Ruling on area man's quest to stop child support sets a new tone

I find the solution proposed to a woman's audacious and perjurious lie of just having the guy drop child payment is ridiculous. What should be done is jail the b!tch and protect the father and son from fraud. Who is protecting now the child from this fraud? This is ridiculous!

"Don't you figure this woman has already filled the kid's head with "Daddy doesn't want him?" This couple divorced in 1995. Do you believe for one minute that this mother told the kid, "Daddy left us because I cheated on him?" "

I do hate women who do that to their children. The only excuse that I can think of at the moment for a woman to ever say bad things about a childs father in front of the child is when the father is abusive or a drug addict. In those cases the child needs to know that what they saw from that parent is unacceptable. It's not fair to make them take sides.

Your first reply to the story.
>>How about not doing the deed unprotected with someone who has functioning ovaries and uterus, until you KNOW HER well enough to *know* that you can trust her not to put horns on you?

These guys who live like a CBS sitcom--hopping in and out and in and out of bed with just anyone--and then whine about child support make me sick. If you COULD be the father and you don't challenge the matter before the baby has a chance to bond with you, tough!!! Be a man and support the kid. If you made a baby with someone who turns out to be a witch, that's just one of the mistakes you make in life that can be VERY EXPENSIVE.<<

You blame the guy for a woman's affair during marriage and defend her right to defraud him. You are for personal responsibility and fairness aren't you!

Second reply peronally to another poster.

>>I never said you weren't married. I said you had unprotected relations with a woman you didn't know well enough to know you couldn't trust her. And if that isn't true, why are you screaming obscenities at me in public?

A marriage license doesn't make a healthy, trusting marriage, as you well know. You married someone you couldn't trust, and that was a foolish act, and you paid for that mistake--but your child paid more.

As far as your temper tantrum goes--if you treated *her* that way, maybe she wasn't the problem after all. Hmm?<<

You again blamed the guy. In specific now. But even if he is totally innocent, you singled him out as a responsible party. You are for personal responsibility and fairness aren't you!

Third message.

>>I think some people here have no idea of what a 4 year old is like. They're still very much babies. The kind of thing happening because people insist on sleeping together outside of commited, REAL marriages, is child abuse, plain and simple.

I know adults thrown for a loop by parents divorcing, even when the parents did their best to keep their adult child from having to choose sides!

The overall problem is that people simply don't understand what children need...! They only know what they, themselves, want, and they want it now, and they don't want to take the time to read the fine print.

Some of them, apparently, cannot read even normal print particularly well, and jump to hasty conclusions very fast. Of course, maybe that type is incapable of a happy and mutually monogamous marriage!

GoreNoMore, that's an absolutely brilliant idea. I wonder what it would take to get it into law someplace.<<

Again you did not read the circumstances. None of the defrauded men have custody. NONE. You can talk about kids needing bunnies and cotton candy till you're blue in the face. Anyone reading knows we are not there. The family is split. There is no going back to your Pollyannish desires for a perfect world. Theirs will always broken. You are again not with the real world. But still spouting moralising but meaningless drivel. How fair is that, or even responsible?

Your fourth reply to another poster.

>>It's called having standards, and owning up to your mistakes, instead of screaming and damaging children. If there can be any doubt that a child is yours, find out before he's smiling at you with recognition in his eyes. Wait that long, and you have NO RIGHT to abandon that child for any reason!

Today's world has taught people to do what they want to do, and when they discover that this has unpleasant side effects, why, they can just go to court and try to weasel out of a sacred obligation. And that goes for both male and female.

The psych field is booming because people are not carrying morals into their decisionmaking. If you have a clear moral code, these things tend not to happen.<<

Don't blame the outside world for those problems. All any conniving person has to find is enough people like you, and you will make defrauded people pay by law. Do you know why?
Because a conniving person doesn't care, and cannot be played by your drivel. They will suck you dry and throw away the husk. Of course you don't want to take on the connivers, there too tough for you. It is much easier to punish the nice guys. They don't complain as much. I presented a solution that does not involve fraud. Where is yours?

Fifth post to me.

>>Abandon your children because of the content of their cells and their mother's character. Their DNA isn't completely yours, so they don't deserve your continued investment in their lives, even though at birth you accepted them and let your name be put on their birth certificates. Justify it because an adult wronged you--then leave them completely in the defective adult's power. Walk away. I can't stop you. Looks like the law will no longer stop you either. And it's no problem. The taxpayer is always ready to step in. Welfare makes such a terrific surrogate father.<<

They were not his children. They are not in his custody. He does not have a role in their life. He has to pay their bills. Can you understand any of this? If you can, please explain how this is fair and making people accountable for their actions? Here is the scenario from the original story that would result from your "solution".

>>I repeat, your temper is obviously out of control, if you're going to get this angry with a stranger over the internet that you're hurling barely-disguised profanity. I can just imagine you acting out like this in front of the judge. No wonder you did not obtain a desirable outcome.<<

Since you have such an active imagination that you can see this man's trial, maybe you can imagine yourself in his circumstances that led to it? That maybe a little more difficult for you, but you might actually have to show some empathy. If you can't, you do need counseling. Here it is. Don't try this in person in that circumstance or you will get into a physical fight. Good enough as a counseling session?

>>I think I've seen you on other threads, prescribing counseling to people with whom you do not agree. This guy assumed I was calling him an unwed deadbeat father when I said nothing about his marital status, and cursed at me, in all caps. He took personally a general post about deadbeat dads, picked up that glove, and made a big show about how it doesn't fit--when it does. We're in a time of war. There are people digging their loved ones out of rubble, and he's out some money because he married an irresponsible woman. My heart just bleeds.

I repeat. If you wait till a child has bonded with you, you're DADDY. Get the DNA test done at birth or shut up and provide at least one responsible parent for the child you claimed as your own.<<

My comment about counseling for you makes sense since you have already shown a callous disregard for someone elses feelings and no remorse. You still don't have any. But you persist in grandiose claims and perfect world non solutions. I notice you have not said you don't need it yet. I have made hundreds of posts to hundreds of Freepers. Yes I have made the suggestion to a very few. Oddly enough they have many of your charactaristics. Demanding pefection, ignoring the facts, baiting people on emotional issues and then having a sadistic laugh at them (not at me, I don't care this is just a screen), and then demanding the final judgement on the issue. You have an opinion nothing more. Just like mine. If you love to torment people, you should seek counseling. Or do you disagree with that too?

Where do you make someone responsible for a fraud? You can't even say it. I asked you for a solution that does not include fraud and you ignored the request. Convenient. Just like most of your bunnies and brownies arguments.

READ the circumstances and think or go watch Oprah and let the women that have real minds here have your space. Many of them are amazing and have valuable things to say. Or just reply with another sophomoric "Its for the children!" again. Maybe I'll look for a real opinion at DU?

DK

Good.

End this double standard once and for all.

It's unjust and rewards the guilty at the expense of the innocent. I can't believe the people I see supporting such a travesty.

Sickening how the faux "conservatives" gather when there's an innocent man to be abused..

Bunnies? Cotton candy? Brownies? Man, whatever you are smoking, I hope you got it at a discount rate.

You still have not answered how you would solve this problem without rewarding fraud. How many times can I ask it? Or do you just love to vacation on side issues?

You know that ad hominem is the preferred attack when you have no point.

DK

>>Bunnies? Cotton candy? Brownies? Man, whatever you are smoking, I hope you got it at a discount rate.<<

I am curled up in a ball by this scathing attack of rapier wit.

It's very simple, and I have said it repeatedly. If a man suspects something he has, morally, a golden window to challenge paternity, married or not. That gold window is a child's cognitive development--his or her capacity to need a specific person. At 3 days, it isn't there. At 3 months it is.

No paternity, no pay, no visitation, no diapers for him to change--and grounds for divorce with damages from her to him. You can be married to someone who is cheating without knowing he or she is cheating, but you can't be married to someone who is cheating without knowing you're married to someone scummy--though people seem to have a great capacity to deceive themselves.

You seem to want a man to be able to go YEARS LATER after he first finds out there's a child assigned to him, and challenge paternity. No. Maybe legally he can do it, but morally it's unacceptable.

If you don't do it before that child knows you, and needs you, then too bad, so sad. If you accept a child as yours, or fail to prove it's not, you have a moral obligation to provide paternal nurturing. Got it? Deadlines are really very simple. The IRS has them. Most employers including Dairy Queen have them. Maybe you've never worked and maybe your mommy never assigned them, but you probably remember the concept from school. Do it on time or you lose. Most of us understand and accept the concept, but some of us go through life whining that it's not fair to have to take a certain action in a certain time frame. "But I'm an exception, the deadline doesn't apply to me, please take my paper late Mr. Ross, please don't fine me Mr. Judge..."

That is MY VIEW of things and if it isn't compassionate enough to suit you, that just bites. The previous poster made a child who ended up going through life daddyless. A checkbook isn't a daddy. I never said it was all his fault but the responsibility on him isn't lessened one bit.

Go through your whole day writing pages and pages of angry, irrational text about cotton candy if you want to. God is going to hold every man and woman accountable for failure to provide their children with stable, mind-game-and-whining free two-parent homes. If the woman won't do it the man is not released from his obligation to provide it--it is, in fact, increased. Don't like it? Don't have sex with someone you can't trust. Believe me, if you can't trust her, you know it on some level if you'd pay attention to something other than John Thomas. John Thomas is expert on friction; your head is in charge of everything else.

If the child doesn't have anything invested in the adult male whatsoever, and it is not because of the male's negligence (and *I* think it nearly always is)--then of course the genetics are unimportant, the man is not Daddy anyway.

Real men don't shirk to care for children they accepted born of women whose bodies they've been in at the appropriate time and place. But you don't get that either. I absolutely will not answer your psychotic posts again. You are bizarre to hang on to this for so long. I do not AGREE with you. I will NEVER agree with you. Don't like that? Aw, poor baby.

Thats a yes for fraud. Thank you!

DK

MISSING PERSON; The child's real father. Time for that boy to write some serious checks.

BUMP