|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Naturally, the wife and John Walsh, in the first case, were more on the side of the man sucking it up and continuing to father the children and pay child support ($1100 per month!) for the SAKE OF THE CHILDREN. Don't you get sick of that 'for the sake of the children' crap being used whenever it's convenient?"
I picked that up a little as well. But for the most part I thought the show was well balanced. After all, John Walsh did admit, very clearly, that family courts are biased against men. He also made sure that the mom admitted her own fault in the matter. Finally, he did have Diana Thompson on the show (defending victims of Paternity Fraud) -- even if it was only for 30 seconds. Can you imagine if the guest was Gloria Alred (sp?)?
I thought the audience was pretty fair and that they were generally in favour of letting all sides be heard.
I love feminism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sorry, first paragraph is not mine.
I love feminism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naturally, the wife and John Walsh, in the first case, were more on the side of the man sucking it up and continuing to father the children and pay child support ($1100 per month!)
Eleven hundred per month? Hell, there's a wage-earner right there. Follow the money.
for the SAKE OF THE CHILDREN.
Which are code words meaning "so Mom can be a parasite." It's not for the children, it's for the mother.
I saw this same family on 60 minutes or 48 hours or something - what they (ahem)forget to tell you - even though "mom" talks about how "he hasn't been a father to the boys since he found out" is that he is forbidden to see them, and (was) forbidden to talk about his situation.
Gee, can't see them, but he's supposed to "be a father to them." The slut.
Don't you get sick of that "for the sake of the children" crap being used whenever it's convenient?"
It's another code, meaning "Do as the girl says or you're a meanie."
Fuck 'em. I hope that dumb bitch rots in Hell.
Notice how this guys worthless cunt of a daughter sides with her gender over her blood, too. She knows where her bread is buttered, the traitorous and disloyal little bitch. There's another single mother attached to the man-tit waiting to happen. She just needs to be spayed, right now.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to be honest, I think guys who pay mommy support and accept court ordered decisions are doing the worst thing possible, they're just giving the message that their worth as a father is a walking wallet to be exploited, nothing good would ever come of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do you suggest that these men do when ordered to pay unreasonable child support?
Declare you're bankrupt? there's something for you guys to look up.
Hint, hint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, bankruptcy doesn't relieve you of child support or income tax debts - I thought both those were exempt from bankruptcy. Do you have a reference to different information?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm out of ideas, but there is a major loophole somewhere. I know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 17, @09:29PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just pulled a book from my home library on bankruptcy. The copyright is a bit dated (1995) but I doubt anything has happened since to make our situation better. Here's what it says:
Three kinds of alimony or child support debts can be discharged:
1. Support owed under a state's general support law, not a court order.
2. Support paid under an agreement between unmarried persons.
3. Support owed someone other than a spouse, ex-spouse or child.
Nondischargeable Alimony and Child Support:
Alimony and child support debts aren't dischargeable if they're owed because of a separation agreement, divorce decree, court order or property settlement.
This is quoted from "How to File for Bankruptcy" by Attorneys Stephen Elias, Albin Renauer, and Robin Leonard. Fifth Edition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for the SAKE OF THE CHILDREN
This guy may be doing a good thing by providing for these kids but the laws that reward women for committing fraud are disgraceful. Do we really want to embrace the principle of rewarding criminals and punishing victims based on the belief that children may benefit financially?
If I systematically defrauded my employer over the course of years and finally got caught, would my employer be required to pay me an amount similar to what I had been stealing – for the sake of my children? And as a parent would I be protected from prosecution for my crime – for the sake of my children? Would I, as a father, be allowed to use (abuse) my children as human shields to safeguard me from justice – for the sake of the children?
Why is it that criminal behavior is excused “for the sake of the children” only when it’s mothers screwing over fathers? The issue obviously isn’t about the well being of the children. If it was about children and we applied the principal uniformly nearly any crime would be excused as long as the offender was a parent.
People who aren't outraged with the family courts’ persecution of innocent men are either shameless man-haters or they just aren't paying attention.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
