|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can make the law that whoever has soul custody has soul responsibiity.
But that would put a lot of litigators, mediators and otherwise redundant assholes out of work.
Free DNA testing? Uh huh. How about making home dna testing avialable to anyone who wants to do it?
If as the author says that women lieing about who the father is is so rare clearly its not a problem. And the DNA tests can be done right away easily and simpley. With this wonderful device on the market I gurantee you that paternity fraud will become none existant as women will know they can get caught.
People often say to me "Dan-I don't have a problem paying for my kids-" and I say "So whose stopping you?".
The whole 'DeadBeat Dad ' enforcement is nothing but a rouse to get lotsa federal dollars. People can work this shit out on their own. It will also allow for dad to have some leverage in the relationship. MOM and dad split up, mom says, look, I want to go out have some fun--can you watch the kids on such and such a night?
Father says 'yes, that works for me fine.'
If you divide the child support by 30 or the full number in a year by the amount of dollars. Lets say $6000 total for the year for one kid and divide it by 365 it equals about 16 dollars a day. For every night the father gets the kids deduct 16 dollars from the total sum.
Vice versa if the case maybe.
But I still think soul custody/soul responsibility will sovle megga problems. Think about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the article:
Should men be allowed financially and emotionally to abandon children they have helped raise because it later is discovered that they are not connected biologically?
Does Ms. Skoble mean to imply that it’s now illegal to “emotionally abandon children” and that paternity fraud legislation would legalize it? Gimme a break Jenny, stick to the subject and cut the red herrings. Paternity fraud is about father shopping, and as the name implies - FRAUD. A continuing relationship between kids and the man they were conned into believing was their father is a separate issue. Family courts (and the feminists that tell them what to do) make a complete separation of the financial and emotional when they "empower" mothers to kick dads out of kids’ lives. But Ms. Skoble implies that the two are linked like Siamese twins when it means cash for women who use their duped kids as human shields to keep themselves out of prison.
It’s a transparent attempt at an age-old feminist tactic - holding a man (any man will do) responsible for damage mothers do to kids.
Maybe Ms. Skoble’s next article will deal with the long-term effects to society of subsidizing criminals through direct charges to their victims.
Also from the article:
In a typical case, a child is born out of wedlock. The mother and the man with whom she is involved at the time of the birth sign papers establishing that man as the child's father. Both parties know the woman's former boyfriend most likely is the father but, not wanting to have him come back into the woman's life, they both choose to identify the current boyfriend as the legal father.
Where does she get this stuff? I'd be interested to know how she determined that this is a "typical" case. It's more likely that she knows her argument is so weak that she has to use an example of non-fraud as representative of paternity fraud. You know, like, “these guys complaining about paternity fraud aren’t really talking about fraud, they’re talking about guys who just want to back out of a voluntary commitment.”
Jenny, rumor has it that there’s life after man-hating – try it sometime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 22, @07:18PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
It's unbelievable that Skoble can pile such crap in a country that has estalished a constitutional right to partial birth abortion and a convenient, legal means for women to abandon babies. But paternity fraud, who cares! The law gonna make the man pay!!
Jenny, rumor has it that there’s life after man-hating – try it sometime.
She's hopeless. She'll go to her grave growling at her castrated dog for his former life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 22, @10:37PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, NCFM-LA has determined that there are cases where both the mother and boyfriend commit paternity fraud against the child. We are able to infer that that because of the high incidence of females having multiple sexual relations that this practice is quite common.
Clearly, dual paternity fraud is rampant in the Paternity Opportunity Program (POP). In this case, the mother discloses to the boyfriend that he is not the father of the child. Then the boyfriend, out of chivalrous notions of nobility or bigoted ideals of machoism, is sucked into committing paternity fraud against the child. The result is that both parties are able to sign a simple form called a POP Paternity Declaration. We call this a quick and dirty fraudulent adoption via the mechanism of paternity fraud as provided by the Clinton era POP mechanism.
Upon reading the POP form, one would believe that the intent is to establish the biological father of the child. However, there are provisions that permit the male to knowingly assume paternity thus violating the rights of the child to know the natural father. There are no enforceable penalties of perjury on either party.
Once the short (60 day) time limit passes it is very difficult to get the declaration dismissed with DNA evidence.
This also means that if the boyfriend were lied to and pressured into signing the POP declaration (happens all the time at the hospital) that he has little chance of challenging the declaration. Most such victims, will consult an attorney, learn that they cannot get it overturned, and then give up challenging the POP. Most of these categories of victims seem to be silent on the matter, and we don’t know exactly why. The Ca Legislature and federal government assumes that the public likes the practice.
What we have is a situation where the state believes that ANY male should be assigned by the mother or the state to have paternal responsibilities for the child. They don’t care who is the father as long as the mother does not go on welfare and the child as a male for child support (a.k.a. the money machine). These are ideals espoused by the free-love Marxist 60's generation. By contrast, it is in fact a unique American value in the majority of the public that the natural father should be identified and responsible for the child. Most people are unaware of this form of fraud and the prevalence of the victimization.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There, Warb, is a factor that few people wish to face - in the case of paternity fraud, the child has been deprived of the right and opportunity to know his Father, and the father has been deprived of the right and opportunity to know his Child.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation Warble and you are of course right. Duping a child about the identity of their father is inexcusable, whoever is involved.
Is the type of fraud you explained covered by the proposed CA bill? Or would that conflict with federal legislation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the type of fraud you explained covered by the proposed CA bill? Or would that conflict with federal legislation?
A.J. We (the Ca Paternity Fraud Coalition) have just finished 10 months of work in Sacramento with a Paternity Workgroup sponsored by the CA-DCSS.
During that period we were successful in agreeing upon many recommendations that will address the issue of paternity fraud. The usual holdouts were of course the male hating radical feminist organizations and the child rights organizations that are really feminist hiding behind children.
There were the usual false allegations from the feminists that were lying about us and reporting us to the police. They did everything in their power to have us arrested and discredited. The feminist groups proved to be so powerful in Sacramento that the police were searching the hotel registries where we normally stay for our names. We know there were false allegations of threats of violence because the police officers and the DCSS officers admitted to the allegations.
It is clear now that feminist groups have a standard modus operandi of making false allegations to have any opposition arrested. They will even allow the police to bug the closed-door meetings without the consent of the parties involved.
Naturally, the police officers have been so brainwashed that they fail to understand that they are in effect the Gestapo enforcing feminist ideals of hate.
To answer your question, we believe that the proposed legislative language will address POP fraud. The only type of fraud that we didn't cover was in the context of presumed paternity in the context of a marriage. We avoided this for political reasons. It just isn't doable to address the issue of presumed fatherhood in California at this time.
Nevertheless, we addressed and made recommendations for ALL other forms of paternity fraud. We will know in the next two weeks if the proposed legislation will have language to address these categories of paternity fraud.
As you might guess NCFM, LA has spent many thousands of dollars in supporting this issue. The issue of paternity fraud is this single most important issue on our agenda. That is because if men cannot have choice then they become little more than a genetic paycheck for women to collect money upon the random birth of any child.
The costs of supporting this new legislation in California have broken $10,000. Clearly, men will need to come up with the cash when supporting these issues and new legislation.
To our delight we are experiencing success in having men donate significant sums of money to the paternity fraud issue/cause. Without their help we would not have a chance. Keep in mind that the feminist groups collectively have billions in federal funding with which to oppress males, yet we have been successful in using a few $10 thousand dollars to thwart their agenda. Make no mistake. The feminist groups are quite pissed. They cannot understand how a few men with a few thousand dollars can overturn and destroy their agenda. All we need to do is tell the truth and the public will understand and support our agenda.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I have my own theories, I always welcome new ideas. Why on earth would feminists be fighting tooth and nail to oppose anti-paternity fraud legislation? The National Organization for Women opposed AB 2240(They never said why). Many other women's groups oppose such legislation also. What do they have to lose by the imposition of justice?
Amperro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do they have to lose by the imposition of justice?
Their free lunch. When all else fails, follow the money.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do they have to lose by the imposition of justice?
I think your question answers itself. They lose the right to impose injustice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 22, @05:24PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
[i]Should men be allowed financially and emotionally to abandon children they have helped raise because it later is discovered that they are not connected biologically?[/i]
Yes! Both men and women don't like putting responsibility on the women for being a little whore, so let's put all the responsibility on some guy.
If anything the bitch should have to start PAYING BACK all the money she stole once the kids turn 18.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 22, @10:10PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. The Skoble article is, frankly, beyond belief. A woman falsely declares a man to be the father of her child. The courts force him to support woman and child , driving him into destitution and possible suicide. Finally, he proves the woman is a liar. Skoble argues that this makes no difference and he should still be forced to remain in a state of continued slavery!! Her article would be funny if it wasn't such an obscenity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 22, @11:39PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I don't know about the specifics of how lawsuits and child support payments work so technical points may be wrong. But what's important is the principle, and the logic.
Let's begin...
Jimmy is sued for something which was not his fault. His wages are garnished and money starts going to the people who sued him. 3 years later it's discovered Jimmy was not at fault at all. Everyone (I hope) would agree that there is absolutely no reason for Jimmys wages to continue be garnished and most would say the money should be returned payed back to Jimmy. This is a sound principle almost everyone would agree with.
Now consider Bob. Bob knew some women, let's call her Jenny, and Jenny became pregnant by her own actions while dating Bob. Jenny claims Bob is the father and Bobs wages are garnished. 3 years later it's proven the child is not Bobs. Very similar to Jimmys case isn't it? They were both sued in a sense for something they didn't do...yet for some reason...Bob should have to keep paying even when he is innocent.
Realizing the errors of their logic, the people who think Bob should have to keep paying, in a desperate move, decide to play the good old "for the good of the children" card. A classic indeed.
Now I submit to you the idea that, if it's truly "for the good of the children", then, why don't we start randomly pulling guys names out of a hat, and the names of children born of a whore with no father out of another hat, match them up, and send a nice little letter to the guy stating:
"Congradulations Mr. Smith! You've been randomly chosen from millions of other men to support this child!"
Seems rediculous doesn't it? But...it's for the good of the children right? So it shouldn't matter...but it does. Perhaps then it's the "for the good of the children" argument that's rediculous. And with that out of the way, the people who support praternity fraud really have NOTHING to stand on.
My .02
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 23, @12:44AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Now I submit to you the idea that, if it's truly "for the good of the children", then, why don't we start randomly pulling guys names out of a hat, and the names of children born of a whore with no father out of another hat, match them up, and send a nice little letter to the guy stating:
"Congradulations Mr. Smith! You've been randomly chosen from millions of other men to support this child!"
Hey what about making it totally random. What about letting women be apart of the selection process and having their wages garnished. "Congradulations Mz. Smith... "
We should do it for the good of the children right? Same sex marriage will be here soon!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 23, @01:42AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I like your thinking.
In a fair society why should it always be the male who must pay the child support for a child that's not his! Simply because he's male? That's not fair at all. Let's start making women pay for children that aren't there's too!
Remember it's all about equality.
Sounds absurd? IT SHOULD! But why is it so acceptable for a male to pay for children that aren't his. The family courts have this shoot first, ask questions later, sort of attitude. The smart thing to do would be to find out if the child is really his first before even the first payment, but that of course would be common-sense, and we can't be using that.
I'll be thinking about this more tonight. We are so CONDITIONED into accepting this idea that a man has to pay child support, even for a child that's not his, just because he's male.
In a debate the only thing that pro praternity fraud crowd has that can "win people over" is the "for the good of the children" crap. But like we've pointed out here, if it's truly for the good of the children, then why must the person paying always be male? Technically it really shouldn't matter. At that point in a debate they would probably play the "children should have a dad for emotional/male role model/whatever support" card which would of course mean seriously contradicting themselves (think visitation rights and moving the children, see www.hisside.com ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By making stark scientific truth the only deciding factor, this bill ignores human realities.
... now let's all obscure the truth with polite fictions so we don't run the risk of embarrassing women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ever notice how "What is the good of the child?" seems to go hand in hand with "What puts money in the woman's pocket?"
Mention to Jenny and her kind sometime how, since the "relationship with the only father the child has ever known" how about that child spend some quality bonding time with "Dad" while mom serves some jail time for fraud.
Oh no, how terrible, can't have that.
Yep. That bond is so important it was severed when Mom's deception became known in Texas - but, boy oh boy those child support checks still keep a coming.
Yeahsureyabetcha.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item =2946803747
How disgusting. Of course, a woman would NEVER use something this serious for revenge or anything, would she?
Tell me another one.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
