|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 14, @05:54PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm new here, but I'm curious. Do the members of this site disapprove of supporting their children?
Larry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Larry.
The members here don't approve or disapprove of anything in general. This forum is just individuals posting opinions it is not a group.
I can give you my opinion on the subject.
Women have the rights when it comes to children. A women can choose to abort a child without a father's consent. Basically a women could abort your child before the child is born without any input from you, she doesn't even have to tell you about it. A man has no part in such decision. A women can also give the child up for adoption after the child is born. Legally she has to get the father's consent for this but there are easy ways around this. Do you think it is right that a women can give up becoming a parent but if a man wants to do the same thing he can be thrown in a illegal debtor's prison.
I for one think everyone should take care of the children they parent. What happens though when a women seperates or divorces you and you have children together? You no longer have a right to your child, only a few places have automatic shared custody laws. Some of the places that have automatic shared custody do not apply them to unwed fathers. Women sometimes make false accusations of abuse during proceedings that can make you lose your children even if the accusations are later proved to be false. I do not think this is just nor is it good for children.
The last problem I have with child support is that it is simply not fair to the non-custodial parent. It takes a long time to adjust the payments if you become unemployed and can lead you into perpetual debt. The mother's income is not considered in the child support equation. The mother is not held accountable for any of the money spent. There is a system called alimoney already in place to provide unaccountable money to divorced women. Sometimes support payments are so high combined with the legal costs of a contested divorce men are left destitute.
I know of one man that recieves small disability payments to live on ($840 Canadian per month) and has money taken off of this to pay support. His wife left him after he was diagnosed with schizophrenia because she couldn't handle his mental illness. He can no longer see his child because she successfully made a case that his mental illness made him too dangerous to see his child. He scrounges to survive every month while she has since remarried and his son calls another man father. She's a drinker so most likely that is where the extra income goes to. You may think this is just one freak story but it isn't things like this happen daily. Take a look at the groups on the bottom left and you will find more stories like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe it is a question of wanting to financially support or not support children by fathers. It is a question of a tyrannical unjust judiciary looting men's bank accounts and lives to carry out a misandric political agenda by decadent gender feminists.
It is a paradox that we willingly spend billions of dollars every year and willingly risk people's lives (mostly men's lives)to deter foreign tyrants and despots from imposing oppressive laws and dictates on our society and other people's societies. But we don't see it as unjust and tyrannical when some misandric bastard in a black robe dictates that a father has to pay 80 to 100 per cent of his net income to support his children or risk prison. We stupidly see this as a good and just thing!
And the paradox in the paradox is that the degenerate judicial system is really not interested in the welfare of children. It is a tool being used to destroy and subjugate men according to gender feminism's warped view of the world and its desire to remake society into its image.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well your question makes me curious, do you approve of default judgements against a raped 12 year old boy? Current law is forcing this boys parents to pay child support to his RAPIST.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 14, @11:26PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to add that to my answer. That truly is a sick thing.
-Andrew74
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's even more fucked up is that the rapist gets to be a MOMMY! Isn't that nice? I'd like to see the media circus if a convicted male rapist was allowed to raise his ill-gotten offspring!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Larry,
This is a great question, but it is more complex than most people realize. In most cases that I know of men are willing to support their children. The exceptions come when they are victims of paternity fraud or oppressive child support orders that leave them homeless.
Paternity fraud is a very serious problem in California. For example, a mother can request welfare help and be required to disclose all possible fathers for any children. Then the DCSS requires her to perform an armchair paternity test. Finally, they may or may not serve the accused and then becomes a victim of a default paternity judgment. They never get a day in court.
We estimate that there are about 30,000 new victims created by these oppressive tactics each year, and this has been going on for over a decade. The CA-DCSS relies so heavily upon default judgments as a result of substitute service that they have about `60% default judgments statewide. Contrast that with N.Y., which is at 10%. What they want you to believe is that all men are evil deadbeat dads. Well that is a lie.
Most men that I know of state that they would rather go to prison than pay for a child that isn't their own, and they do. The problem is so severe that there has been a massive increase in the back child support owed in this state. This is all resulting because of bigoted collection methods used against innocent men that are designed to destroy their families and their lives.
So you see, when asking if there is a problem with paying child support I would say HELL YEA! YOU BET THERE IS A PROBLEM. A BIG ONE! And men are going to jail in California rather than pay for somebody else’s kid. I say more power to them.
The more they can hide, enter the underground economy, and evade child support the better it is for everybody else. This is simply happening because of paternity fraud on the part of mothers and the CA-DCSS. Obviously, there is a point where this will reach critical mass because the DCSS simply cannot have 500,000 men refusing to pay for a child that is not theirs. That is literally the situation that they have in California right now, and the problem is building daily. Men will not pay when they are defrauded, nor should they.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't find a reference for it but I'm fairly certain that Geraldine Jensen practiced the move-away mom technique in dealing with her own ex, and I think that she may have even defied court orders to allow her ex access to the kids. Anybody know where to find this?
Let's just say there may be some credibility issues for this woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a story at the ANCPR site on Geraldine Jensen. It shows a different side of Ms Jensen than the Heinz foundation promotes.
http://www.ancpr.org/gerri.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm new here, but I'm curious. Do the members of this site disapprove of supporting their children?"
You're new here, but I'm curious. Do you approve of using creative definitions of "supporting children" to enforce tyranny?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I liked the blurb on her and her devoted loving work for children.
"After her divorce left her and her children destitute, Ms. Jensen spent her last dollars rallying local women together to seek the child support to which they were entitled."
Instead of using her last dollars to find a job and support herself as my mother did she spent the time whining to get free money. Other women saw the power of whining so they could also get free money.
"Through her vision and determination, she created ACES, founded on the principle that it is the right of every child to be supported by his or her parents."
It is the right of every women to be supported by a man is closer to reality.
"Through her leadership at ACES, she has helped to raise public awareness about a problem that has reached epic proportions – more than 20 million children are owed over $83 billion in court-ordered child support."
Jerks like those god awful dead guys or the lazy unemployed are not able to pay child support, lets get 'em! Every once and a while we can find a rich guy that didn't have most his money taken away during the divorce to make a poster child for the cause. Oh, and if the facts about how many people really owe child support and the amount of money they do owe aren't good enough just make some up like Hienz does.
"Today, thanks to Ms. Jensen’s dogged determination, energy and visionary guidance, children of divorced parents enjoy legal safeguards that help protect them from becoming victims of poverty and improve their prospects for a more fulfilling life."
Women enjoy legal safeguards to no longer take any responsibility for their children and to get free money with no responsibility for it's spending. They can be drunks and still get money to keep buying more booze to drink.
Thank God for women like Geraldine Jensen, visionary and hero of the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"a problem that has reached epic proportions – more than 20 million children are owed over $83 billion in court-ordered child support."
Feminists aren't very good with numbers. Whenever a feminist tries to use them I always recommend checking their math. Attack where they're most vulnerable and all that.
In this case, we discover that if it were exactly 20 million children owed this 83 billion than we're talking about $4,150 owed per child. However, they mention that it is more than 20 million kids who are "owed" this money, thus the amount "owed" per kid is even less than that. This is what they are calling a problem of epic proportions.
Oh, and I'd like to add a "me too" to everything Andrew said. Well put.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm all for boycotting men-hostile companies, and Virtue-knows there's a lot of them out there, but this Heinz award is named for the late Senator Heinz, not the food company.
From the site's FAQ:
"Q. How is the Heinz Family Foundation related to the Heinz Company?
A. The Heinz Family Foundation is not associated with the Heinz Company or the Heinz Company Foundation. For further information, refer to their websites:
Heinz Company: http://www.heinz.com
Heinz Company Foundation: http://www.heinz.com/jsp/foundation.jsp "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 15, @03:27PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Another MD here on the men's movement bandwagon.
Maybe we'll have a few things to talk about.
Pass me an email at juliandroms@yahoo.com!
Take care,
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
