|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that it proves that gender dominance is the greater issue and that rule of law is secondary to a woman's will. That might also substantiate the events that were posted by nightmist concerning the woman who shot the man in the groin and was subsequently not indicted by a grand jury despite the fact that she had admitted guilt. Mom rules. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. ad infinitum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Michelle Sweat was divorced on November 12, 1998, and had agreed to allow the father to have custody of the three minor children of the parties while she received visitation, and a provision of the agreement of the parties was that she not be obligated to pay child support. On or about July 14, 2000, Monica Houseal, an agent with the Georgia Child Support Enforcement Agency in Nashville, Georgia, forwarded to Michelle Sweat a written request for "possible modification" of her child support obligation and requested certain financial information..."
So it sounds to me that she and the father had an agreement between them, on record, that he would have custody and she would not pay child support. The judge went with the contractual agreement that they had. I don't see the problem here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So it sounds to me that she and the father had an agreement between them, on record, that he would have custody and she would not pay child support. The judge went with the contractual agreement that they had. I don't see the problem here.
No, the ruling is a GOOD thing. The problem is that when the roles are reversed, the judges more often than not nullify the contract and award support to custodial mothers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It didn't appear from the press release that the father even asked for support. It read like the state took it upon itself to nullify the agreement.
I recall when my daughter was born I was asked to sign a paper stating the name of the father. A few weeks later my ex got a letter in the mail telling him that he was liable for child support. And we were together still then! I always thought it was bizarre, that the State would go after him to support a child he was living with and caring for. I had to call them and "call off the dogs" so to speak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 05, @03:11AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Since this affected a woman, it was easier to get that ruling. if a man were there instead of a woman and everything else was the same, there would be no story to tell except that he lost his case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is probably true, anonymous, and my reaction was the same when I read the article.
However, some consolation is to be found in the fact that the precedent set by this ruling is by necessity gender-neutral, and will apply to all such cases in GA. "Shut up and pay up" would presumably have been the ruling were the roles reversed, of course, but as more women find themselves looking down the business end of the child support racket, more of these cases will be won. It's a long route to take but one that offers some hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there ever a case in which 'taking it like a man' doesn't mean acting like a total doormat? Insulting though this wonderful 'privilege' is, the only way through it is to keep insisting that 'taking it like a man' does NOT mean putting up with crap from anyone, be they male or female. 'Taking it like a man' means standing up for yourself, against ridicule and defamation, and doing the right thing. At least the GA situation has taken a turn for the better, even if it took a woman to bring this about after countless men's voices were ignored. Just remember that our time is coming - slowly, but it is coming - and that events such as these must be recorded for use in evidence against those who seek to ruin men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While others no doubt have challenged the constitutionality of child support laws, they were probably acting pro se. It's almost impossible to find a lawyer who will take a constitutional case unless you have mucho money. And by the time a pro se learns the ropes, his case has been tossed on procedural errors.
They probably also did not have the expertise of a Mark Rogers, the economist for the case.
R-KIDS of Minnesota is preparing to file a similar lawsuit using the same arguments and the same economist. Info, including reports by Mark Rogers and our attorney can be downloaded from R-KIDS website. www.r-kids.org But we still need to raise another 10,000 to 15,000 to pay for it. Michelle Sweat did not pay for her suit. A Georgia group like R-KIDS did.
R-KIDS also hired Mark Rogers to prepare a cost shares child support bill like the one he wrote for Georgia. h.f.3582 can be downloaded from www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/legis.htm (companion bill is s.f.3351)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
