails them out? Guess the money to incarcerate comes from >>a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sympathy > here! ;o) Lady, you are so f.cking clueless is laughable! Those that are in jail are there because they don't have any money, when the system releases them, they won't beback for years because the system with ignore those case. THEY ARE INDIGENTS, NO amount of jail time is going to change that, at least they get fed and your tax dollars pay for that. >Lady, you are so f.cking clueless is laughable! >Those that are in jail are there because they don't have any money, when the >system releases them, they won't beback for years because the system with >ignore those case. THEY ARE INDIGENTS, NO amount of jail time is going to >change that, at least they get fed and your tax dollars pay for that. No sweetheart, your apparent need to spout off vulgarity when someone challanges your viewpoint and has a different opinion is what makes it laughable. Try loosing the attitude and language, and I just MIGHT take you seriously. (wink) "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in >>Lady, you are so f.cking clueless is laughable! >>Those that are in jail are there because they don't have any money, when [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you > seriously. (wink) Lady, you are nothing more than a useless cheap cow that is part of the entitlement crowd! These men fought for a reason, what have you contributed to this country other than your whining about a few dollars? America's real heroes don't flaunt what they did; they quietly go about their day-to-day lives, doing what they do best. They earned our respect and the freedoms that we all enjoy. Look around and see if you can find one of those heroes in your midst. Often, they are the ones you'd least suspect, but would most like to have on your side if anything ever happened. Take the time to thank anyone that has fought for our freedom. With encouragement they could be the next Captain Kangaroo or Mr.Rogers > >And when no one bails them out? Guess the money to incarcerate comes from a > >tree. > > > Welp, then maybe they'll think twice about breaking the law next time wont > they? Maybe it'll teach them a lesson to keep their nose clean. No sympathy > here! ;o) Perhaps, but I think you missed the point. Such point being that if he chooses to not comply with their demands, then he will get FREE room & board. And guess who is forced to pay for it. That's right, the TAXPAYERS. But you have no problem with that, so long as SOMEBODY gets ripped off. > >Do you two boobs share the same brain cell? > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > able to MAKE a person pay on child support, BUT, you can surely regulate > stiff penalities and fines to ensure those consequences. Yeah, like giving them FREE room & board (imprisonment), thus forcing the TAXPAYERS to support the so-called "deadbeats". > There are > consequences to every action. Its a shame you want to rebel so much. The more > and more you type, the more you are making yourself look like an a$$ for > comming up with comments to absolve an NCP's obligation to pay CS. You are > really a peice of work hotlips. >Do you two boobs share the same brain cell? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >pass, but the rest who try to pay their CS will suffer because of your >imperial shallow thinking. Now now DB, your immaturity is showing. (tsk tsk) Back then couples stayed together and hashed it out. It would be nice if we lived in the 1950's June Cleaver days, however, we do not. Such is life. Laws dont prevent anything? So I guess you are a rebel law breaker eh? Proud of that I see. True, you cant make a person pay child support. You cant "make" a person do anything. But, think about what you just stated for a second. You many not be able to MAKE a person pay on child support, BUT, you can surely regulate stiff penalities and fines to ensure those consequences. There are consequences to every action. Its a shame you want to rebel so much. The more and more you type, the more you are making yourself look like an a$$ for comming up with comments to absolve an NCP's obligation to pay CS. You are really a peice of work hotlips. Does DB stand for DeadBeat by chance? > >Do you two boobs share the same brain cell? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > -- > Message posted via FamilyKB.comhttp://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/parenting/200710/1 > Actually, a felony. It becomes a felony when $10,000 in arrears. This law was made from the same Government that is $47 Trillion in arrears and now you owe $166,000 as your share of that arrearage! You are a Dead Beat! How does he know you are not and prove otherwise if you are paying your share of the government arrearages??And now the difference here is if you are not paying it, are you a felon? I know off track..."Federal law also dictates, with other requirements that being $5,000.00 in child support arrears is illegal. So how high does our share of the government arrearages have to be before we are breaking the law, and can we find a cite for this particular law? And where and to what department do we address our payments to? and will our individual portion of the arrearages fluctuate as the deficit continues to change?Can we ask for a ledger of the payments and where they are going?Do you think a payment arrangement can be made? FYI,according to Wikepedia a "Deadbeat is a gender neutral term referring to parents of either gender that have freely chosen not to be a regular or supportive parent in their children's lives. So with that accusation he has proposed I am absolutely certain without a doubt sure certainly DB used it in the incorrect context. Anyway, hmmm...I wonder if continually focusing on the national defict is a subliminal attempt to get NCP's to pay their legally owed child support debt, so that according to a lovely little clause in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,the $25.00 fee can be removed to help foot the bill. But I just wondered? "Very Determined!" <jejenniebear@gmail.com> wrote in > This law was made from the same Government that is $47 Trillion in > arrears [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > share of the government arrearages have to be before we are breaking > the law, and can we find a cite for this particular law? Laws are invented all the time, just as your CS law was invented by womens groups! It was easy enough to pass, there were plenty of Politicians willing to build their polictical career on this platform. Now where am I going to find any politicians willing to force people to pay more taxes to cover their fair share of the debt? > FYI,according to Wikepedia a "Deadbeat is a gender neutral term > referring to parents of either gender that have freely chosen not to > be a regular or supportive parent in their children's lives. See : http://www.answers.com/topic/deadbeat?cat=biz-fin So with > that accusation he has proposed I am absolutely certain without a > doubt sure certainly DB used it in the incorrect context. Anyway, > hmmm...I wonder if continually focusing on the national defict is a > subliminal attempt to get NCP's to pay their legally owed child > support debt, Call it what it really is, Mommy lifestyle support! so that according to a lovely little clause in the > Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,the $25.00 fee can be removed to help > foot the bill. But I just wondered? > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >Call it what it really is, Mommy lifestyle support! No, I thought that was Alimony... And what do you call it, if you never had to begin with? Its not supporting mommy, or child?or the National Deficit? "Very Determined!" <jejenniebear@gmail.com> wrote in >>Call it what it really is, Mommy lifestyle support! > > No, I thought that was Alimony... > And what do you call it, if you never had to begin with? Its not > supporting mommy, or child?or the National Deficit? It's called Belly Aching or whining, now pull-up your pantyhose and get out there and go work for a change! You women wanted equality, you got it, deal with it! :-) > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > there and go work for a change! > You women wanted equality, you got it, deal with it! :-) Belly-Aching and whining is in the eye of the listener. You have not provided any evidence or accurate accusations to your statement that I wear pantyhose or do not work. And to want equality and to have equality are two seperate issues.Without a constitutional guarantee of women's equality, even favorable rulings and good laws on women's rights can be ignored, revoked , or overruled. Therefore,one cannot deal with what one does not have. :) > How does he know you are not and prove otherwise if you are paying >your share of the government arrearages??And now the difference here [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,the $25.00 fee can be removed to help >foot the bill. But I just wondered? HE doesnt have to prove anything, the courts take care of those findings for proof, as the same goes for arrearages in child support. yes, it is off track, as this is a child support forum and has no bearing on the deficet of the govt. As I previously stated to another poster, GO TAKE THAT UP IN THE FORUM THAT IT IS GEARED FOR. However, I do have to say, nice spin on taking the heat off the topic at hand, which uhm, would be child support. We ARE in discussions about child support arrearages. "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > However, I do have to say, nice spin on taking the heat off the topic at > hand, > which uhm, would be child support. We ARE in discussions about child > support > arrearages. Yes, and while you have your tiny little mind occupied with this small issue and Global warming, you ignore the real issues. Open your eyes and Learn: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pXA9S1jAwxI >"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in >Yes, and while you have your tiny little mind occupied with this small issue >and Global warming, you ignore the real issues. > >Open your eyes and Learn: > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pXA9S1jAwxI (I watched the video before you insert your comment)...are you against neglectful fathers paying their court ordered child support? This is what IM discussing, and you want to skirt the issue by continously failing to adhere to what I am speaking of and want to steer it into the topic of debating politics. If you agree that neglectful parents should uphold to the law of paying what they are required to pay, then what exactly is your problem with what I am expressing? >>"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > they are required to pay, then what exactly is your problem with what I am > expressing? Perhaps if you would get off your high horse and acknowledge that the system is not perfect, that mistakes are made, that bias exists, and that it is not saints (CPs) vs sinners (NCPs), there would actually be roon for discussion. Do I think that every NCP should pay the amount ordered by the court? No--absolutely not. Some have massive grounds for appeal, and should not be forced to pay exorbitant amounts that are assigned due to clerical error, judicial prejudice, or lies told by the CP. Do I think that every CP is a greedy, grasping shrew. No, of course not! And, of course, there are real deadbeats out there--which is what the system was set up for to begin with. But I DO think that every CP (mostly women) should do her level best NOT to be dependent on child support to survive. That's a rough place to be--depending on someone who might or might not be dependable. Why live in that position if you don't have to? (Now, did I say anything about anyone not paying CS at all--be sure to read for comprehension here) >Perhaps if you would get off your high horse and acknowledge that the system >is not perfect, that mistakes are made, that bias exists, and that it is not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >that position if you don't have to? (Now, did I say anything about anyone >not paying CS at all--be sure to read for comprehension here) Quote me where I said the system is in perfect working order? In regards to you thinking that a high amt. is set for child support: Do you not understand that courts set the amt. of child support based on INCOME? Income is verified thru tax records and paystubs. Verification IS considered so extortion does not happen. Both a CP and NCP can request modification if income is INCREASED or DECREASED. If said mod. is requested, research is done. Courts just dont come up with a random number off the top of their head and try to figure out ways to "screw the NCP" and "bleed money" out of them. I am very well aware that there are CP's who depend on CS as a way of making it thru life. JUST as there are NCP's who attempt to skirt the system and AVOID to pay. They put things in families names, use gf's SSN, work under the table, have hidden overseas bank accounts, etc. (the list can go on). I agree its a rough place to be. Cant imagine living your life depending on when your next check is comming. For ME, I dont ever wonder. I know I have a steady paycheck comming in to provide for MY family. But that DOES NOT mean that that NCP should not have to pay just because "he cant do it right now" Perhaps if he had a job that supported himself, he COULD be that father he should be. Do I spend my time worrying about it? Nope. I lived 4 yrs. without it. However, you cant just sluff it off to a "bad time". I dont get breaks, why should he? Why should any NCP who doesnt support their chlid. The funny ironic thing, is Ive got the majority of you comming at me with all different angles, yet, some fail to see that I believe in upholding to the law. Its just like a credit card. You obtain one and make a promise to pay your monthly bill. When you dont pay, they call you and request payment. The credit card co. doesnt care that youve gone thru a "bad time" right now. You signed a paper that shows documentation of promise to pay. They may help make payment arrangements, but it does not go away. The same applies in almost the same way as child support. You are ordered to pay an amt. based on verification of your "income lifestyle". "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > payment arrangements, but it does not go away. The same applies in almost > the > same way as child support. You are ordered to pay an amt. based on > verification of your "income lifestyle". Really, Is that so! >Really, Is that so! You wanna care to expand on that? Or are you just going to continue spouting off your ever so obvious bitter sarcasm? "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in >>Really, Is that so! > You wanna care to expand on that? Or are you just going to continue > spouting > off your ever so obvious bitter sarcasm? OK, you stated: "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > You are ordered to pay an amt. based on verification of your "income > lifestyle". Look up the word Impute! A judge can order any amount he/she feels you are capable of making. So if you had a really great paying job making 120K/year as a manager, you will make that under any circumstances such as layoffs, downsizing, company closure, Tower being blown up, city flooded out! >Look up the word Impute! > >A judge can order any amount he/she feels you are capable of making. >So if you had a really great paying job making 120K/year as a manager, you >will make that under any circumstances such as layoffs, downsizing, >company closure, Tower being blown up, city flooded out! If you werent so blinded by your anger on this, you would see that both parties can request a mod. of the CS order when income as increased OR decreased. And just exactly how do you think a judge sets the amt. based on capability? It is because when setting CS, an "Income and Expense Report" is filed out by both mother and father. Sometimes both parents income is used in determining the amt. of child support. If you are making 120k/yr., then CS would be set based on a percentage of that income of what you have comming in and out. When layoffs occur, downsizing, closure occurs, then the NCP can request a "Downward Modification". Most of the time, a 3 year waiting period is required before a modification can be requested. Look up your local state law, as different states laws may vary. "Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" <u38140@uwe> wrote in > If you are making 120k/yr., then CS would be set > based on a percentage of that income of what you have comming in and out. > When layoffs occur, downsizing, closure occurs, then the NCP can request a > "Downward Modification". Is that So! >>Look up the word Impute! >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > required before a modification can be requested. Look up your local state > law, as different states laws may vary. This is where you are stubbornly refusing to listen!! Judges do not have to grant a modification!! You can prove that your company went belly up and that there are NO JOBS in the area paying a similar amount, and the judge can STILL say "You earned it beofre, you can earn it again." Do you know how many people have lost good technology jobs overseas, and can now not find anything in that field at all? Theirsalaries are MUCH lowerthan they were, but it is RARE to get a downward modification. Just because you have the right to file a modification, does not mean you will get it. You are far, far too idealistic and trusting. ............................ >> When layoffs occur, downsizing, closure occurs, then the NCP can request >> a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you have the right to file a modification, does not mean you will get it. > You are far, far too idealistic and trusting. == Idealistic and trusting? More like blind and clueless. Well, it's true. "Gini" <gini@verizon.com> wrote in >> You are far, far too idealistic and trusting. > == > Idealistic and trusting? More like blind and clueless. Well, it's true. She is only a brainwashed pawn, it's not her fault for being so naive! > >>Look up the word Impute! > >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the right to file a modification, does not mean you will get it. You are > far, far too idealistic and trusting. That's usually the way it is when the government is their god. > >>Look up the word Impute! > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I understand the idealism, I also understand the courts are not perfect. The law grants a review of your child support case every 3 years, which either parent may initiate but Federal guidelines dictates a laundry list of adjoining rules to play by, that are not addresed in any law books, for most situations as every situation is different. I also understand that when my husband received an increase in his child support from roommates we had taken in that he booted them and quickly took it back to court to have his support reduced. He presented his case and the judge reduced it. I also see that every choice and decision there is a consequence. If your employer is downsizing and you lose your job, or whatever the case maybe, knowing you have a family or children to support why wouldn't you quickly go wherever you needed to to obtain other employment, and as such immediately go to the court with your your circumstances, which either parent may inititate...most judges(said most, not all) are inclined to give a them a temporary reduction to find employment and or something comprable, based on federal guidelines. Most judges find it in the NCP's best interest to give temporary reductions based on the fact that they are more productive out of jail, than in. I know my responsibility as a parent that if I lose my job today, there is no depending on "free money" especially if it was never there to begin with, but I would immediately look for other employment, if not two... wherever I had to to feed my child. According to Federal guidelines, where is the NCP anyless responsible? We can play the biological game, but the fact is he is still obligated to help with the maintenance and support of his child, no matter how one wishes to breakdown the details of responsibility... "Very Determined!" <jejenniebear@gmail.com> wrote in > I also see that every > choice and decision there is a consequence. If your employer is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > give a them a temporary reduction to find employment and or something > comprable, based on federal guidelines. You are so right, when we lose a job we should pay for a $400 reduction hearing and just tell the kids there will be no Dairy Queen treats until a decent paying job can be found in a couple weeks. > We can play the biological game, but the fact is he is still obligated to > help with the maintenance and > support of his child, no matter how one wishes to breakdown the > details of responsibility... Wether we have kids or not, the rent still has to be paid and we start getting desperate when the money runs out! We don't need the government on our backs dictating responsibility. The same deadbeat government that is $48 Trillion in debt and took all social security money from millions of tax payers and can't pay that back either. The ship has been torpedoed and it's going down fast! > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > hearing and just tell the kids there will be no Dairy Queen treats until a > decent paying job can be found in a couple weeks. R U stating "we" as a general consensus that we all pay or we all are paying for the $400.00 hearing or the individual who requested the hearing? > > We can play the biological game, but the fact is he is still obligated to > > help with the maintenance and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > deadbeat government that is $48 Trillion in debt and took all social > security money from millions of tax payers and can't pay that back either. That is the payment for a "Due Process" government..how much of our indiviual rights do we hand over to our governement for the sanctity of "Due Process.?" Either accept the process, make a difference to change what you do not like or move to a crime controlled environment where you are not put on notice nor have the capability to refute what they are doing to you.. Here, no matter how much you refute the outcome you will always have the options to refute it....only you have the choice to make a difference...to idealistic, I know. > The ship has been torpedoed and it's going down fast! "Very Determined!" <jejenniebear@gmail.com> wrote in >> Wether we have kids or not, the rent still has to be paid and we start >> getting desperate when the money runs out! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That is the payment for a "Due Process" government.. Funny, you had all that before this federal debt was created by present day government! > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Funny, you had all that before this federal debt was created by present day > government! The federal debt has existed for a long time just compunded by present day government. Still does not release the responsibility of an NCP to support and maintain for his child. Again if the NCP took care of their business, the Deficit could begin their collection process. If you do not owe child support or are subject to receive it does that mean you will not contribute to your portion of re-payment??? I see that if you are choosing not to pay your support or receive it than what part are you playing to manage your part of the debt? Just curious? "Very Determined!" <jejenniebear@gmail.com> wrote in >> Funny, you had all that before this federal debt was created by present >> day >> government! > > The federal debt has existed for a long time just compunded by present > day government. So you are fine with the status quo? > Still does not release the responsibility of an NCP to support and > maintain for his child. NCP's could better handle their affairs with their own children without the government control, just as people could better handle their own retirement program without being forced to pay into social security. Just listen to Hilary, she'll tell you that people don't know how to run their lives and they need more government control to do it for them. > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So you are fine with the status quo? If I am not what am I doing about it? If I am what am I doing baout it? > > Still does not release the responsibility of an NCP to support and > > maintain for his child. > > NCP's could better handle their affairs with their own children without the > government control, just as people could better handle their own retirement > program without being forced to pay into social security. If that were the case I believe they would not be labeled NCP's or CP"s to begin with...and because of the country we live in, if "ALL' NCP's handled their affairs with their own children, the government would heve never needed to step in...just my thoughts. Our governement offers choices... It was the refusal of the few bad seeds who painted the picture for so many good. Now everyone suffers at the hands of those who refuse to do their share. Bottom line is noone is at a loss to be in control of their own lives and take care of their responsibilities. All I am saying as individuals is we have a choice. > Just listen to Hilary, she'll tell you that people don't know how to run > their lives and they need more government control to do it for them. "Very Determined!" <jejenniebear@gmail.com> wrote in > If that were the case I believe they would not be labeled NCP's or > CP"s to begin with...and because > of the country we live in, if "ALL' NCP's handled their affairs with > their own children, the government > would heve never needed to step in...just my thoughts. Our governement > offers choices... I gather that you are socialist and believe the government is here to help! "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work, and give to those who would not" - Thomas Jefferson http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rErukvYVPOI > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rErukvYVPOI If thats what its called than ok, but why isn't the governemnt here to help...didn't "we" put the g'ment officials there where they r? > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If thats what its called than ok, but why isn't the governemnt here to > help...didn't "we" put the g'ment officials there where they r? "I" didn't; did you? > > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I didn't..personally put them ther, and played no part to do so...so really I have no room to complain about what a horrible state of anomisty we r in. I just go to work, abide by the law, pay my taxes, raise my kids, and finish my education so that I can make educated decisions about how to make my family's life better:) "Very Determined!" <jejenniebear@gmail.com> wrote in > I didn't..personally put them ther, and played no part to do so...so > really I have no room to complain about what a horrible state of > anomisty we r in. The 1996 Welfare reforms that affect the CS system younow have was introduced by a Clinton, now another Clinton is looking to continue that work. Some are saying it's a forgone conclusion that Hilary will win, it's just a countdown to Victory for her. Why bother voting, it's a farse anyway? > I just go to work, abide by the law, pay my taxes, > raise my kids, and finish my education so that I can make educated > decisions about how to make my family's life better:) Many law abiding citizens are easily entrapped into a nightmare of political causes. Imagine having a glass of wine at lunch with a friend, and then while driving home a child runs in front of your car, you spend the next 20 years in a Federal prison for Vehicular Manslaughter. > > > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > really I have no room to complain about what a horrible state of > anomisty we r in. Yes you do. That you did not CAUSE such condition is not reason to say you are not allowed to complain about it. > I just go to work, abide by the law, pay my taxes, > raise my kids, and finish my education so that I can make educated > decisions about how to make my family's life better:) What a blessing to have such freedoms! Tough luck for fathers that are denied the very same liberties. But then again, fathers are meaningless beyond anything more than free cash. > > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I am sad for you that you belive that. I do not know where I would be had a not had the (step) father I did. > > > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > I am sad for you that you belive that. Communication failure. It is not "I" who believes it; rather it is the "child support" people who believe it. > I do not know where I would be > had a not had the (step) father I did. > > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Yes you do. That you did not CAUSE such condition is not reason to say you > are not allowed to complain about it. Ok, maybe wrong wording, I am allowed to complain, but the audacity to do so would be ridiculous since I am not doing or proposing to change it...thats like complaining about being broke, but not getting up to go to work. > > I just go to work, abide by the law, pay my taxes, > > raise my kids, and finish my education so that I can make educated [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > it...thats like complaining about being broke, but not getting up to > go to work. The difference being that you can DO something about being broke. You have NO control over the actions of these people. That someone has comitted an act outside your control has no bearing on your right to complain about such act. In fact, it JUSTIFIES your complaint! > > > I just go to work, abide by the law, pay my taxes, > > > raise my kids, and finish my education so that I can make educated [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > - Show quoted text - "Very Determined!" <jejenniebear@gmail.com> wrote in >> "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are >> willing to work, and give to those who would not" - Thomas Jefferson [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If thats what its called than ok, but why isn't the governemnt here to > help...didn't "we" put the g'ment officials there where they r? Do you really think you have a choice in who runs for government positions! Voting is just a mere formality, the power & control still remains with a very elitist group regardless of who gets elected. > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Voting is just a mere formality, the power & control still remains with a > very elitist group regardless of who gets elected. No I really don't believe we have alot of choice or say so...but the bottom line for me is that if I don't do what I am "supposed" to do whatever the case maybe, I and my family suffer. I had a professor tell me once, that the governmental system, the courts, are all a game, you either learn how to play it right or you don't have leg to stand on...Instead of losing both legs I figure I better learn how to play :) "Very Determined!" <jejenniebear@gmail.com> wrote in > No I really don't believe we have alot of choice or say so...but the > bottom line for me is that if I don't do what I am [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > don't have leg to stand on...Instead of losing both legs I figure I > better learn how to play :) Most of us try to go through life thinking we're trying to do the best we can do, but then incidents happen which causes people to find themselves caught up in a web of hysteria caused from pressure groups on a witch hunt. It's this over reaction that politicians feed from to assure the success of their political career, it's not about right or wrong, just what's popular. > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > bottom line for me is that if I don't do what I am > "supposed" to do whatever the case maybe, I and my family suffer. Is what you are "supposed" to do that which is legal or moral? > I > had a professor tell me once, that the governmental system, the > courts, are all a game, you either learn how to play it right or you > don't have leg to stand on...Instead of losing both legs I figure I > better learn how to play :) > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > It was the refusal of the few bad seeds who painted the picture for so > many good. Yet you believe that the government needs to step in for the "good" folks. > Now everyone suffers at the hands of those who refuse to do > their share. No they don't. They suffer at the hands of the GOVERNMENT people. Get it right. > Bottom line is noone is at a loss to be in control of > their own lives They are when your government FORCES them to act against their will! > and take > care of their responsibilities. All I am saying as individuals is > we have a choice. > > > > Just listen to Hilary, she'll tell you that people don't know how to run > > their lives and they need more government control to do it for them. > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > It was the refusal of the few bad seeds who painted the picture for so > many good. Yet you believe that the government needs to step in for the "good" folks. > Now everyone suffers at the hands of those who refuse to do > their share. No they don't. They suffer at the hands of the GOVERNMENT people. Get it right. > Bottom line is noone is at a loss to be in control of > their own lives They are when your government FORCES them to act against their will! > and take > care of their responsibilities. All I am saying as individuals is > we have a choice. > > > > Just listen to Hilary, she'll tell you that people don't know how to run > > their lives and they need more government control to do it for them. >> "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >what part are you playing to manage your part of the debt? Just >curious? The federal debt was here before child support was thought of. >> >>Look up the word Impute! >> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > support of his child, no matter how one wishes to breakdown the > details of responsibility... I have no clue where you live, but the courts are not nearly as obliging as you seem to feel they are everywhere. It would be so nice to be able to just go to court, have a friendly chat with the judge, and have support reduced--no matter how loudly the CP screams about "needing" the money! I'm sure there are many people here who will tell you about applying for a reduction due to circumstances beyond their control, and being told no--that they earned that amount before, and should be able to earn it again. I know a man who has 52% custody of his child--he and his ex earned the same amount per year, but he had spent several months working overtime on a special project, and he was ordered to pay CS to his ex--who had less custody than he did! She recently QUIT her job, because she just didn't like the atmosphere any more, and is now applying fro an increase in CS--because she doesn't work! The courts aren't a friendly place for NCPs, no matter what the "laws" say. > >> >>Look up the word Impute! > [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Unless, you were in the court room it seems you are receiving second hand information. Again I am the first one to understand mistakes, and horrible decisions made by judges, as I have expereineced them in Family Court but again unless you were physically in the courtroom and it was happening to you, we could go around and around, but without knowing all the facts from "both" parties sounds like pieces of a missing puzzle to me. There are always seems to be three sides in the courtroom, the CP's, the NCP's, and the judge. Unfortunately noone ever wins in Family Court...and everyone takes from their experience what they wanted to hear or didn't want to experience. There are no cut and dry, hard and fast rules, just a system overwhelmed with parents trying to avoid responsibility, take responsibility, and kids who are caught in the middle. But as child of the court, and a parent in the same messed up process I don't have anomsity for it, I still believe in it. We get what we put into it...and if we don't like it we have the ability to change what we need to, as well as everyone else who feels they have been wronged. >> >> >>Look up the word Impute! >> [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > Unless, you were in the court room it seems you are receiving second > hand information. From both parents--they are both friends. And they tell exactly the same story. But perhaps you're right. Perhaps both of them are lying. > Again I am the first one to understand mistakes, and horrible > decisions made by judges, as I have expereineced them in Family Court > but again unless you were physically in the courtroom > and it was happening to you, we could go around and around, but > without knowing all the facts from "both" parties > sounds like pieces of a missing puzzle to me. Somce I do know the facts from both parties, is it true? There are always seems > to be three sides in the courtroom, the CP's, the NCP's, > and the judge. Unfortunately noone ever wins in Family Court...and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >take > responsibility, and kids who are caught in the middle. Hmmmm...how about the cases where the NCP is seeking a modification because his company shut down and he had to take a lower paying job, a CP who is remarried to a well-off man and does not work, but does not want the modification, even though she knows the NCP is making so much less money now. Which parent is trying to take responsibility, ans which is trying to avoid it? Can there be cases where both parents are trying to take responsibility, but just don't agree on how to do that? Can there be cases where neither parent wants to take responsibility? But as child > of the court, and a parent in the same messed up process I don't have > anomsity for it, I still believe > in it. We get what we put into it...and if we don't like it we have > the ability to change what we need to, as well as everyone > else who feels they have been wronged. Oh, I think change is coming, but I don't think that those who are working so hard to change the system are going to be the ones to reap the benefits of the badly-needed changes. > >> "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] > so hard to change the system are going to be the ones to reap the benefits > of the badly-needed changes. Maybe ur right, I see there are never winners in Family Court. > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - "Very Determined!" <jejenniebear@gmail.com> wrote in >> Oh, I think change is coming, but I don't think that those who are >> working [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe ur right, I see there are never winners in Family Court. Nobody wins a war, the bill always come after the battle is fought, paid in Human Blood! > > >> "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 163 lines] > > Maybe ur right, I see there are never winners in Family Court. Yes there are. "Family" court is about one thing, and ONE thing ONLY....................... M O N E Y! And guess what, someone wins and someone loses...... ALWAYS. > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 222 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Is that from personal experience? Most cases, and I have sat in quite a few, I have rarely seen either party walk out feeling like a winner... > > > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 226 lines] > a few, I have rarely seen either party walk out feeling like a > winner... A winner, by definition, is one who gains. How they "feel" about such win is irrelevant. > > >> >>Look up the word Impute! > > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > Unless, you were in the court room it seems you are receiving second > hand information. Of course, because anything else would debunk your faith in the "child support" industry. > Again I am the first one to understand mistakes, and horrible > decisions made by judges, as I have expereineced them in Family Court [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > anomsity for it, I still believe > in it. Because that is ALL you know. To your detriment! > We get what we put into it...and if we don't like it we have > the ability to change what we need to, as well as everyone > else who feels they have been wronged. > > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > > Because that is ALL you know. To your detriment! Because the is ALL I know??about what? > > We get what we put into it...and if we don't like it we have > > the ability to change what we need to, as well as everyone [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > > "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 145 lines] > > > Because the is ALL I know??about what? About family in general, as far as experience is concerned. > > > We get what we put into it...and if we don't like it we have > > > the ability to change what we need to, as well as everyone [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > - Show quoted text - >>Perhaps if you would get off your high horse and acknowledge that the >>system [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > you > not understand that courts set the amt. of child support based on INCOME? Not always. That is part of the problem. The amount cna be set on imputed income--income that doesn't really exist, but that the judge seems to think the person can earn. Not really fair. It can be set based on the CP stating that she "knows" that the NCP makes thus and so "under the table." No proof needed. It can be set for the current job the NCP is working, but the job is sent over seas, and the NCP can only find a lesser paying job--but the amount is not reduced because the judge "knows" that the NCP can find a job that pays the same as he made before. It can be set based on overtime made during the time that the judge is looking at--even when the NCP brings in documents statingthat the overtime was a one time deal, and will not happen again. I personally know people that each of these things happened to. Not to mention the several women I know that claimed to only work part time, and that they used $xx in child care per month, even though they worked full time and their mothers watched the children for free. > Income is verified thru tax records and paystubs. Verification IS > considered > so extortion does not happen. Not necessarily. In the example of my friend who had his overtime counted as ongoing income: the judge would only look at the pay stubs with the overtime shownm and would not look at either the regular pay stubs or the documents from the employer. Both a CP and NCP can request modification if > income is INCREASED or DECREASED. If said mod. is requested, research is > done. You are far too idealistic. > Courts just dont come up with a random number off the top of their head > and > try to figure out ways to "screw the NCP" and "bleed money" out of them. They also do not have to follow the guidelines if they don't want to. They are not laws--they are only guidelines. > I am very well aware that there are CP's who depend on CS as a way of > making [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that that NCP should not have to pay just because "he cant do it right > now" Nor did I ever say that. > Perhaps if he had a job that supported himself, he COULD be that father he > should be. Do I spend my time worrying about it? Nope. I lived 4 yrs. > without > it. However, you cant just sluff it off to a "bad time". I dont get > breaks, > why should he? Why should any NCP who doesnt support their chlid. Now that depends--if he was in a terrible accident, and was in the hospital for 3 months and recovering for another 6, I think child support could be put on hold during that time if he had no income. I certainly don't think he should be building up a debt that he sill never get out from under while he is incapacitated. > The funny ironic thing, is Ive got the majority of you comming at me with > all > different angles, yet, some fail to see that I believe in upholding to the > law. Oh, I believe in upholding the lae--but I think that it should be upheld at both ends--not only should a fair amount be assessed from the NCP to cover basic needs (not luxuries), but the CP should be able to prove that the CS from the NCP and her share were spent on the child--not on the mortgage, or on other siblings by other fathers. I also firmly believe that, whenever possible, 50/50 joint custody with no money changing hands should be the norm. Its just like a credit card. You obtain one and make a promise to pay > your monthly bill. When you dont pay, they call you and request payment. > The > credit card co. doesnt care that youve gone thru a "bad time" right now. Actually, some credit card companies are very good about that if you've shown yourself to be a good customer all along. You > signed a paper that shows documentation of promise to pay. They may help > make > payment arrangements, but it does not go away. The same applies in almost > the > same way as child support. You are ordered to pay an amt. based on > verification of your "income lifestyle". Nobody in this country should be guaranteed a lifestyle. If my husband or I lose our job, our family would have to tighten our belts and forego some of what we do right now. Why should children under CS orders not have to suffer the tightening of their belts, too? CS should be for basic needs--not "lifestyle." > >>Perhaps if you would get off your high horse and acknowledge that the > >>system [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > he should be building up a debt that he sill never get out from under while > he is incapacitated. The sickest part about it is they force their ways ONLY on NCPs (fathers), but not on fathers priviliged to live with the children. > > The funny ironic thing, is Ive got the majority of you comming at me with > > all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from the NCP and her share were spent on the child--not on the mortgage, or > on other siblings by other fathers. That's all good & well, but the problem is it aint' the law. Remember, you are discussing this with someone who operates STRICTLY according to law; not morality. > I also firmly believe that, whenever > possible, 50/50 joint custody with no money changing hands should be the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > suffer the tightening of their belts, too? CS should be for basic > needs--not "lifestyle." > >Perhaps if you would get off your high horse and acknowledge that the system > >is not perfect, that mistakes are made, that bias exists, and that it is not [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Courts just dont come up with a random number off the top of their head and > try to figure out ways to "screw the NCP" and "bleed money" out of them. Apparently, you have never heard of "imputed" income. > I am very well aware that there are CP's who depend on CS as a way of making > it thru life. JUST as there are NCP's who attempt to skirt the system and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > should be. Do I spend my time worrying about it? Nope. I lived 4 yrs. without > it. However, you cant just sluff it off to a "bad time". I dont get breaks, Yeah you do; you don't have to pay "child support". > why should he? Why should any NCP who doesnt support their chlid. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > same way as child support. You are ordered to pay an amt. based on > verification of your "income lifestyle". Not always the case. (see above) > >>"Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No. I think child support is a good idea. Extortion is NEVER a good idea. But then again, that's just my lil' ole' opinion. > If we didn't have it, we would be > over populated like China, because people would continue to procreate with > out fear of consequence. It is precisely BECAUSE of "child support" that consequences are all but eliminated, thus encouraging MORE women to procreate. > I also think that if child support has been established, it should be paid. > All I have seen is finger pointing and name calling, but that is all. > Does anyone think of the children? > The comments "you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them", should be > directed toward both parents not, just the mothers, because the ones > complaining that they can't pay should have been thinking about that too. Non sequitur. "Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote .......... > I completely understand your point. I don't know what is wrong with these > people to think the non custodial parent should not be held responsible. > It > is possible that these people don't understand the reason for child > support > because they are an old generation from when Child Support did not exist. == Well, I'm not quite that old---well, maybe I am. But, I definately come from a long line of strong women who need no man or court to prop them up. Many women of today were born into a culture that assumes women are weak and incapable of carrying their load. You can thank NOW for that. >>>>>== >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I completely understand your point. I don't know what is wrong with these > people to think the non custodial parent should not be held responsible. Which people would those be? People you know personally? It > is possible that these people don't understand the reason for child > support > because they are an old generation from when Child Support did not exist. You know old people who do not pay child support? > >>>>>== > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > You know old people who do not pay child support? No, but I know old people who do. My biological dad paid support until his death this year. He began working afterI turned 18 and I receive the money and gave it to my parents because it is they who sacrificed for me to live. They chose to keep me and love me and work for me, choices they did not have to make. Why shouldn't they be entitled to "free money" or "reward? >> >>>>>== >> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > choices they did not have to make. Why shouldn't they be entitled to > "free money" or "reward? I do mot quite understand what you are talking about here--you were raised by a couple who loved and cherished you and, after you turned 18, your bio dad was discovered and forced to pay child support? Why? >>> >>>>>== >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >by a couple who loved and cherished you and, after you turned 18, your bio >dad was discovered and forced to pay child support? Why? Why not? > >>> >>>>>== > >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >dad was discovered and forced to pay child support? Why? > Why not? WHY? >> >>> >>>>>== >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >WHY? Again, why not? > >> >>> >>>>>== > >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >WHY? > Again, why not? Tell you what: Since she asked you FIRST, how about answering FIRST. And since you asked SECOND, she can answer SECOND. >> >> >>> >>>>>== >> >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Tell you what: Since she asked you FIRST, how about answering FIRST. And >since you asked SECOND, she can answer SECOND. Why? >>> >> >>> >>>>>== >>> >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>since you asked SECOND, she can answer SECOND. > Why? OMG--you're in one of those "did too-did not" arguments. I feel like I'm in my classroom instead of on a newsgroup with adults!! > >> >> >>> >>>>>== > >> >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >since you asked SECOND, she can answer SECOND. > Why? First come, FIRST served. Or do you believe in cutting in front of the line? > >> >>>>>== > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > - Show quoted text - My mother applied for child support when I was young...because he was angry over what she did he decided he would not work, and sign over all of his assets to his wife. Of course as the years went on, child support laws changed, and for my parents the better...he in his mind figured because I was no longer a child, an adult in the eyes of the courts it was over, he could go back to work...Little did he know it is never over...that debt still and always will exist and he was required to pay it. As will happen who think the debt will simply just go away...Wage garnishments began. My mom did not actively pursue it, the court did...., because she had filed when they divorced when I was an infant...he never paid. My mom recived the money and handed it to me, it was not mine to take it was hers and my step-fathers. >> >> >>>>>== >> [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > an infant...he never paid. My mom recived the money and handed it to > me, it was not mine to take it was hers and my step-fathers. Ah, yes--an existing order cannot be ignored forever. How would you have felt about it had your father not known you existed, and was then required to pay all those arrearages. Do you still think he would owe for all those years? > >> "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > to pay all those arrearages. Do you still think he would owe for all those > years? Had my father not known I existed, is another can of worms...but the laws and guidelines have changed regarding those types of situations. So he would not have been obligated to pay back all those years. It would have been wrong in my eyes for the government to make him pay at all...but really whose to say, the CSE rules and guidelines are soo fast and loose that misconstruing their intent is inevitable. My parents divorced because I was a female child...words from my mother...words from my father...My parents were married 6 years when they had me...he didn't want a female... > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > >> "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > obligated to pay back all those years. It would have been > wrong in my eyes for the government to make him pay at all. Since "child support" is designed (according to you) for the care of a child, I'm not sure how not knowing the child exists has any bearing on the supposed responsibility for the father to pay the support. Either way, the child STILL exists, thus is "entitled" to such support. > ..but > really whose to say, the CSE rules and guidelines are soo fast and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > - Show quoted text - >> >> "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > mother...words from my father...My parents were > married 6 years when they had me...he didn't want a female... That is very sad. Did he ever have any children and be a father to them? Or did he choose to be "child free" his entire life? "teachrmama" <teachrmama@iwon.com> wrote in >> My parents divorced because I was a female child...words from my >> mother...words from my father...My parents were >> married 6 years when they had me...he didn't want a female... > > That is very sad. Did he ever have any children and be a father to them? > Or did he choose to be "child free" his entire life? I have never heard of this before, sounds very bizarre plus extreme grounds for divorce. > "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I have never heard of this before, sounds very bizarre plus extreme grounds > for divorce. It is weird, but it happens. He was very Italian and very macho. But unfortunately Karma got him in the end. When I finally met him 30 years later, I thanked him...because if that didn't happen I would not have the Father I had the pleasure of having! > >> "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > > - Show quoted text - He re-married again and went on to have two more children...a boy and a girl...his new wife came with two girls...Funny! Karma! >> >> "Very Determined!" <jejennieb...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 155 lines] > He re-married again and went on to have two more children...a boy and > a girl...his new wife came with two girls...Funny! Karma! I will bet that, when he watched his other 2 kids take their first steps, smile their first smiles, felt their warm little hugs and tiny little kisses, he wondered about you, and regretted missing out on all those wonders. > > >> >>>>>== > > [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > an infant...he never paid. My mom recived the money and handed it to > me, it was not mine to take it was hers and my step-fathers. No it wasn't. It was your father's money, and they ripped him off! > >>>== > >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > him, become the breadwinner, and continued to spread his seed to create 2 > more children Men can't create children. > (out of wedlock). Now complains he cannot pay his support. Not > my problem he continued to make poor choices which land him in court for non- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I do it as a single mother. No Im not asking for a reward. Just to support > your child. If he cant do that, then he is subjected to the law. Period. >"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" wrote >........................... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >enough to know it takes a little >money to raise kids *before* they have unprotected sex with a moron. Are you implying that the man has no responsibility or obligation to the children they father? Do you seriously think it is O.K for them to not be held accountable? >>"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" wrote >>........................... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > children they father? Do you seriously think it is O.K for them to not be > held accountable? == I said, how can you bed with a moron then expect him to carry your a.s through life? YOU must learn to accept responsibility for YOUR actions. He is not the reason you have financial struggles, you and your bad decision making are. I am not defending your idiot. I'm just telling you that you are no less an idiot and no less a deadbeat. For some reason I do not comprehend, you think you are not whining about having to support your kid when that is clearly what you are doing. Above all else, you owe your kids a happy and trauma free childhood, unemcumbered by your vileness and hatred of the man you chose as their father. Now, it would be wonderful if you can set your posting preferences for your familykb forum to NOT crosspost to alt.child-support. >>>"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" wrote >>>........................... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >preferences for your >familykb forum to NOT crosspost to alt.child-support. So you think tha man has no responsibility, that's your opinion. You call me a deadbeat, yet I support my child, I work, and I pay taxes. The people that don't pay child support do not work, or else thier wages would be garnished, nor do they pay thier taxes, so you need to reexamine who the deadbeats are. I will not change my settings, because you do not have a monopoly on the group, and you should stop acting like you do. >>>>"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" wrote >>>>........................... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I will not change my settings, because you do not have a monopoly on the > group, and you should stop acting like you do. == So...you can't find the settings, eh? No surprise there. Well, you can stay if you quit telling us what we can or can't do with your posts and your topics. >>>>>"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" wrote >>>>>........................... [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > stay if you quit telling us what > we can or can't do with your posts and your topics. <chuckle> Yep--she gets to tell us when we are "off topic," but we can't tell her anything. "Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in >> > You call me a deadbeat, yet I support my child, I work, and I pay taxes. You are not paying enough taxes, you are a dead beat and not contributing your fair share to society! >>>>"Momof1 via FamilyKB.com" wrote >>>>........................... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > So you think tha man has no responsibility, that's your opinion. Is that what you think she said? That's certainly not what I got from it. She said that women need to toughen up and learn to support themselves and to take responsibility for their own decisions. Then they won't need to be dependent on the men they chose to have children with, and later decided were morons. "Do not be dependent on a man (especially a moron)" is quite a bit different than "The moron should not have to pay." You call me > a deadbeat, yet I support my child, I work, and I pay taxes. The people > that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I will not change my settings, because you do not have a monopoly on the > group, and you should stop acting like you do. > >What judge says THAT? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not that it matters, because whatever I say you attempt ways to poke holes to > better fit your arguement, Correction: I am not attempting to poke holes, I am EXPOSING holes. > however, I work in law enforcement and before that, > a law firm. I have witnessed a judge and a case worker say to support your > child. In fact, during my court hearing for a divorce, the judge said this > (even when his was absent from the hearing). > > Who says a mom is catching "free dough"? REALITY. > Is that what you think child support > is? I KNOW that's what "child support" is. ANYTHING unearned is free. > If so, you are more bitter about CS than I thought. Your opinion is irrelevant to your claims. > Whether the people on this board are NCP's, enablers, married to men who have > a prior obligation or not (Im betting thats the case), the mere fact that you > are up in here whinning about an obligation to that child is quite disturbing. Aint' an obligation to a child. > It appears a "list" is more important to you than debating other issues > revolving CS. I'm sorry, but your above statement is unclear to me. > You can support your child and be responsible when they are not always > physically here with you. Translation: Even though you were FORCED into parenthood, too bad! The child will NEVER be physically here with you.Also, you will be FORCED to hand over FREE CASH to the person who FORCED you to have offspring, even though such person did absolutely NOTHING to earn it. Additionally, if you do not comply, you will be FORCED into prison. > Once you have a child, you are a parent for life > until you give up your rights. 1. Once a parent, ALWAYS a parent. Just one of those pesky lil' biological facts of life. 2. Only the mother can give up rights since the father has none by virtue of his gender. 3. Next............... > Are you that bitter to have made such an > ignorant statement? What statement would that be? >Translation: Even though you were FORCED into parenthood, too bad! The child >will NEVER be physically here with you.Also, you will be FORCED to hand over >FREE CASH to the person who FORCED you to have offspring, even though such >person did absolutely NOTHING to earn it. Additionally, if you do not >comply, you will be FORCED into prison. >3. Next............... Oh really? You were forced into parenthood how exactly? If you didnt want to have a child, you should have protected yourself when having sex to ensure that didnt happen. Whenever you open your legs/let the snake out, you are subjecting yourself to THAT reality. So, as in your words, "NEXT!" > >Translation: Even though you were FORCED into parenthood, too bad! The child > >will NEVER be physically here with you.Also, you will be FORCED to hand over [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that didnt happen. Whenever you open your legs/let the snake out, you are > subjecting yourself to THAT reality. Parhaps the following counterexample will help you to understand the flaw in your claim: "She was forced into having sex how exactly? If she didnt want to be raped, she should have protected herself when using an empty laundromat late at night to ensure that didn't happen. Whenever you use a deserted laundromat, you are subjecting yourself to THAT reality. " > So, as in your words, "NEXT!" Ok, here's next: 1. Men do NOT make the post-conception choice to have children. 2. Women are NEVER forced to bear children. >> >Translation: Even though you were FORCED into parenthood, too bad! The child >> >will NEVER be physically here with you.Also, you will be FORCED to hand over [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >1. Men do NOT make the post-conception choice to have children. >2. Women are NEVER forced to bear children. 1. Med DO make a PRE- conception choice to procreate once they put the penis in the vagina. 2. If you believe in GOD and JESUS, abortion is out of the question. It is a sin to take a life, even if it is just a fetus, in the eyes of the church, God, and Jesus. No matter what you say, or how you argue your warped point of view, you are not in the position to change the law of God's when it comes to ending a life or what Jesus said is the word. "Illiana via FamilyKB.com" <u38194@uwe> wrote in > 2. If you believe in GOD and JESUS, abortion is out of the question. It is > a > sin to take a life, even if it is just a fetus, in the eyes of the church, > God, and Jesus. As you stated, if something is legal, that must make it OK!!!!!!! Adultery is legal, is that OK too? > >> >Translation: Even though you were FORCED into parenthood, too bad! The child > >> >will NEVER be physically here with you.Also, you will be FORCED to hand over [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 1. Med DO make a PRE- conception choice to procreate once they put the penis > in the vagina. NOT a procreation choice. > 2. If you believe in GOD and JESUS, abortion is out of the question. It is a > sin to take a life, even if it is just a fetus, in the eyes of the church, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not in the position to change the law of God's when it comes to ending a life > or what Jesus said is the word. Check up on Deuteronomy 5:19, and then get back to me. > It is very clear to me by being on this board for a day, that there are > some > deep seeded issues going on within the deadbeats on this forum. Once again, just who on here do you judge to be deadbeats? I am sure > that you (and I mean this in the broad sense) do not like to hear how you > dont support your child and have become neglectful. Who on here does not support their child? Please post a list. Who does? Fact is, you > get steamed when someone speaks the truth, because hiding it and conjuring > up [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > understand. > It must be hard." Just as nobody should gove a custodial paernt a pat on the back and say "Poor Darling. You had to clean up puke last night? How sad. If only that Noncustodial parent woul pay, you would not have to clean up puke!" Must be a pretty sucky life eh? Thats why when a woman > (myself) comes onto this board and tells you to swallow your pride and > aspire > to be that best caring loving parent who supports their child really makes > your blood boil. You are going to post a list of the deadbeats on this forum, aren;t you? I can hardly wait to see who they are! > This goes out to the truely neglectful. Those who do not see their > children. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Be a PARENT. Be a RESPONSIBLE PARENT. Take care of your kids! Are you seriously hard up for a list? I personally dont think it matters. Branding one a deadbeat does not neccessarily mean they dont pay at all. Its funny that you are focusing on 1 thing Ive said, but not commenting on other things Ive said.......very interesting. > Are you seriously hard up for a list? I personally dont think it matters. > Branding one a deadbeat does not neccessarily mean they dont pay at all. > Its > funny that you are focusing on 1 thing Ive said, but not commenting on > other > things Ive said.......very interesting. LOL YOU are the one who always comments on just one thing In your posts, Ignoring many points made out, because you can't argue them. > teachrmama wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other > things Ive said.......very interesting. == Interesting? Hardly. You need to get out more. > Are you seriously hard up for a list? I personally dont think it matters. > Branding one a deadbeat does not neccessarily mean they dont pay at all. > Its > funny that you are focusing on 1 thing Ive said, but not commenting on > other > things Ive said.......very interesting. I actually really am interested in which people here you consider to be deadbeats. You keep using the term, but will never say who you are referring to. The majority of the people here have never been behind in their payments, have consistently been involved in their children's lives, and love their children every bit as much as the CPs do. But they have been screwed over by a system that refuses to look at anything except $$$$. A system that, like is or not, is biased in favor of custodial parents--that $$$ changing hands every month earns big bucks from the federal government. Just because someone complains about the system does not make them a deadbeat, does it? So exactly who here do you consider to be a deadbeat--let's see if your perceptions are correct. Or if you just resent the fact that anyone would dare complain about the system. "teachrmama" <teachrmama@iwon.com> wrote in > But they have been screwed over by a system that refuses to look at > anything except $$$$. A system that, like is or not, is biased in favor > of custodial parents--that $$$ changing hands every month earns big bucks > from the federal government. Just because someone complains about the > system does not make them a deadbeat, does it? The system was developed by those that think they are smarter! It's much the same as the government's tax system, a really dumb idea. With all the Wisdom of the Federal and State governments that has a combined debt of $47 Trillion, why do people still think this government can solve their problems? >"teachrmama" <teachrmama@iwon.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >debt of $47 Trillion, why do people still think this government can solve >their problems? Still off topic. Wasn't there a list? How did a list turn into a custodial parent, and government bashing party? God bless America because if you spoke about the government in another country, you would be hanged for treason (and possibly for going off topic). "Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in message > Still off topic. Wasn't there a list? You asked for a dead beat list, I gave it to you! If you have nothing to add to the dead beat list, please move along! God Bless America, Oops am I allowed to mention God in this country? So are your Kids dressing up for Halloween, oops can't talk about that either. I was looking forward to Christmas, but that day to has been eliminated in America! Comrade, what has this country come too? >"Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Comrade, what has this country come too? You are compensating... It is not very flattering... >>"teachrmama" <teachrmama@iwon.com> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > country, you would be hanged for treason (and possibly for going off > topic). But where is the list of deadbeats on this group? It has been stated several times that there are deadbeats on this group--I still want to know who they are. Do you know? Because I sure don't. And I've been on the group for nearly 6 years now. > Are you seriously hard up for a list? I personally dont think it matters. So, let me guess: Even though you can easily name just ONE person (although you said "deadbeats" as in plural), you expect folks to take you at your word; correct? > Branding one a deadbeat does not neccessarily mean they dont pay at all. Its > funny that you are focusing on 1 thing Ive said, but not commenting on other > things Ive said.......very interesting. >I am so tired of listen to men who have to pay child support bitch, >and moan. If they were taking care of thier children to begin with [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Please feel free to add any deadbeat parent to the list That's a lot of money to owe in child support! How in the hell does a father get over 40K behind in helping tke care of his kid? I know to avoid any man with his name. I would never date a deadbeat guy. I see that his wife is a deadbeat too. That's funny. Two peas in a pod. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.