i am a single ncp and i might be going to jail for a while.

Umm, sorry, but probably not. Most states require that a step-parent be ready to adopt the child in the event that termination of parental rights is granted, and all parties (Mom, Dad, and step) would have to agree to the termination. You cannot unilaterally decide to terminate your rights so you won't have to pay child support. Whether you wanted kids, or not, you got one. (Congratulations on making sure you won't have any more). The courts do not like to leave a child without a legal father.

i am a single ncp and i might be going to jail for a while. i was with a girl and she got knocked up we desided to abort i gave her $800.00 to cover it and she was to go while i was at work i go over after work to check on her and she had a change of heart and said she would rather put it up to be adopted i said ok and let her use the money to take care of herself then when she gets about 6 months along she dumps me and says she doesnt want anything to do with me and that she will never want anything from me ever well a year later im hauled into court and i had to pay child support based on a job i lost 18 months before the court date i just want to know is there anyway i can give up all rights to the kid and not have to pay child support too? i didnt want kids and since then i got cut so it would not happen again.i know there is some guy trying to do a roe vs. wade for men but is there anything i can do now?
No, you cannot terminate your parental rights to get out of paying CS. Unless the mother has a husband who is willing to legally adopt.

How long ago was the CS order? If it has been a couple of years, you can file to modify the amount.

I live in ky and my ex was able to terminate his rights and I was single living with my mom. No man lined up to adopt. He just signed the agreement to terminate the rights based on abandoment. so, this must vary depending on where you live so you may want to check your state. My child was 15mths, and i got rights terminated and a name change, all at the same time. They rule based on whats best for the child. If you have abandoned the child, it would be best for your rights to be terminated as long as you and the other parent agree.

is there a way for them to just extend the payments by a year so i wont be behind so i can drive again and get a job so i can pay cause they wont even give me a permit so i can just drive to work and back, all they said was i needed to pay 500 and i can get it back but if i had that kind of money i would have already paid it to them.
Is there any way that they would be able to "extend" your payments for a year?
Sure, that is only if YOU can figure out how YOUR child can go for a year without food, clothes, medical care, etc. :rolleyes:

All you need to get your DL back is a measly $500.00. If you cannot come up with that small amount, you obviously cannot pay ANYTHING for CS. So, it comes down to this- come up with $500 by selling antything or everythiong you own and make regular CS payments OR- go to jail and stay there. It's really very simple.

BTW- You never answered my question- when was the order done, and why haven't you filed to modify it?
Xena

i only make a grand a month before taxes so 500 is a lot, and the kid not eating for a year well his grandmother took him from his mother cause she is an addict and all i meant about the year thing was clear what i owe and let me pay till he is 19 rather than 18. if i go to jail for not paying it i will never catch up. if you think 500 is not that much cash then you dont know what its like to live in this day and age while being poor
When I mentioned about the year thing- I was giving you the same statement and belief that both the laws, CSE and Judge's have. In other words- a dose of reality.

From your post I thought that you said you needed a DL so that you can get a job and get back and forth to work. Now according to this post, you are already working, so your complaint about the DL won't work with CSE or the court.

Yes, $500 is alot of money, however in comparison to what you MIGHT owe, it is a very small amount to get your DL back. And hell yes, I do know what it's like to not have alot of money- my husband was earning only $1,100.00 a month before taxes- paid $450.00 in CS and $700.00 a month for heart and BP meds, we lived on welfare and food stamps and he had to go wothout meds at times. It was extremely difficult and unfair, but we both saw the reality that we had no other choice.

If you make very little, you need to pay your CS (to keep your DL) and live with friends or relatives, or in a mission until you can get the CS modified.
Xena

i live with my brother and have to pay rent i work 50 hour weeks i eat ramon show me where i can save cash at. cause is it worth it for a adult to go hungry just so his child who is in geat shape get name brand shoes? if a parent could not take care of his or hers child they could give them up to the state well if both parents could do that why not just one of them?

You STILL haven't answered the question about when the CS order was done and why haven't you filed for a modification????

so is this now a dead subject?

As to the modification, you obviously have access to a computer and an online account. NC cse has the forms, calculators, and instructions online to modify cs. You don't need to drive anywhere. So check and see if your state has this.

The fact is (as harsh as this sounds) you have gotten yourself into a situation that is wholly your responsibility. You need to be proactive and do the things that YOU need to do and stop making excuses why everything is going against you. If they base the cs on the income you were making in the past, that means that the court reasons that you are capable of making that now. That's how the court deals with parents that are purposely unemployed or underemployed for the purpose of getting out cs.

No, you will not be able to stop support payments for a year. No matter what you did, do, or will do, you still have a responsibility to financially provide for your child.

i would like to say it is not "wholly my responsibility" why would a woman have a child she knows she can not afford she was being selfish to keep it instead of giving it a shot at a better life.and i was not purposely unemployed i could not work due to a lack of car and the only place i could afford to live was out in the woods,so walking to a job is out.i could not make what i did then cause the only way i got that job was through a friend and if i was capable of doing that job i would not have lost it.and i can't be proactive unless i can drive and they will not let me drive unless i come up with $500 and i can't come up with that much spare cash until i get me a better job. i cant get a loan from anywhere or anybody they refuse to just give me a permit that lets me drive to and from work only so they are not being to proactive themselves. so tell me with all this drama and hard times in my life how am i to pay cs? would it help if i got put on disability? it is not always black and white when it comes to child support cases,the gray area is huge and not right for the person that has to pay man or woman,i believe their needs to be a roe vs. wade deal for men to protect them from the "oopps"that more underhanded people use to hook a person or their money.i will be the first one in line to say a woman's body is her's alone and the choices she makes for her and her child are her's alone but a man needs protection from the bad apples who abuse the system to collect money for getting knocked up.i want equal rights.
1. I did not say (or mean to imply) that YOU were unemployed or purposely underemployed. I only stated WHY a judge would order the amount of cs based on a past income.

2. I will not start the argument about how responsible each person is in a situation with an unplanned pregnancy. You both are responsible. Her irresponsibility does not cancel your obligations.

3. You're equal rights were to not have sex with her, or have a vasectomy prior to the sexual encounter. That's the nature of biology and reproduction. Sorry.

4. Did you check into the online modification?

5. You are the one that has put yourself in the position of facing prison, therefore putting you even farther behind on CS. In the future, you need to think more about any results your actions may produce.

I just realized that I had responded to your other post on the criminal board. Is the mother of the child the same woman accusing you of stealing the $8800? If so, you need to get far, far away from this woman.

no they are 2 diffrent women

In that case, you should stay away from women all together until you can exercise better judgement.

Alot of states are implementing work programs for parents that didn't pay their child support. When a parent is in court for failure to pay, the #1 excuse they use to try and stay out of jail is, "but I can't pay anything if I'm in jail."

Most of the time, they aren't paying anyway. That's how they ended up in court. Judges are now getting more choices in cases such as this. Basically, the parent is sentenced to jail and the state "hires" them to do work that would otherwise be outsourced. The money earned goes to pay off their child support arrears and a small portion goes back to the state for room and board. Since the parent is in state custody, 100% of their wages can be garnished as opposed to the normal limits.

but would i not do better at a real job outside of jail?and the money i do bring in helps with the house payments that my family makes if i can't give my family money then what happens to them?

That is not the courts concern. The court is only concerned with the CHILD subject to the court order. The way they will look at it is the family members you are helping out are adults and able to help themselves. YOUR first responsibility is to your child. If you do not live up to your responsibilities on your own, the state will do whatever they can to "help" you.

well they need to stop giving me that kind of "help" cause i have a younger brother that is mentaly retarded that i help take care of and the state will not help us with him cause they say he can work sure he could if you want to risk him getting mad and putting his fist through somebody's face. if they want to help me they can let me drive to work and back so i can get the better job and pay the g-dam cs.cause right now my family needs the money more than the kid does

The kid IS your family. The kid IS also your #1 obligation. You were partially responsible for bring the child into the world. You are NOT responsible for your brother or any other family members being born.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. There are countless alternatives to driving that you can use to get to your job. If I don't have a car, that doesn't mean I can just do nothing and b*tch about it while the kids fend for themselves. If I did, I end up in jail for neglect. Why do you feel as if it should be different for YOU?

driving has become a right and people need it to get from place to place i am not in the best of health and there is no job i can do for up to 20 miles from my home the only other means to get to a job is walk plus all i asked for was a permit that would at least let me drive from my home to my job not too much to ask from child support enforcement. the kid is ok he has his grandparents to take care of him. his mother was the one that let him be born not me she made that choice.i have to help the members of my family that needit,we are all damn near poor. and my #1 deal is to stay alive if i can't support myself then i should not have to support a kid if she gets tired of her son then she hands him over to her parents till she wants to play mommy again.i have said that the kid needs to go where people can take proper care of him and for his own good have nothing to do with me but too many people with their heads up their butts seem to think that he needs both parents or at least both parents money to thrive well if me and his mommy can't take care of him we should have him taken away from us both and placed somewhere better

If this is the attitude you plan on having in court, start stocking up on cigarettes no so you will have something to bargain with when you go to jail.

it is just the tude i take when people don't seem to understand the hell i go through just to survive

Your story is not in any way, shape or form unique. The judge hears the same thing dozens of times EVERY MONTH. The comments HERE will seem very caring and understanding compared to what the judge will say to you if you try and use ANY of the excuses you have mentioned here.

and it is the fact that my story is not unique that should prove that we need to change the way the system works.a woman can have a child and choose to keep it abort it with no care for the man's feelings,ok i can deal with that part but if she desides to keep it then it should be under the terms that the man does not need to support it i paid for her to abort it she took the money and did not abort will i see a dime of that back? hell no.if a couple can't take care of a child it is taken away from them well i can't take care of a child i am barely able to afford to live where i do and i pay $200 month rent. when me and her were together we were too poor to have a kid and take care of it.i can't go for a degree so i can get a better job cause i'm too poor and i need the the system to see that the parent without the kid sometimes needs help. it may sound cold but i need help more then the kid does he has a well off set of grandparents who i wish would adopt him,cause it would be in his favor if they did.
You passed up your opportunities to better your life when you made the decisions and choices you did. There is no other answer that anyone can give you that is remotely feasible to get you out of the mess you put yourself into.

the state helps out women who get knocked up do better why not men who suffer at the hands of outdated child support laws?
You have already recieved all of your answers.

i hate smug people. i was looking for real help not people *****ing about "it just the kids that matter"or "you need to give up all your **** to take care of the kid" i say if a ncp or a pc can't take care of a child for whatever reason then they should lose all rights to it and have all ties severed
Well, you will have plenty of time to contemplate your solutions while sitting in a jail cell.

i don't think i will be going to jail afterall
Good, then you can figure out a way to get to work to pay your cs. :)

no i think i'll see about moving where they can't get me
Dude, unless your name is Rudolph, and you have the ability and smarts to live out in the mountains around Cherokee, there is no where for you to go. Of course, Rudolph was found, eventually. If you don't have any money, no car, and nobody to take you anywhere, are you going to walk and swim to a deserted island? Good luck.

i came here for answers and all i got were bitter women seeking revenge on men cause one hurt them a long time ago
No, you came on here to get sympathy for your plight solely due to your stupid decisions. I don't know you and personally don't care to get "revenge" on you. You owe support to your child. You are already having problems stemming from theft via forgery. Grow up.

" I care". The system has turned into a caban of accountants. As we in this country move further away from neighborhoods and into private domains, there comes opportunities for wealth. This growth notion that is engulfed in every aspect of our society leaves little or no room for what some would call " eaters" they supposely are the none productive citizens. Sad but reality, " the weak are left behind" Although this is called the land of the free.
Sometimes i think that the statue of liberty should be be called " the hateful *****" Because the indigent people that you spoke of, really do get ignored :cool:
Knot you make many good points. People came here, and still come here, in search of freedom and opportunity. There are many people who come here and work hard to earn a living and support their families. Many are successful. Sure we have problems but the USA is still the best place to live. If anyone doubts that, just take a look at how many people try to get in versus how many people try to leave this country. Before the welfare system came into existence, the poor and indigent were cared for and provided for through the churches. And people gave generously because they felt an obligation for their fellow man. Nowadays people resent the notion that the government can come in and seize their hard earned dollars just to turn around and hand it out to those who are non-productive. And the non-productive keep taking and taking. I don't have any problems lending aid to those who are down on their luck through no fault of their own, because everyone at some point may need the assistance, but many have turned it into a way of life. I know they aren't living in the lap of luxury, but still, it was only intended to be temporary. There are many opportunities for people to better themselves but it begins with that person--they need to take responsibility for themselves if they are ever going to improve their lot in life. Too many people have no sense of self-responsibility and go through life relying on everyone else to pay their way.

The child support system is going to be a tough cookie to fix. I believe the child support system was designed with very noble intentions, but we still have a long way to go before it is perfected. The changes that took place in this country over the past 40 years has been amazing. Some were changes for the better, but some were also detrimental to the family. Just look at what has transpired from the late 1960's to early 1970's alone. We came into an era of free love, an "if it feels good do it" mentality and look has what happened: the explosion of drug and alcohol use, promiscuity, an increase of out of wedlock births, the legalization of abortion, latch-key kids, teenage crime rate is up, and respect for authority is down. Parents either can't or won't discipline their kids, teachers certainly can't do it, and the schools are turning out illiterate children at record numbers. Did you see what is happening in Las Vegas recently, where swarms of teens are going around beating the living daylights out of people for no reason? Fathers either don't care or are pushed out of the childrens' lives and now the mothers can't control them. If some of these kids ar ever going to make it, they need the involvement of both parents. It takes more than just money to raise kids to be respectful and respectable adults. Legislating dads to provide financial support is not the only answer. There are many fathers out there who have visitation with their kids interfered with by the mothers, yet child support and visitation are "two separate issues." Why does it have to be that way? If some mothers stopped interfering with visitation when there is no good reason to, how much you want to bet that more fathers would start paying their support? And before some of you jump down my throat for that statement, let me clarify that by saying that I am well aware that there are truly deadbeat parents, both male and female, but there are also a lot of vindictive people out there that jerk the other parent around out of spite. The ones who truly suffer are the kids. It just seems like the fathers are the ones who get the biggest "bad rap" in this world.

Perhaps if God wasn't being systematically pushed out of every corner of our lives and people went back to observing good moral values, we wouldn't have the problems we are now facing. There will always be bad apples, but they should be the extreme minority. I don't have all the answers, and when you sit down and think about it, it gets very overwhelming and you just don't know where to start. Maybe if we all started in our own little corners of the world, it would grown from there.

Since there are certain people, that shall remain nameless (you know who you are), that can't seem to get it through their heads that the "evil system" as they like to put it, is, overall, working the way it was intended, I feel the need to explain a few actual FACTS about what everyone is arguing about.

The entire roe v wade for men concept actually refers to 2 completely different cases being heard in 2 completely different courts.

The first case is a man who's girlfriend had a child as the result of an unplanned pregnancy. The father is trying to argue that he should not be held responsible for the child in any way since he did not want the child to begin with. The lawmakers, the court, the group paying the man's legal fees and even the man that filed the suit, KNOW that this case is totally unwinnable unless the constitution is thrown out and rewritten. The only reason the case was even filed was as a publicity stunt. It was DESIGNED to fail. No one associated with the case has at any time ever actually felt as though the case had any legal merit. All parties involved are and always have been well aware that there is nothing about this case that has one bit of legal standing in any of the US states and/or territories. It is comparative to the new abortion ban in South Dakota. That law was passed solely for the purpose of being challenged in court.

The second case "roe v wade for men" is often referred to as actually DOES have legal merit. However, it does not apply to ANY of the situations discussed here. This case involves 2 people who were, at one point, in a relationship. When the relationship ended, the 2 remained friends. Several years after the relationship was over, the woman wanted to have a child via artificial insemination. She asked that her ex boyfriend, with whom she was still on good terms with, be the sperm donor. A LEGALLY BINDING contract was drawn up and signed by both parties outlining the agreement. There was no question at the time the "donation" was made that the man was nothing more then a sperm donor, with NO rights or obligation to the resulting child/ren. The procedure was successful and a child was born. The 2 parties remained on friendly terms, Many years AFTER the child was born, the mother sued the sperm donor for child support, asking that it be ordered back to the time of the child's birth. Because of the previous intimate relationship between the 2, the family court ruled that the contract was null and void due to the fact that it went against public policy. On appeal it was determined that the contract was valid and enforceable and that the man had no more obligation to the child then any anonymous sperm donor. It was further determined that the actual act of any consensual sexual act alone is enough to determine that any child born, planned or unplanned, was a mutually agreed upon result of the act, except in cases where the act itself is considered a crime (rape, incest, statutory rape).

Now for those of you that don't understand big words, it means that if you have CONSENSUAL sexual acts with a person and a child is born as a result, both parties are equally responsible for that child even if it is an accident. It doesn't matter if the condom breaks or if the woman intentionally LIED in order to specifically get pregnant. It doesn't matter if the woman tells the man that she is on the pill, she can't get pregnant, she's had a hysterectomy, she doesn't want children, she can't have children or even that she used to be a MAN, if a pregnancy results from the sexual act and a child is born, even if the man asks that the pregnancy be terminated, if the woman wants to hold the man legally and financially responsible for the child, he WILL be. The man also has the legal right to be part of that child's life, even if the mother objects. "Consensual sexual act" does not ONLY include actual intercourse. The same rules apply even if the two are just "messing around" without actually having intercourse.

If anyone does not like the current laws regarding these matters, feel free to call, write, email or even pay a personal visit to your political representatives and try to change the law. Get together and make signs and banners and go protest on the steps of congress if you want.

But DON'T come here and spew your vile comments that have NO legal basis. This site is specifically designed to give average people advice that is actually based on what the LAW is. Yes, most people do give their own PERSONAL opinions also, including myself. But the majority of the members, again, myself included, will temper that opinion with what the LAW actually says, even if they don't agree with the particular laws that apply to any given situation.

If you can't manage to, at the very least, include the CORRECT legal advice with your own personal opinions on a subject, go elsewhere, as you are neither welcome or wanted HERE. There are many other forums on the INTERNET that are actually DESIGNED for those with nothing better to do then b*tch and moan. If you can't find one suited to your particular complaints, feel free to start your own.

The good news is that while we must abide by the laws as they are written, laws CAN be changed. Just think about all those laws of yesteryear that now are viewed as outdated and archaic. Maybe some day down the road, the current laws regarding child support will be viewed in the same fashion.

And just to clarify once more: I have no problem with parents supporting their children. But my personal opinion is that both parents should be held to the same level of accountability. What holds true for one must also hold true for the other. Women should not be given preferential treatment on the basis of gender alone. That is discriminating against men. While you yell at the men to keep their thing in their pants instead of sticking it into every warm hole they find, make sure you tell the women to keep their holes closed if THEY do not want to be responsible for a child. It is MY PERSONAL OPINION that women who deliberately lie, mislead, or trick a man in any way and conceive a child that the man has made clear they DO NOT WANT, then the woman should bear the responsibility of rearing said child. If a woman can have an abortion against the fathers wishes, then men who have fatherhood thrust upon them against their wishes should also have legal recourse. When men are not given the same choices as are women, that is discrimination. Women wanted equality, then by God they better be prepared to accept the responsibilities that come with equality.

The good news is that while we must abide by the laws as they are written, laws CAN be changed. Just think about all those laws of yesteryear that now are viewed as outdated and archaic. Maybe some day down the road, the current laws regarding child support will be viewed in the same fashion.

And just to clarify once more: I have no problem with parents supporting their children. But my personal opinion is that both parents should be held to the same level of accountability. What holds true for one must also hold true for the other. Women should not be given preferential treatment on the basis of gender alone. That is discriminating against men. While you yell at the men to keep their thing in their pants instead of sticking it into every warm hole they find, make sure you tell the women to keep their holes closed if THEY do not want to be responsible for a child. It is MY PERSONAL OPINION that women who deliberately lie, mislead, or trick a man in any way and conceive a child that the man has made clear they DO NOT WANT, then the woman should bear the responsibility of rearing said child. If a woman can have an abortion against the fathers wishes, then men who have fatherhood thrust upon them against their wishes should also have legal recourse. When men are not given the same choices as are women, that is discrimination. Women wanted equality, then by God they better be prepared to accept the responsibilities that come with equality.

Yes, laws CAN be changed. However, THIS forum is NOT the place to do it. A hypothetical law that may or may not be passed and put into effect at some distant or not so distant point in the future is of absolutely NO HELP to a person going to court next week.

When the situation calls for it, I DO tell women they should keep their knees together. However, that does not apply in the recent issues that have been brought up. It is not the mothers that are complaining about the laws in this thread. It is the fathers and their "new women" that are claiming that the law is not fair. No one is being forced to believe that the law is FAIR. It is irrelevant. It is the LAW and until it is changed it will continue to be the LAW. Individuals CANNOT just start picking and choosing which laws that they wish to abide by and which ones they they will ignore because they feel it is somehow unfair to them.

I feel that for the sake of "fairness", if I am ever driving down the road and see my ex husband crossing the street I should be allowed to gun it and run his sorry *** over. Hey, he chooses not to pay his child support. It is only FAIR that I be allowed to take whatever action is necessary to insure my children's best interests are being taken care of. If I run him over and he dies, the children will receive a substantial sum from the life insurance and a social security check EVERY month until they are adults. PERSONALLY, I think that's fair, as I'm sure MANY others do. But that is NOT an excuse for me to break the law.

While you have stated your PERSONAL OPINION, unlike some other members, you are NOT condoning the actions taken by those breaking the law or worse yet, ENCOURAGING anyone to break the law because of your PERSONAL views.

Those that my comments were directed at are doing just that and ONLY that. The members in question have NEVER offered a SINGLE piece of ACTUAL ADVICE based on what the LAW allows. Their sole purpose for being here is to inflame other people, incite arguments and attempt to pass information that is not only untrue, but that has NO legal merit off as FACT, when in reality, it is merely their OPINION. All it takes is ONE person, that does not know any better, following the "advice" they give to cause SERIOUS problems.

In my OPINION, those individuals should have their memberships revoked and their IP addresses banned so that they cannot continue their personal agendas HERE. That is not the purpose of this site.

i agree with barbie and KAW1962 if we want change it has to start somewhere why not here?
Because there are websites specifically designed for the purpose of thrying to affect changes in the law. THIS is not one of them. THIS site is designed for individuals that have specific legal issues to deal with, can ask questions about how to deal with those issues in the PROPER LEGAL manner and to find out what the LEGAL process involves in order to resolve their LEGAL issue through the PROPER LEGAL channels.

You can sit at home and b*tch about the law all you want. But you can NEVER even attempt to make changes without actually DOING SOMETHING. The only thing being accomplished by complaining on THIS forum is that people with REAL problems aren't getting the help they are asking for because certain individuals would rather distract from the matter at hand for the sole purpose of being a pain in the ***.

Go through the posting histories of those "claiming" they want to change unfair laws. You will see that they have no interest in making anything FAIR. Their only interest is getting a better deal for THEMSELVES, no matter how unfair it is to anyone else, including innocent children that never asked to have a deadbeat jackass for a parent.

The people who made the child are responsible for it's support!!!!!!!
Just because there are "evil men and women" in and out of the system, does not change that fact!!! If that were the case, then every slave forced to breed, you know what i am refering to, should have never looked at themselves as family. The problem with the management of the system internally is " money", Trust me , with that much money operating, the issues concerning you and me are left up to people like you and me to decide. Legislators only see lobbyist, which you can become one if you have "money" or backing. Just think how the system would be if some of you were the deciding factors. I suspect that the bottom line would eventually be the same as it is now. Changing parental responsibility is a different matter and law code. If this were a forum for debate, i would indulge. To the men getting shafted, nothing will change until someone goes against the grain. Barbie seems to be a good pioneer to plow it. Start at the top, not the bottom! This forum is the bottom. There are avocates every where, but the ones being heard are at the top!

Knot you make many good points. People came here, and still come here, in search of freedom and opportunity. There are many people who come here and work hard to earn a living and support their families. Many are successful. Sure we have problems but the USA is still the best place to live. If anyone doubts that, just take a look at how many people try to get in versus how many people try to leave this country. Before the welfare system came into existence, the poor and indigent were cared for and provided for through the churches. And people gave generously because they felt an obligation for their fellow man. Nowadays people resent the notion that the government can come in and seize their hard earned dollars just to turn around and hand it out to those who are non-productive. And the non-productive keep taking and taking. I don't have any problems lending aid to those who are down on their luck through no fault of their own, because everyone at some point may need the assistance, but many have turned it into a way of life. I know they aren't living in the lap of luxury, but still, it was only intended to be temporary. There are many opportunities for people to better themselves but it begins with that person--they need to take responsibility for themselves if they are ever going to improve their lot in life. Too many people have no sense of self-responsibility and go through life relying on everyone else to pay their way.

The child support system is going to be a tough cookie to fix. I believe the child support system was designed with very noble intentions, but we still have a long way to go before it is perfected. The changes that took place in this country over the past 40 years has been amazing. Some were changes for the better, but some were also detrimental to the family. Just look at what has transpired from the late 1960's to early 1970's alone. We came into an era of free love, an "if it feels good do it" mentality and look has what happened: the explosion of drug and alcohol use, promiscuity, an increase of out of wedlock births, the legalization of abortion, latch-key kids, teenage crime rate is up, and respect for authority is down. Parents either can't or won't discipline their kids, teachers certainly can't do it, and the schools are turning out illiterate children at record numbers. Did you see what is happening in Las Vegas recently, where swarms of teens are going around beating the living daylights out of people for no reason? Fathers either don't care or are pushed out of the childrens' lives and now the mothers can't control them. If some of these kids ar ever going to make it, they need the involvement of both parents. It takes more than just money to raise kids to be respectful and respectable adults. Legislating dads to provide financial support is not the only answer. There are many fathers out there who have visitation with their kids interfered with by the mothers, yet child support and visitation are "two separate issues." Why does it have to be that way? If some mothers stopped interfering with visitation when there is no good reason to, how much you want to bet that more fathers would start paying their support? And before some of you jump down my throat for that statement, let me clarify that by saying that I am well aware that there are truly deadbeat parents, both male and female, but there are also a lot of vindictive people out there that jerk the other parent around out of spite. The ones who truly suffer are the kids. It just seems like the fathers are the ones who get the biggest "bad rap" in this world.

Perhaps if God wasn't being systematically pushed out of every corner of our lives and people went back to observing good moral values, we wouldn't have the problems we are now facing. There will always be bad apples, but they should be the extreme minority. I don't have all the answers, and when you sit down and think about it, it gets very overwhelming and you just don't know where to start. Maybe if we all started in our own little corners of the world, it would grown from there. WOW! that hurt my eyes. As they say " the truth hurts". although i do agree with you.

I'm only here cutting my chops. I'll take it elsewhere when I'm better prepared. The truth is I never knew I was such an advocate until these women pushed me to it. It's true that legally the people who are responsible for creating the child are responsible for supporting it. That alone causes more problems than anyone can see right away. It's perfectly legal for a woman to agree to the termination of rights or even the lowering of support payments. What's keeping that from happening? Why can't the parties involved compromise for what's best for everyone? You can't force someone to be a parent. You also can't force them not to be. It's all a matter of choices and these choices need to be respected by all parties involved and the courts. Moral of the story: If a man doesn't want to be the father of you child, don't force him. If you are too poor to raise the child on your own, don't have it or give it up. The problem with that is women are emotional creaters acting on impulse. They just can't seem to let anything go.....
You are not an advocate, you are an idiotic child trying to inject yourself into a grown up situation, all because your boyfrienfd concieved a child with another woman. You can't stand the mental pictures and have decided to "campaign" in order to garner support for an unsupportable stance.

According to the LAW, when he CONSENTUALLY had sex, he took implied responsibility for anything that may have resulted from the consentual sex act. In this case, it means he agreed to take responsibility for the child simply by having sex with the woman that had his child.

Like it or not, that is the CORRECT LEGAL REPLY.
She has stated before that sex is just for fun. Animals have sex to procreate, but humans are much more evolved. She desperately refuses to face the facts of human reproduction, in hopes of denying the fact hat her boyfriend had any idea that the other woman MIGHT be at risk for pregnancy. No matter how many times you try to present the facts to her, she just closes her eyes and ears and shouts, "I can't hear you!".

She has stated before that sex is just for fun. Animals have sex to procreate, but humans are much more evolved. She desperately refuses to face the facts of human reproduction, in hopes of denying the fact hat her boyfriend had any idea that the other woman MIGHT be at risk for pregnancy. No matter how many times you try to present the facts to her, she just closes her eyes and ears and shouts, "I can't hear you!".

I haven't replied for her benefit. If I did, I would encourage her to keep doing what she's doing, sit back and watch it all blow up in her face. The only reason to reply to her BS is to inform OTHERS who may not know that following her game plan will land their *** in jail.

:mad: It's funny how a woman can give a child up to adoption and not pay support but a man cannot turn away from one without paying. That's bull crap!!! Women want equal rights only when it benefit their cause. :mad: barbie i think i love your brain I dont think that you are like these other women on here; ceara, mommy4!!!!

If another man adopts the child, the bio dad no longer has to pay support. If a child is taken away and place in the states custody or foster care, BOTH parents have to pay child support to the state to reimburse the taxpayer money used to support the child.

Thank you for the compliment, I would really very disgusted if anyone ever compared me to someone like barbie. She gives all women a bad name.

:mad: It's funny how a woman can give a child up to adoption and not pay support but a man cannot turn away from one without paying. That's bull crap!!! Women want equal rights only when it benefit their cause. :mad: barbie i think i love your brain I dont think that you are like these other women on here; ceara, mommy4!!!!


Of course all the men are going to agree with barbie! Who knows! Maybe BARBIE is really a man! Now that would make more sense!

When you "MALE SPERM DONORS" can carry a child, give birth, (live through it) and have one little persons life dependent on you, then, YES by all means, have a decision in the process! When a woman gives birth, the child is automactically her responsibility from the get go whether the father wants to hang around or not!

However, as you mature, you learn that if you play, you pay! Everyone knows the repricussions of sex, and still take a chance. So, when "accidents" happen, they have no one to blame but themselves since they took that chance. So they need to be held accountable for their actions. If the man doesnt want the child, he can choose to not see it and still pay child support, HOWEVER, so can a woman! And they do it everyday! AND MEN STILL HAVE FIRST PRIORITY TO TAKE A CHILD A WOMAN DOES NOT WANT, WHO CHOOSES ADOPTION. So that equality crap dont fly with me. And having an abortion is not morally correct in my opinion, but THATS A WHOLE OTHER THREAD. And has nothing to do with the fact that BOTH men and women are responsible for procreation in this world, and both ARE held accountable for that child. That will never change. No matter how many deadbeat dads there are in this world. Mothers have to live with suffering through a tough decision as adoption or abortion. But some men are so self centered that they dont realize that. They act like its just throwing out the trash. When you have a living person inside you for 9mths, it kinda changes things dont it!

GOOD GRIEF! NO WONDER MEN CANT HAVE BABIES!

:mad: It's funny how a woman can give a child up to adoption and not pay support but a man cannot turn away from one without paying. That's bull crap!!! Women want equal rights only when it benefit their cause. :mad: barbie i think i love your brain I dont think that you are like these other women on here; ceara, mommy4!!!!
Well, how sweet. That was so nice of you to tell others that you don't think that I am like barbie. Look, if you want "equatlity", how about you figure out a way to get pregnant, carry a child for 9 months, give birth to the child, nurse the child and be 100% responsible for the child when the father takes barbies advice and runs and hides. THEN we can talk about equality.

Not to mention, that while you are complaining about being ordered to pay support, you failed to mention how much women lose, in terms of earning potential, when they have a child, whether the child was planned or not. Of course, this a completely different topic, so I won't go on about that.

In the end, in most cases, it comes out as close to fair as can be expected.

Why is it that women can have consequence free sex and men can't? Everyone's answer is not have sex if you don't want children. I know a woman that goes thru abortions like candy. Who's stopping her from having all the sex she wants without paying the consequences?

TRUST ME, SHE'S PAYING THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!

[quote] I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shall bring forth children, and thy desire shall be unto thy husband and he shall rule over thee [ unquote]. Now, whether you believe this or not. The fact is, child birth is painful and yes, the man should highly consider this fact. But if he chooses not to, the woman has no right to charge him with a personal debt! The man did not create the womans body. maybe god did, but surely not man! Now, the child. The sperm came from the man, the baby came from the sperm. How can your boyfriend,with a clear conscious deny that? even you barbie, being a biology major, must admit the bond. If that process is natural, then it is un-natural to deny the birth. Holla back shorty!!!!

If the grand-mother has the child and the mother is not providing for the child why is she not paying child support to? I would call or write (I think you have to do it in writing instead of calling) and tell them that the mother doesn't have the child and you want your case to be reviewed and tell them that you want to give up your rights, instead of building up more cs, you will only pay back what you owe, and if the mother did get a check from the state you will have to pay them, if not she can have it dropped if she would.

I am going to state this only once! I truly believe men and women should be equal, hence, I am female and do not believe is spousal support or that women should get more support than men...

On the topic of abortion though, everyone I know who seems to be "Pro" on the topic was already born. So... Do they really have the right to strip that right from another living being when it was never taken from them?

Did any of you realize you are starting up a thread that was over and done with in April 2006?

Can we please stick to current topics?

If the ending discussion had anything to do with the original post I would agree with you. However, since it disintegrated into a moral / ethical discussion of an off topic subject not part of what was originally asked, and that was the part of the discussion that the last posters including you, engaged in, then the legal issue was not being addressed and the moral topic took over. Since that discussion centered on a non legal issue and not the original posting, reopening the old thread offered little litigious merit. Since the purpose of this board is to offer legal help, moral arguments cause the threads to become bogged down in useless personal opinion.

As most all of us know, what is morally right is not always what is legally right. Therefore, asking to keep this board "clutter" free is my business and it should be the business and responsibility of all those who care about the direction the board takes by asking that these types of "blogging" incidents do not occur.

Reopening old threads for this type of discussion also distracts posters away from the newer threads where people need assistance now. They need advice / assistance with a problem that is current for them. Constant posting from those who only like to read their own words such as yourself diminishes the very purpose of this board. To help people with their questions now, rather than find them sometime next week when the hearing has already happened.

As asked of you before, if you feel that your views are not adequately addressed, please start your own thread on that particular topic and go from there.

Please feel free NOT to respond.

Perhaps you didn't comprehend. You need not respond. I don't care.

Perhaps you didn't comprehend... I have no use nor respect for someone who chastises another for making a reasonable post.

Great. Now I know I'll lose sleep for years on end because I have lost your respect. What ever shall I do?! My life is over. Oh the travesty. Oh the injustice. Cut down in my prime by an idiot. (I have no doubt you will be unable to resist responding.)


Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah......I stole your word......Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah:p

You are an idiot.

OH, Jimbo, she just asked you to start another thread, and not high jack this one, was that so unreasonable?

He is being reported. Hopefully soon, the powers that be will ban him. (as we all know, that ain't the Queen of England).:)

Yes... that was unreasonable.

Why, just curious?

He is being reported. Hopefully soon, the powers that be will ban him. (as we all know, that ain't the Queen of England).:)

So far, I have seen nothing said from a moderator, on what is ok, and not ok, I am pretty dissapointed. Sheesh, I feel like I can't spell this morning!

Because she has no more rights to dictate the content of my (or anyone else's) posts as long as we are being civil and reasonable. If she doesn't like the fact that thread replied to was "old" or that the topic strayed from the original topic, then she can simply not view the thread. She is not a Moderator, the Owner nor the Original Poster. Therefore, I would submit that her whinning about the thread being hijacked was a hijacking in itself.

A select few posters on this site have become the self-proclaimed post-police. However, I do not recognize their authority or legitimacy as they have none.

Now, to turn your question around, other posters and I would simply ask that we be allowed to post without censorship or personal attacks (which are quite different from a simple differing opinion). Is that so unreasonable?

Jimbo
You are not civil. You are not reasonable. Your big contribution, so far, is to feign insult when you are disagreed with, call people names, continually post to dead threads after being repeatedly asked not to, (and now searching OUT threads to start arguments), and general rudeness, childishness, incorrect information, useless advice, and a general waste of time and energy. I fully believe you have created a rich fantasy life and are simply trying to get anyone to believe you. The more you post, the more pitiful you become. Now, whether you like the fact that I and many, many others have asked you to stop is beside the point. You do NOT have protection of freedom of speech (unless you think this is a government owned website) and you CAN be silenced. Stop. Grow up and/or get help. You are as bad as Kelly.

Yes, it is unreasonable when you have proven that you cannot conduct yourself with the restraint and maturity of my 2 year old child.

Because she has no more rights to dictate the content of my (or anyone else's) posts as long as we are being civil and reasonable. If she doesn't like the fact that thread replied to was "old" or that the topic strayed from the original topic, then she can simply not view the thread. She is not a Moderator, the Owner nor the Original Poster. Therefore, I would submit that her whinning about the thread being hijacked was a hijacking in itself.

A select few posters on this site have become the self-proclaimed post-police. However, I do not recognize their authority or legitimacy as they have none.

Now, to turn your question around, other posters and I would simply ask that we be allowed to post without censorship or personal attacks (which are quite different from a simple differing opinion). Is that so unreasonable?

Jimbo

In response to your question, no that is not unreasonable at all, I will not say anything, unless, it is a legal fact, that will show that the advice given, could in fact legally hurt the poster, in the long run, if they take that advice. I will not slam you anymore, nor will I respond, as I have in the past, I am past that. With that said, can you please leave the b1tch word out of it? If you look at a moderators posts (like cbg), you will see that even she has requested in the past, to start your own thread, not use someone elses, and also, not to reopen long unused threads. I am not a moderator, boss, or owner, just simply asking you, out of courtesy, to please respect my request, to respect the moderators, by not doing so. I am sorry, that no moderator, has been around to repeat, what they have requested in the past. It is surely up to you, but I am asking kindly anyhow! :)

With all due respect (and I appreciate the respectful tone of your post), that is why there is the little triangle with the "!" in the upper right hand corner. If I, or anyone else, am posting improperly, then a PM or a report to the moderator is warranted. However, making personal attacks against me and others is NOT the appropriate way to handle the situation.

Jimbo
Already taking care of it, J.R. (J.R. is so much more dignified than Jim Bo and I want to show you all the respect I have for your opinions and advice.)

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_3_16.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxmk869DUUS)

And for the record...nobody was EVER disrespectful to your son. Just because you have a warped sense of perception and are bound and determined to find offense wherever you can, that does not make any of responsible for any slight or insult you percieve. Grow up and realize that none of us give a flying fig about your personal relationship, or lack there of, with your son.

With all due respect (and I appreciate the respectful tone of your post), that is why there is the little triangle with the "!" in the upper right hand corner. If I, or anyone else, am posting improperly, then a PM or a report to the moderator is warranted. However, making personal attacks against me and others is NOT the appropriate way to handle the situation.

And, BTW... I used the B1tch word only once after Momofboys was insulting to my son.

Jimbo

Understood, but I did not want to go that route, I just wanted to civily (darn can't spell today), ask you to stop, without an attack, and see if you would. I am the same way at work, I do not go to the boss, everytime I feel there is a problem, I go to the person, and have a respectful talk. Once again, it is your choice, I just wanted to know if you would do it because I asked nicely, not because anyone forced you to. You are right about making personal attacks, is not the way to handle it, so I guess I wanted to show others, that if you ask nicely, you would comply. Thanks for your respectful response. Sorry someone insulted your son.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_3_16.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxmk869DUUS)







Awww, is that for me because you missed me while I was gone lol! I missed you mommyof4!

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_6_31.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxmk869DUUS) That's for you, Turbo. Welcome back.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_6_31.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxmk869DUUS) That's for you, Turbo. Welcome back.





Thank you honey, my husband is doing better since back surgery, but he is not going to be able to return to his line of work (concrete finisher), but he is going to try to see if workers comp will pay for him to get a liscense, to inspect construction sites, since he knows what has to be done to pass anyhow lol! Cush job, and no more disk ruptures, that would be nice!

Awww, is that for me because you missed me while I was gone lol! I missed you mommyof4!

Welcome Back! I don't have any cool wiggly icons to send over though...

Welcome Back! I don't have any cool wiggly icons to send over though...

Tee Hee, that is ok, it is just soooo good to hear from all of you, and your welcome back, is just as cool!!!

Welcome Back!!!!! Glad things seem to be better to your honey!:)

Welcome Back!!!!! Glad things seem to be better to your honey!:)

Thank you sooooo much, I truely hated to see him in so much pain! I could not even sleep in the same bed with him, cuz I would accidentaly move wrong.

You are an idiot.

A stunningly brilliant (and oh so very original) reply.

SSShhhhhhh.....guys.....did you see something?

Naw, probably just another fart in the wind. Never mind.

Here is another:

You are an idiot.

I am incredibly underwhelmed by your show of massive capacity for mental gymnastics.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/F/0/181p.gif (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/talking_preview.jhtml?i=F/0/181&partner=ZSzeb075_ZNxmk869DUUS)http://imgfarm.com/images/smileycentral/imbuddy/hear_me_talk.gif (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/talking_preview.jhtml?i=F/0/181&partner=ZNxmk869DUUS)

Sigh...you are no fun, anymore. I guess we'll have to find new friends. I just don't think we have anything left to offer to our relationship.

I see that when jack torgery or myself or anyone else continues an old thread or is off topic, the post-police are quick to demand that we stay on topic and only on current posts. So, how is it that Mommyof4 (one of the self-proclaimed post-police) and others are ok to carry on this "love fest" over the past half dozen or so posts?

To be clear, I have no problem with the posts I refer to, I merely point out the inequities from the post-police.

Jimbo

No love fest, just friends saying welcome back, I would do the same for you, if you left after being on for a long time, and came back. Glad you did not have a problem with it!:) I will say, what I have not said yet, and that is welcome to laborlawtalk!

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_12_22.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxmk869DUUS)

Quick, can anybody reach the turntable???...give it a good whack! I think the record is scratched.

Thank you Turbo... as I said, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the above series of posts.

However, if you apply the standards of the "post-police", you would be deminishing the importance of the OP's issues and deminishing his capacity to find the legal assistance he needs. While this "standard" is ridiculous... the hypocracy of it is sickening.

The dictionary is your friend. Make peace with spelling. It will stand you in good stead.

As I am capable of thinking of multiple synonyms for your phrase du jour, I am pretty confident that your evaluation of my intelligence has no relevance, basis of fact, or validity. As you have called EVERYBODY that points out your inaccuracies an "idiot" it is really hard for me to feel special. I need a cookie. Maybe that will cheer me up. My heart is now broken.

I only called those who deserve it and idiot.

You are an idiot.
You love me, don't you? I can tell. Oh, all right...I'll be your friend. But, FRIENDS only...

Must control hand, must stop fingers from typing.... OK, I can't take it anymore!!! When is the wedding?

He's mine!!!! You can't have him!!!!

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_10_9.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxmk869DUUS) When pigs fly.... oh, wait, I hope mommyof4 doesn't have wings?

I know I said I wouldn't do it...but I have one last immature salvo...

No, darling, I shoved them up your snout the minute you told me that we would have to wed due to my aviation ability. I always knew you wanted me for my wings!!! We can just continue to live in sin. Oink...

He's mine!!!! You can't have him!!!!

How about we just split him...would you prefer ham, pork chops, pork loin, bacon, or chittlins? There's plenty of him to go around.

OOH tough choices.........can we just split them all and toss the chitterlings?

OOH tough choices.........can we just split them all and toss the chitterlings?
Yeah...chittlins are like gizzards...definitely an acquired taste. I guess we can give them to the dogs....nah, that's just cruel. We don't need PETA all over us.

(On a different note...you can tell I am from the South and you are from the Midwest by our reference to the same thing, but different lingo. And WTH happened to Michigan yesterday? So far, y'all got Wisconsin as your win for the Big 10. Go Bucks!)

Yup, although originally from Virginia, raised in the midwest. AND no matter what ya put on 'em, even if all you can taste is the hot sauce, it's hard to forget what they are!!:eek:

Michigan completely fell apart. Perhaps the after effect of being stomped by the Bucks!!:p