[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Back door shit going on I can guarantee, kickbacks etc. [/quote]
It being government, I’m pretty sure there isn’t a single piss taken in that statehouse without some sort of kickback.
I’m from Mass, crooked government is our brainchild.[/quote]
The more I get into business and medicine, has kind of OPENED my eyes to really how some shit is done. Dude is probably related or wanting to mount somebody in company that is doing this testing.
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Should men have a say in abortion too then?
Also:
go to www.travelocity.com
Search one way trip, destination Mexico.
Go to Mexico.
Live there.
Done.[/quote]
I would never support a law that allows men to have a say in abortion.
Why Mexico? [/quote]
Then men should not have to share any of the responsibility in child rearing/support.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
And because mexico is cheap. Maybe half a mil budgeted right would last a comfortable lifetime. On the beach. A mexican beach. And as far as I know, they wouldn’t go to the effort to extradite you for child support. But you can go anywhere you want really.[/quote]
You’ll just have to control your cock or resort to murder/assault. It’s like you are arguing that it is unfair that only women can get pregnant. lol
[/quote]
No it’s not. How is it fair that two adults can make a decision to have sex but only one gets to control the outcome?
Strawmen are fun but keep your reply on point, if you can reply 
Edit: And control your vagina for that matter.[/quote]
The law is not practical. Do we force unnecessary operations on people? There is also sometimes a danger of damage to the mother? Does this right(you want to have) to get rid of the child you helped create give you the right to put the mothers life/reproductive health in danger?
Are condoms that expensive in Houston?
[/quote]
Flip it the other way then, what if the mom wants an abortion and the father doesn’t? He just has to live with the fact the woman killed his baby?
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
You’ll just have to control your cock
[/quote]
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Flip it the other way then, what if the mom wants an abortion and the father doesn’t? He just has to live with the fact the woman killed his baby?[/quote]
Or the woman could have the baby, and hand it over to the man to raise.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
What are the laws if the parents break up and the father wants to test if he’s the father. If it turns out he isn’t does that mean he does not have to pay child support? [/quote]
The law considers what is in the best interest of the child.
I think it basically varies between jurisdictions, but yes, there are cases where a non-biological ‘father’ has been required to pay child support.[/quote]
I was listed by a woman whom I never met as the father of her child. Apparently, she saw that I had given money to a charity in a newspaper, decided I looked like the biological father, and listed me.
Never heard about it, until . . . . she went to prison for fraud, at which time I was ordered to pay all sorts of child support.
Took many thousands of dollars to clear this up and the courts were very, very rude.
I remember one bitch judge who — before I introduced myself or any evidence was presented — said “I hope you packed your toothbrush because you’re going to jail.”
The state fought my attempt to not pay because 8 years had passed since I was listed and so the statute of limitations had run on my right to challenge being listed as the father — like I would have ever known.
Indeed, the first I EVER knew about this was when my WIFE got handed a citation to pay child support — almost caused a divorce.
I am still pissed about this.
(And yes, I paid for a DNA test to prove I was not the kid’s daddy.)
And no, nothing ever happened to the bitch
And yes, I am still listed as the father on the birth certificate. Apparently, there is no way to change this.
^^
Moral of the story: Don’t give to charities. 
(or only give anonymously)
That sucks.
[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Flip it the other way then, what if the mom wants an abortion and the father doesn’t? He just has to live with the fact the woman killed his baby?[/quote]
Or the woman could have the baby, and hand it over to the man to raise.[/quote]
My brother, has not only his kids from his X, but also 2 that were from other men.
My dad adopted me when I was 2, my real dad split and killed himself when I was 4.
I married a lady with 3 kids one with Downs, and have raised them as my own.
I like you Momma, but not all men are afraid to raise children.
[quote]Christine wrote:
^^
Moral of the story: Don’t give to charities.
(or only give anonymously)
That sucks. [/quote]
Indeed. All our family trusts and estates specifically disown the child because the lawyers aren’t sure if the kid wouldn’t be able to gin up a claim otherwise.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
What are the laws if the parents break up and the father wants to test if he’s the father. If it turns out he isn’t does that mean he does not have to pay child support? [/quote]
The law considers what is in the best interest of the child.
I think it basically varies between jurisdictions, but yes, there are cases where a non-biological ‘father’ has been required to pay child support.[/quote]
I was listed by a woman whom I never met as the father of her child. Apparently, she saw that I had given money to a charity in a newspaper, decided I looked like the biological father, and listed me.
Never heard about it, until . . . . she went to prison for fraud, at which time I was ordered to pay all sorts of child support.
Took many thousands of dollars to clear this up and the courts were very, very rude.
I remember one bitch judge who — before I introduced myself or any evidence was presented — said “I hope you packed your toothbrush because you’re going to jail.”
The state fought my attempt to not pay because 8 years had passed since I was listed and so the statute of limitations had run on my right to challenge being listed as the father — like I would have ever known.
Indeed, the first I EVER knew about this was when my WIFE got handed a citation to pay child support — almost caused a divorce.
I am still pissed about this.
(And yes, I paid for a DNA test to prove I was not the kid’s daddy.)
And no, nothing ever happened to the bitch
And yes, I am still listed as the father on the birth certificate. Apparently, there is no way to change this.[/quote]
Jesus tapdancing Christ that’s fucked up.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Flip it the other way then, what if the mom wants an abortion and the father doesn’t? He just has to live with the fact the woman killed his baby?[/quote]
Or the woman could have the baby, and hand it over to the man to raise.[/quote]
My brother, has not only his kids from his X, but also 2 that were from other men.
My dad adopted me when I was 2, my real dad split and killed himself when I was 4.
I married a lady with 3 kids one with Downs, and have raised them as my own.
I like you Momma, but not all men are afraid to raise children. [/quote]
Never said they were. Just suggesting an alternative to abortion in the case HG mentioned above.
BTW, My brother and I were raised by my father.
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
What are the laws if the parents break up and the father wants to test if he’s the father. If it turns out he isn’t does that mean he does not have to pay child support? [/quote]
Up here paternaty is all but meaningless. Step fathers who are financially supportive during a remarriage have a legal obligation to support his wife’s child if the marriage ends. I.E. there can be multiple men paying support for a single child. One for being the father, and another just because he was kind enough to put a roof over his now ex-wife’s kid’s heads. No good deed goes unpunished as they say.
“Support payments” are a scam no matter wether the kids are yours or not. If the kids aren’t yours, it’s juts that much worse, because while all men are crucified in the family court, it’s not your cross to bear. The heart of the matter remains however that the rights of “non-custodial parents” are disproportionatly low compared to their enormously increased responsabilities, while their children (biological or otherwise) will generally not live anywhere near the standard of living the “support payments” should provide.[/quote]
I hear more stories about men getting away with paying little or nothing for child support but whatever. I think everyone suffers financially when it ends because now you are trying to support 2 households with the same amount of money as when it was just one.
Also I think when relationships end, it sometimes brings out the worst behaviour in people so I think there is nasty things on both sides. I think you hear the man’s side and I hear the woman’s side. Maybe?
[/quote]
You’re misinformed. The basic amount to be payed is looked up in a spreadsheet based on your income (or imputed income if your income doesn’t match your apperent capabilies or historical income). Google “federal child support guide lines”. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the words “guide lines” imply that varience is common place. Unless your kids spend more than 40% of their time with you, or you have a disabled parent in your care and can argue “undue hardship”, you WILL pay the table amount. Undue hardship is for the disabled reletive - NOT for you, and it is nearly impossible to prove since people living in that type of financial situation to start with can hardly afford a lawyer to argue such a thing. And the 40% thing is ludicrously black and white - you MIGHT get a break at 40% (if you can convince the judge that the children will not be worse off at the other parents home), but 39% is insufficient for any reduction whatsoever. I have watched women go to the moon and back for that 1%. It’s a matter of hours, but it’s worth hundreds of dollars to them. And the basic amounts do NOT cover the cost of clothing, child care, extracaricular activities, etc… Which the “custodial parent” is entitled to bill you for a “proportional share” of. Often these costs will be in excess of the table amount itself. There is no weaseling out of this shit, and paying “little or nothing”. It’s the law, and judges will enforce it every time. And there is no not paying what they order. They will garnish your pay and liquidate everything you ever aquire for the rest of your life if that’s how long it takes, but you WILL pay. Anywhere from 25% to 50% of your gross (before tax) income once the table amounts, and additional costs are tallied. Now I know everyone here on the internet is rich and famous and would have no trouble at all paying such an amount, but out there in the real world where the majority of men work in construction, agriculture, factories, etc… You’ve just been downgraded from working class to poverty. Good luck accumulating enough capital to start a business, or take advantage of any kind of financial opportuities.
And 2 households on the same income? Again, I know that here on the internet every man married a doctor, nurse, or lawyer, but back out in the real world their ex-wives pour coffee at Tim Hortons, and upon divorcing recieved substantial increases to their government program “baby bonus / child tax benefit / etc”, while the men lost dependents from their income tax, and move up a bracket. The financial incentives for a woman to be single with children in this country are rediculous.
Sometimes when a relationship ends there are hard feelings that bring out the worst in people. Other times, there are no hard feelings until well after the fact, when post-divorce power is used and abused. People are always so worried about physical abuse - don’t punch a woman ! Fuck. I’ll take a punch in the head over 2 decades of poverty, and alienation from my children any day. This is the kind of abuse that needs solving, but in our society it gets shrugged off like it’s nothing. Nobody should have to deal with that kind of shit, wether they trusted their sperm to the wrong bitch or took the word of a lieing cheating whore.
I’m not a fan of abortions, but so long as women have the “right to choose”, there’s no reason why men shouldn’t either. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Health problems from abortion? Post abortion depression? Let’s see how your health, and happiness are after 2 decades of destitution.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
And so long as women have the “right to choose”, there’s no reason why men shouldn’t either. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.[/quote]
Exactly
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m not sure why people would argue against The Patriot Act, Government Wire Tapping, Internet Snooping, and Warrantless Searches. I mean let’s face it, if you are innocent, you have no reason to worry.[/quote]
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m not sure why people would argue against The Patriot Act, Government Wire Tapping, Internet Snooping, and Warrantless Searches. I mean let’s face it, if you are innocent, you have no reason to worry.[/quote]
[/quote]
Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel aboot it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m not sure why people would argue against The Patriot Act, Government Wire Tapping, Internet Snooping, and Warrantless Searches. I mean let’s face it, if you are innocent, you have no reason to worry.[/quote]
[/quote]
Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel aboot it.[/quote]
Since when did you become Canadian, eh?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m not sure why people would argue against this (except on the grounds of financial strain). I mean let’s face it, if you are faithful, you have no reason to worry.[/quote]
Maybe it is an “American” point of view, IDK, but I just don’t want my government getting involved with my personal life on that level, unless I request them too.
[/quote]
I pretty much agree. If I am there and willing to sign the birth certificate as the father without a test that is my business. However, if the man is not willing to sign he should not be allowed to be listed without a test proving otherwise.
And can’t people just go on the Maury show to get a free test instead of using tax payer $?
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
What are the laws if the parents break up and the father wants to test if he’s the father. If it turns out he isn’t does that mean he does not have to pay child support? [/quote]
Up here paternaty is all but meaningless. Step fathers who are financially supportive during a remarriage have a legal obligation to support his wife’s child if the marriage ends. I.E. there can be multiple men paying support for a single child. One for being the father, and another just because he was kind enough to put a roof over his now ex-wife’s kid’s heads. No good deed goes unpunished as they say.
“Support payments” are a scam no matter wether the kids are yours or not. If the kids aren’t yours, it’s juts that much worse, because while all men are crucified in the family court, it’s not your cross to bear. The heart of the matter remains however that the rights of “non-custodial parents” are disproportionatly low compared to their enormously increased responsabilities, while their children (biological or otherwise) will generally not live anywhere near the standard of living the “support payments” should provide.[/quote]
I hear more stories about men getting away with paying little or nothing for child support but whatever. I think everyone suffers financially when it ends because now you are trying to support 2 households with the same amount of money as when it was just one.
Also I think when relationships end, it sometimes brings out the worst behaviour in people so I think there is nasty things on both sides. I think you hear the man’s side and I hear the woman’s side. Maybe?
[/quote]
You’re misinformed. The basic amount to be payed is looked up in a spreadsheet based on your income (or imputed income if your income doesn’t match your apperent capabilies or historical income). Google “federal child support guide lines”. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the words “guide lines” imply that varience is common place. Unless your kids spend more than 40% of their time with you, or you have a disabled parent in your care and can argue “undue hardship”, you WILL pay the table amount. Undue hardship is for the disabled reletive - NOT for you, and it is nearly impossible to prove since people living in that type of financial situation to start with can hardly afford a lawyer to argue such a thing. And the 40% thing is ludicrously black and white - you MIGHT get a break at 40% (if you can convince the judge that the children will not be worse off at the other parents home), but 39% is insufficient for any reduction whatsoever. I have watched women go to the moon and back for that 1%. It’s a matter of hours, but it’s worth hundreds of dollars to them. And the basic amounts do NOT cover the cost of clothing, child care, extracaricular activities, etc… Which the “custodial parent” is entitled to bill you for a “proportional share” of. Often these costs will be in excess of the table amount itself. There is no weaseling out of this shit, and paying “little or nothing”. It’s the law, and judges will enforce it every time. And there is no not paying what they order. They will garnish your pay and liquidate everything you ever aquire for the rest of your life if that’s how long it takes, but you WILL pay. Anywhere from 25% to 50% of your gross (before tax) income once the table amounts, and additional costs are tallied. Now I know everyone here on the internet is rich and famous and would have no trouble at all paying such an amount, but out there in the real world where the majority of men work in construction, agriculture, factories, etc… You’ve just been downgraded from working class to poverty. Good luck accumulating enough capital to start a business, or take advantage of any kind of financial opportuities.
And 2 households on the same income? Again, I know that here on the internet every man married a doctor, nurse, or lawyer, but back out in the real world their ex-wives pour coffee at Tim Hortons, and upon divorcing recieved substantial increases to their government program “baby bonus / child tax benefit / etc”, while the men lost dependents from their income tax, and move up a bracket. The financial incentives for a woman to be single with children in this country are rediculous.
Sometimes when a relationship ends there are hard feelings that bring out the worst in people. Other times, there are no hard feelings until well after the fact, when post-divorce power is used and abused. People are always so worried about physical abuse - don’t punch a woman ! Fuck. I’ll take a punch in the head over 2 decades of poverty, and alienation from my children any day. This is the kind of abuse that needs solving, but in our society it gets shrugged off like it’s nothing. Nobody should have to deal with that kind of shit, wether they trusted their sperm to the wrong bitch or took the word of a lieing cheating whore.[/quote]
Wall of anger.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
What are the laws if the parents break up and the father wants to test if he’s the father. If it turns out he isn’t does that mean he does not have to pay child support? [/quote]
The law considers what is in the best interest of the child.
I think it basically varies between jurisdictions, but yes, there are cases where a non-biological ‘father’ has been required to pay child support.[/quote]
Maybe that should be changed, or not. :-/
Is it in the best interest of the child for everybody to know who it’s father is at birth? It’s like it’s the rights of an innocent child(without choices) to have both parents as long as possible vs the rights of a man who may be a fool(but had choices).
It seems more complicated when you get into it as far as what’s best and who is more important.
[/quote]
Sometimes blissful ignorance is really the best.
I would think that a law such as this would potentially lead to more divorces and single parenthood.[/quote]
Initially, yes. I may be late on this…but in the long run, it may also mean way less women making false claims.
I have been a victim of that once. It is not fun.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
What are the laws if the parents break up and the father wants to test if he’s the father. If it turns out he isn’t does that mean he does not have to pay child support? [/quote]
The law considers what is in the best interest of the child.
I think it basically varies between jurisdictions, but yes, there are cases where a non-biological ‘father’ has been required to pay child support.[/quote]
Maybe that should be changed, or not. :-/
Is it in the best interest of the child for everybody to know who it’s father is at birth? It’s like it’s the rights of an innocent child(without choices) to have both parents as long as possible vs the rights of a man who may be a fool(but had choices).
It seems more complicated when you get into it as far as what’s best and who is more important.
[/quote]
Sometimes blissful ignorance is really the best.
I would think that a law such as this would potentially lead to more divorces and single parenthood.[/quote]
Initially, yes. I may be late on this…but in the long run, it may also mean way less women making false claims.
I have been a victim of that once. It is not fun.[/quote]
I like Waldo’s idea better than mandatory across the board.
If the man being named father says Okay, then his name goes on, no test, no government involved. So dude would sign a waiver before he was put on the BC.
If dude didn’t sign the waiver, denied it was his kid, then the test is mandatory to have his name put on the BC.
simple and not as invasive. Solves both problems really