What can we do about it?

Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
is actually worsening the position of children.

It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
time comes for action.

RogerN

2009-07-26 20:10:30 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even have
to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.

It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed for
not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be outraged
at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the dead beat dad
stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum has swung to the
opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying child support) where
is the news media to report on it?

I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used to
jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't have
enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so they blindly
apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to be to interpret
and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the letter of the law
and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who made the laws. Who would
have ever thought you don't have to even be a dad to be a dead beat dad?

RogerN

Dusty

2009-07-26 23:30:08 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even have
to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed for
not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum has
swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying child
support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so they
blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to be to
interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the letter
of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who made the
laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a dad to be a
dead beat dad?

Part of the problem is that in many states/counties, the job of judge is a
political one and is either appointed to the position or you have to run for
the office. Either way, it is fraught with political grandstanding and
favoritism.

For instance, did you know that, aside from the Fraternal Order of Police,
most political groups that regularly support any given judge's
election/reelection are pro-feminist in nearly every instance?

Another part is the bias inherent in each and every person. I don't give a
hoot in hell what they may claim, all people have some level of bias and an
opinion on it, and that bias is part of who they are, it shapes their
decision making process each and every time they must make any decision.
And that is key to the problem - bias inherent in the legal system, in
particular, the so-called family court system.

The family court system is very heavily biased, just look at the wording of
the laws that it enforces. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, most any domestic
violence law(s), and a host of others are all very anti-male and anti-family
in nature. And if you think that's bad, it doesn't stop with the legal
system, if you need food stamps or any form of public assistance, for no
mater how short a period, the state wants to know everything about your
family life. That way, if you're a single or divorced mother the state can
go after your X for reimbursing it the money that they shelled out to the
mother.

I cannot say I've ever heard of even a single case where, if the person was
male, that the state went after the NCP mother for reimbursement, but I
suppose it could happen, too.

False chivalry, personal bias and radical influences upon the legal system
have turned it into a quagmire for men and boys. All that's required is a
finger to be pointed, the papers filed, and the machine of enforcement
springs to life to crush another hapless soul.

Little, if any proof is ever required to substantiate the claim that anyone
(let's be honest, women rarely have this befall them, it is mostly men that
face this horror and because of the MSM's portrayal of the stereotypical
deadbeat father, they often times face this monster alone, without any help
or support for the kind of warfare they are about to find themselves trapped
in) is anyone else's parent.

Once it is done, it is very, very rarely ever undone thanks to one simple,
yet powerful phrase that nearly every judge, politian, lawyer, has had
ram-rodded down their collective throats by a media that bandies it about
like a club.. "..best interest of the child.." It is that very phrase and
that alone which will put the fear of almighty God into every judge and
politian for miles. It is a political third rail the likes of which have
probably never been seen in recorded history.

It's the shield that every one with an agenda, from rad-fems to political
grandstanders, will hide behind whenever someone, anyone, questions the
status-quo.

That is how childless men are jailed for non-support of children that are
not theirs. That is how DNA is not allowed to prove one's innocence in a
default support case.

Because of that one phrase, men have become slaves, beholden to any woman
that has a mind to own them and the state will gladly give it's blessing and
hunt them down and toss them in jail for years if they don't roll over and
take it.

Chris

2009-07-29 12:42:53 UTC

Post by Dusty

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even have
to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed for
not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum has
swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying child
support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so they
blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to be to
interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the letter
of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who made the
laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a dad to be
a dead beat dad?

Part of the problem is that in many states/counties, the job of judge is a
political one and is either appointed to the position or you have to run
for the office. Either way, it is fraught with political grandstanding
and favoritism.
For instance, did you know that, aside from the Fraternal Order of Police,
most political groups that regularly support any given judge's
election/reelection are pro-feminist in nearly every instance?
Another part is the bias inherent in each and every person. I don't give
a hoot in hell what they may claim, all people have some level of bias and
an opinion on it, and that bias is part of who they are, it shapes their
decision making process each and every time they must make any decision.
And that is key to the problem - bias inherent in the legal system, in
particular, the so-called family court system.
The family court system is very heavily biased, just look at the wording
of the laws that it enforces. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, most any
domestic violence law(s), and a host of others are all very anti-male and
anti-family in nature. And if you think that's bad, it doesn't stop with
the legal system, if you need food stamps or any form of public
assistance, for no mater how short a period, the state wants to know
everything about your family life. That way, if you're a single or
divorced mother the state can go after your X for reimbursing it the money
that they shelled out to the mother.
I cannot say I've ever heard of even a single case where, if the person
was male, that the state went after the NCP mother for reimbursement, but
I suppose it could happen, too.
False chivalry, personal bias and radical influences upon the legal system
have turned it into a quagmire for men and boys. All that's required is a
finger to be pointed, the papers filed, and the machine of enforcement
springs to life to crush another hapless soul.
Little, if any proof is ever required to substantiate the claim that
anyone (let's be honest, women rarely have this befall them, it is mostly
men that face this horror and because of the MSM's portrayal of the
stereotypical deadbeat father, they often times face this monster alone,
without any help or support for the kind of warfare they are about to find
themselves trapped in) is anyone else's parent.
Once it is done, it is very, very rarely ever undone thanks to one simple,
yet powerful phrase that nearly every judge, politian, lawyer, has had
ram-rodded down their collective throats by a media that bandies it about
like a club.. "..best interest of the child.." It is that very phrase and
that alone which will put the fear of almighty God into every judge and
politian for miles. It is a political third rail the likes of which have
probably never been seen in recorded history.
It's the shield that every one with an agenda, from rad-fems to political
grandstanders, will hide behind whenever someone, anyone, questions the
status-quo.
That is how childless men are jailed for non-support of children that are
not theirs. That is how DNA is not allowed to prove one's innocence in a
default support case.

My question is: if DNA is unnecessary to find the man guilty, then why use
it in the FIRST place?

Post by Dusty
Because of that one phrase, men have become slaves, beholden to any woman
that has a mind to own them and the state will gladly give it's blessing
and hunt them down and toss them in jail for years if they don't roll over
and take it.

Dusty

2009-07-29 14:57:55 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even
have to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed
for not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum
has swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying
child support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so
they blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to
be to interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the
letter of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who
made the laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a
dad to be a dead beat dad?

Part of the problem is that in many states/counties, the job of judge is
a political one and is either appointed to the position or you have to
run for the office. Either way, it is fraught with political
grandstanding and favoritism.
For instance, did you know that, aside from the Fraternal Order of
Police, most political groups that regularly support any given judge's
election/reelection are pro-feminist in nearly every instance?
Another part is the bias inherent in each and every person. I don't give
a hoot in hell what they may claim, all people have some level of bias
and an opinion on it, and that bias is part of who they are, it shapes
their decision making process each and every time they must make any
decision. And that is key to the problem - bias inherent in the legal
system, in particular, the so-called family court system.
The family court system is very heavily biased, just look at the wording
of the laws that it enforces. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, most any
domestic violence law(s), and a host of others are all very anti-male and
anti-family in nature. And if you think that's bad, it doesn't stop with
the legal system, if you need food stamps or any form of public
assistance, for no mater how short a period, the state wants to know
everything about your family life. That way, if you're a single or
divorced mother the state can go after your X for reimbursing it the
money that they shelled out to the mother.
I cannot say I've ever heard of even a single case where, if the person
was male, that the state went after the NCP mother for reimbursement, but
I suppose it could happen, too.
False chivalry, personal bias and radical influences upon the legal
system have turned it into a quagmire for men and boys. All that's
required is a finger to be pointed, the papers filed, and the machine of
enforcement springs to life to crush another hapless soul.
Little, if any proof is ever required to substantiate the claim that
anyone (let's be honest, women rarely have this befall them, it is mostly
men that face this horror and because of the MSM's portrayal of the
stereotypical deadbeat father, they often times face this monster alone,
without any help or support for the kind of warfare they are about to
find themselves trapped in) is anyone else's parent.
Once it is done, it is very, very rarely ever undone thanks to one
simple, yet powerful phrase that nearly every judge, politian, lawyer,
has had ram-rodded down their collective throats by a media that bandies
it about like a club.. "..best interest of the child.." It is that very
phrase and that alone which will put the fear of almighty God into every
judge and politian for miles. It is a political third rail the likes of
which have probably never been seen in recorded history.
It's the shield that every one with an agenda, from rad-fems to political
grandstanders, will hide behind whenever someone, anyone, questions the
status-quo.
That is how childless men are jailed for non-support of children that are
not theirs. That is how DNA is not allowed to prove one's innocence in a
default support case.

My question is: if DNA is unnecessary to find the man guilty, then why use
it in the FIRST place?

Well, I can only give you my opinion on it, as I'm not an attorney nor
profess to know all (unlike a certain other person whose name begins with
X).

It's my belief that the use of DNA in criminal cases, where the rules of
evidence are much higher then in other courts, is a prime reason to use it.
Then again, the reverse is also true, as is evident in "family" court cases
where a man can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt to not be the parent
of a child he has been ordered to pay support for, yet be ordered to
continue paying no matter what. It is there that the so-called "best
interest of the child" comes into play.

The court, in having nowhere else to turn, will do all it can to maintain
the status quo for the "best interests of the child", even though it knows
the truth is very different. It shall do so even if the biological father
is known to the court. It makes no sense what so ever to do so, yet courts
do it often and without fear of reprisal.

Phil #3

2009-07-30 13:45:51 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even
have to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed
for not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum
has swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying
child support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so
they blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to
be to interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the
letter of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who
made the laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a
dad to be a dead beat dad?

Part of the problem is that in many states/counties, the job of judge is
a political one and is either appointed to the position or you have to
run for the office. Either way, it is fraught with political
grandstanding and favoritism.
For instance, did you know that, aside from the Fraternal Order of
Police, most political groups that regularly support any given judge's
election/reelection are pro-feminist in nearly every instance?
Another part is the bias inherent in each and every person. I don't give
a hoot in hell what they may claim, all people have some level of bias
and an opinion on it, and that bias is part of who they are, it shapes
their decision making process each and every time they must make any
decision. And that is key to the problem - bias inherent in the legal
system, in particular, the so-called family court system.
The family court system is very heavily biased, just look at the wording
of the laws that it enforces. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, most any
domestic violence law(s), and a host of others are all very anti-male and
anti-family in nature. And if you think that's bad, it doesn't stop with
the legal system, if you need food stamps or any form of public
assistance, for no mater how short a period, the state wants to know
everything about your family life. That way, if you're a single or
divorced mother the state can go after your X for reimbursing it the
money that they shelled out to the mother.
I cannot say I've ever heard of even a single case where, if the person
was male, that the state went after the NCP mother for reimbursement, but
I suppose it could happen, too.
False chivalry, personal bias and radical influences upon the legal
system have turned it into a quagmire for men and boys. All that's
required is a finger to be pointed, the papers filed, and the machine of
enforcement springs to life to crush another hapless soul.
Little, if any proof is ever required to substantiate the claim that
anyone (let's be honest, women rarely have this befall them, it is mostly
men that face this horror and because of the MSM's portrayal of the
stereotypical deadbeat father, they often times face this monster alone,
without any help or support for the kind of warfare they are about to
find themselves trapped in) is anyone else's parent.
Once it is done, it is very, very rarely ever undone thanks to one
simple, yet powerful phrase that nearly every judge, politian, lawyer,
has had ram-rodded down their collective throats by a media that bandies
it about like a club.. "..best interest of the child.." It is that very
phrase and that alone which will put the fear of almighty God into every
judge and politian for miles. It is a political third rail the likes of
which have probably never been seen in recorded history.
It's the shield that every one with an agenda, from rad-fems to political
grandstanders, will hide behind whenever someone, anyone, questions the
status-quo.
That is how childless men are jailed for non-support of children that are
not theirs. That is how DNA is not allowed to prove one's innocence in a
default support case.

My question is: if DNA is unnecessary to find the man guilty, then why use
it in the FIRST place?

To give the air of infalibility to the courts and DHS. When they can prove
to an almost certainty that subject A is the father of a child in 10 cases,
the public perception then becomes that any claims made by them are just as
certain, even in cases where a man who has never met the mother and the
mother backs up that claim is still ordered to pay child support to her. One
case of this happened last fall in Oklahoma. The mother was on welfare
(surprise) and gave the name to DHS who found a man of the same race with
the same name (Michael Thomas). DHS demanded payment even thought the mother
(as well as Thomas) told DHS it was the wrong man.
(http://newsok.com/in-trouble-because-of-his-namebrspan-classhl2dhs-paternity-goof-is-haunting-this-manspan/article/3281266/)
Another is a man in Georgia that spent two years in jail for failing to pay
child support for the child of another man.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20090716_13_0_ADELGa686980)
and was finally released after proving (two times over 9 years) that he was
not the father. Still, he was ordered to repay $16,000 to DHS.

Phil #3

Kenneth S.

2009-07-30 16:25:01 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even
have to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed
for not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum
has swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying
child support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so
they blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to
be to interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the
letter of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who
made the laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a
dad to be a dead beat dad?

Part of the problem is that in many states/counties, the job of judge is
a political one and is either appointed to the position or you have to
run for the office. Either way, it is fraught with political
grandstanding and favoritism.
For instance, did you know that, aside from the Fraternal Order of
Police, most political groups that regularly support any given judge's
election/reelection are pro-feminist in nearly every instance?
Another part is the bias inherent in each and every person. I don't give
a hoot in hell what they may claim, all people have some level of bias
and an opinion on it, and that bias is part of who they are, it shapes
their decision making process each and every time they must make any
decision. And that is key to the problem - bias inherent in the legal
system, in particular, the so-called family court system.
The family court system is very heavily biased, just look at the wording
of the laws that it enforces. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, most any
domestic violence law(s), and a host of others are all very anti-male and
anti-family in nature. And if you think that's bad, it doesn't stop with
the legal system, if you need food stamps or any form of public
assistance, for no mater how short a period, the state wants to know
everything about your family life. That way, if you're a single or
divorced mother the state can go after your X for reimbursing it the
money that they shelled out to the mother.
I cannot say I've ever heard of even a single case where, if the person
was male, that the state went after the NCP mother for reimbursement, but
I suppose it could happen, too.
False chivalry, personal bias and radical influences upon the legal
system have turned it into a quagmire for men and boys. All that's
required is a finger to be pointed, the papers filed, and the machine of
enforcement springs to life to crush another hapless soul.
Little, if any proof is ever required to substantiate the claim that
anyone (let's be honest, women rarely have this befall them, it is mostly
men that face this horror and because of the MSM's portrayal of the
stereotypical deadbeat father, they often times face this monster alone,
without any help or support for the kind of warfare they are about to
find themselves trapped in) is anyone else's parent.
Once it is done, it is very, very rarely ever undone thanks to one
simple, yet powerful phrase that nearly every judge, politian, lawyer,
has had ram-rodded down their collective throats by a media that bandies
it about like a club.. "..best interest of the child.." It is that very
phrase and that alone which will put the fear of almighty God into every
judge and politian for miles. It is a political third rail the likes of
which have probably never been seen in recorded history.
It's the shield that every one with an agenda, from rad-fems to political
grandstanders, will hide behind whenever someone, anyone, questions the
status-quo.
That is how childless men are jailed for non-support of children that are
not theirs. That is how DNA is not allowed to prove one's innocence in a
default support case.

My question is: if DNA is unnecessary to find the man guilty, then why use
it in the FIRST place?

Ask yourself what's the root cause of these cases where men
who are known not to be the fathers are being forced to pay "child
support" to the mothers.

The answer is: it's all about politics. In conflicts between
the sexes, politicians and judges invariably side with women, because
women are a politically correct special interest group that can
intimidate those making the decisions. Correspondingly, no one ever
suffers politically from discriminating against men.

The judges, and others, argue that the children should not be
deprived of their father figures, even if the men in question are
known not to be the biological fathers. That's obviously a bogus
justification. The judges (and others who use this argument) know
that forcing men to pay adulterous mothers does nothing to ensure the
continuation of these men's relationship with the children. In some
cases, it may have exactly the reverse effect.

There's a parallel situation that used to be debated in this
news group. Laws in some U.S. states say that noncustodial fathers --
although not fathers in intact families -- must pay post-majority
support for their adult children who attend college. In that context
the phony argument was that the state had an interest in the education
of young people, and children in fatherless families were at greater
risk of not being supported at college. This was a illogicality
similar to that of requiring non-fathers to pay "child support." If
the state had an interest in the education of young people, then ALL
parents -- not just divorced fathers -- would have been required to
support their adult children in college.

There's no logic to these kinds of arguments -- any more than
there's any logic to the granting of more and more post-conception
reproductive choices to women at the very same time as every effort
is made to REDUCE the post-conception reproductive choices given to
men.

This clear and obvious discrimination against men has
absolutely no justification in principle. It's the result of the
crudest type of special interest politics. It reflects the fact that
"in the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up."

If no "masculinist" organization arises to effectively
challenge this blatant discrimination, men can only make their
decisions about relationships with women in the knowledge that it's
entirely possible that they can very easily put at a major
disadvantage by the woman in question. Men must make the same kinds
of calculations that African Americans had to make at the time of the
Jim Crow laws in the U.S. Do I avoid making eye contact with that
white woman, or even cross the street to get away from her? Or the
present-day male equivalent, do I marry and have a family, knowing how
heavily the odds are stacked against me?

Phil #3

2009-07-30 18:18:12 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even
have to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice
went
to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed
for not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum
has swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying
child support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so
they blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to
be to interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the
letter of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who
made the laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a
dad to be a dead beat dad?

Part of the problem is that in many states/counties, the job of judge is
a political one and is either appointed to the position or you have to
run for the office. Either way, it is fraught with political
grandstanding and favoritism.
For instance, did you know that, aside from the Fraternal Order of
Police, most political groups that regularly support any given judge's
election/reelection are pro-feminist in nearly every instance?
Another part is the bias inherent in each and every person. I don't give
a hoot in hell what they may claim, all people have some level of bias
and an opinion on it, and that bias is part of who they are, it shapes
their decision making process each and every time they must make any
decision. And that is key to the problem - bias inherent in the legal
system, in particular, the so-called family court system.
The family court system is very heavily biased, just look at the wording
of the laws that it enforces. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, most any
domestic violence law(s), and a host of others are all very anti-male and
anti-family in nature. And if you think that's bad, it doesn't stop with
the legal system, if you need food stamps or any form of public
assistance, for no mater how short a period, the state wants to know
everything about your family life. That way, if you're a single or
divorced mother the state can go after your X for reimbursing it the
money that they shelled out to the mother.
I cannot say I've ever heard of even a single case where, if the person
was male, that the state went after the NCP mother for reimbursement, but
I suppose it could happen, too.
False chivalry, personal bias and radical influences upon the legal
system have turned it into a quagmire for men and boys. All that's
required is a finger to be pointed, the papers filed, and the machine of
enforcement springs to life to crush another hapless soul.
Little, if any proof is ever required to substantiate the claim that
anyone (let's be honest, women rarely have this befall them, it is mostly
men that face this horror and because of the MSM's portrayal of the
stereotypical deadbeat father, they often times face this monster alone,
without any help or support for the kind of warfare they are about to
find themselves trapped in) is anyone else's parent.
Once it is done, it is very, very rarely ever undone thanks to one
simple, yet powerful phrase that nearly every judge, politian, lawyer,
has had ram-rodded down their collective throats by a media that bandies
it about like a club.. "..best interest of the child.." It is that very
phrase and that alone which will put the fear of almighty God into every
judge and politian for miles. It is a political third rail the likes of
which have probably never been seen in recorded history.
It's the shield that every one with an agenda, from rad-fems to political
grandstanders, will hide behind whenever someone, anyone, questions the
status-quo.
That is how childless men are jailed for non-support of children that are
not theirs. That is how DNA is not allowed to prove one's innocence in a
default support case.

My question is: if DNA is unnecessary to find the man guilty, then why use
it in the FIRST place?

Absolutely. That is why I watch commercials and companies that make
donations to women's causes and refuse to have anything to do with companies
that in any way lend a hand to or validate the anti-male discrimination so
rampant. One consumer does nothing but it makes me feel like I'm doing
something.
I also watch candidates, even in local elections and despite what they say,
look at what they've done.

Post by Kenneth S.
The judges, and others, argue that the children should not be
deprived of their father figures, even if the men in question are
known not to be the biological fathers. That's obviously a bogus
justification. The judges (and others who use this argument) know
that forcing men to pay adulterous mothers does nothing to ensure the
continuation of these men's relationship with the children. In some
cases, it may have exactly the reverse effect.

As you say, follow the money.
Father's involvement is actually discouraged to a large extent. If being a
father or even the ludicrious "father figure" were reality, fathers would be
given at least equal consideration for custody.

Post by Kenneth S.
There's a parallel situation that used to be debated in this
news group. Laws in some U.S. states say that noncustodial fathers --
although not fathers in intact families -- must pay post-majority
support for their adult children who attend college. In that context
the phony argument was that the state had an interest in the education
of young people, and children in fatherless families were at greater
risk of not being supported at college. This was a illogicality
similar to that of requiring non-fathers to pay "child support." If
the state had an interest in the education of young people, then ALL
parents -- not just divorced fathers -- would have been required to
support their adult children in college.

That or the state would finance education through college for all since the
state ultimately profits.

Post by Kenneth S.
There's no logic to these kinds of arguments -- any more than
there's any logic to the granting of more and more post-conception
reproductive choices to women at the very same time as every effort
is made to REDUCE the post-conception reproductive choices given to
men.

Which makes the rampant sexism of government utterly obvious.

Sadly, true.

Post by Kenneth S.
If no "masculinist" organization arises to effectively
challenge this blatant discrimination, men can only make their
decisions about relationships with women in the knowledge that it's
entirely possible that they can very easily put at a major
disadvantage by the woman in question. Men must make the same kinds
of calculations that African Americans had to make at the time of the
Jim Crow laws in the U.S. Do I avoid making eye contact with that
white woman, or even cross the street to get away from her? Or the
present-day male equivalent, do I marry and have a family, knowing how
heavily the odds are stacked against me?

With the propaganda proporting "normal and successful" as being married and
having children, the numbers of men seeing the truth and refusing to marry
seems to be growing.
The problem is that the state has deep pockets (it digs into ours) to
finance it's pro-woman, anti-male positions and propaganda. What will change
will be that even more programs and incentives will come to the forefront
for women and men will be further penalized and chastized. This can only be
changed by men as a cohesieve group.
Phil #3

Chris

2009-07-31 04:55:08 UTC

Post by RogerN
Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their
child.
This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even
have to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice
went
to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed
for not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum
has swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying
child support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so
they blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to
be to interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the
letter of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who
made the laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a
dad to be a dead beat dad?

Part of the problem is that in many states/counties, the job of judge is
a political one and is either appointed to the position or you have to
run for the office. Either way, it is fraught with political
grandstanding and favoritism.
For instance, did you know that, aside from the Fraternal Order of
Police, most political groups that regularly support any given judge's
election/reelection are pro-feminist in nearly every instance?
Another part is the bias inherent in each and every person. I don't give
a hoot in hell what they may claim, all people have some level of bias
and an opinion on it, and that bias is part of who they are, it shapes
their decision making process each and every time they must make any
decision. And that is key to the problem - bias inherent in the legal
system, in particular, the so-called family court system.
The family court system is very heavily biased, just look at the wording
of the laws that it enforces. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, most any
domestic violence law(s), and a host of others are all very anti-male and
anti-family in nature. And if you think that's bad, it doesn't stop with
the legal system, if you need food stamps or any form of public
assistance, for no mater how short a period, the state wants to know
everything about your family life. That way, if you're a single or
divorced mother the state can go after your X for reimbursing it the
money that they shelled out to the mother.
I cannot say I've ever heard of even a single case where, if the person
was male, that the state went after the NCP mother for reimbursement, but
I suppose it could happen, too.
False chivalry, personal bias and radical influences upon the legal
system have turned it into a quagmire for men and boys. All that's
required is a finger to be pointed, the papers filed, and the machine of
enforcement springs to life to crush another hapless soul.
Little, if any proof is ever required to substantiate the claim that
anyone (let's be honest, women rarely have this befall them, it is mostly
men that face this horror and because of the MSM's portrayal of the
stereotypical deadbeat father, they often times face this monster alone,
without any help or support for the kind of warfare they are about to
find themselves trapped in) is anyone else's parent.
Once it is done, it is very, very rarely ever undone thanks to one
simple, yet powerful phrase that nearly every judge, politian, lawyer,
has had ram-rodded down their collective throats by a media that bandies
it about like a club.. "..best interest of the child.." It is that very
phrase and that alone which will put the fear of almighty God into every
judge and politian for miles. It is a political third rail the likes of
which have probably never been seen in recorded history.
It's the shield that every one with an agenda, from rad-fems to political
grandstanders, will hide behind whenever someone, anyone, questions the
status-quo.
That is how childless men are jailed for non-support of children that are
not theirs. That is how DNA is not allowed to prove one's innocence in a
default support case.

My question is: if DNA is unnecessary to find the man guilty, then why use
it in the FIRST place?

Absolutely. That is why I watch commercials and companies that make
donations to women's causes and refuse to have anything to do with
companies that in any way lend a hand to or validate the anti-male
discrimination so rampant. One consumer does nothing but it makes me feel
like I'm doing something.
I also watch candidates, even in local elections and despite what they
say, look at what they've done.

As you say, follow the money.
Father's involvement is actually discouraged to a large extent. If being a
father or even the ludicrious "father figure" were reality, fathers would
be given at least equal consideration for custody.

And then you get the fools who say "Be a real man/father and pay your 'child
support'".

That or the state would finance education through college for all since
the state ultimately profits.

Which makes the rampant sexism of government utterly obvious.

Sadly, true.

With the propaganda proporting "normal and successful" as being married
and having children, the numbers of men seeing the truth and refusing to
marry seems to be growing.
The problem is that the state has deep pockets (it digs into ours) to
finance it's pro-woman, anti-male positions and propaganda. What will
change will be that even more programs and incentives will come to the
forefront for women and men will be further penalized and chastized. This
can only be changed by men as a cohesieve group.

No, it can only be changed at the barrel of a gun. Since the enemy is
willing to DIE for their cause, then so must the oppressed if they want any
success in defeating this social cancer.

Post by Phil #3
Phil #3

Phil #3

2009-07-31 13:26:28 UTC

Post by RogerN
Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their
child.
This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even
have to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice
went
to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced
to
take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed
for not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum
has swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying
child support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so
they blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to
be to interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the
letter of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who
made the laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a
dad to be a dead beat dad?

Part of the problem is that in many states/counties, the job of judge is
a political one and is either appointed to the position or you have to
run for the office. Either way, it is fraught with political
grandstanding and favoritism.
For instance, did you know that, aside from the Fraternal Order of
Police, most political groups that regularly support any given judge's
election/reelection are pro-feminist in nearly every instance?
Another part is the bias inherent in each and every person. I don't give
a hoot in hell what they may claim, all people have some level of bias
and an opinion on it, and that bias is part of who they are, it shapes
their decision making process each and every time they must make any
decision. And that is key to the problem - bias inherent in the legal
system, in particular, the so-called family court system.
The family court system is very heavily biased, just look at the wording
of the laws that it enforces. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, most any
domestic violence law(s), and a host of others are all very anti-male and
anti-family in nature. And if you think that's bad, it doesn't stop with
the legal system, if you need food stamps or any form of public
assistance, for no mater how short a period, the state wants to know
everything about your family life. That way, if you're a single or
divorced mother the state can go after your X for reimbursing it the
money that they shelled out to the mother.
I cannot say I've ever heard of even a single case where, if the person
was male, that the state went after the NCP mother for reimbursement, but
I suppose it could happen, too.
False chivalry, personal bias and radical influences upon the legal
system have turned it into a quagmire for men and boys. All that's
required is a finger to be pointed, the papers filed, and the machine of
enforcement springs to life to crush another hapless soul.
Little, if any proof is ever required to substantiate the claim that
anyone (let's be honest, women rarely have this befall them, it is mostly
men that face this horror and because of the MSM's portrayal of the
stereotypical deadbeat father, they often times face this monster alone,
without any help or support for the kind of warfare they are about to
find themselves trapped in) is anyone else's parent.
Once it is done, it is very, very rarely ever undone thanks to one
simple, yet powerful phrase that nearly every judge, politian, lawyer,
has had ram-rodded down their collective throats by a media that bandies
it about like a club.. "..best interest of the child.." It is that very
phrase and that alone which will put the fear of almighty God into every
judge and politian for miles. It is a political third rail the likes of
which have probably never been seen in recorded history.
It's the shield that every one with an agenda, from rad-fems to political
grandstanders, will hide behind whenever someone, anyone, questions the
status-quo.
That is how childless men are jailed for non-support of children that are
not theirs. That is how DNA is not allowed to prove one's innocence in a
default support case.

My question is: if DNA is unnecessary to find the man guilty, then why use
it in the FIRST place?

Absolutely. That is why I watch commercials and companies that make
donations to women's causes and refuse to have anything to do with
companies that in any way lend a hand to or validate the anti-male
discrimination so rampant. One consumer does nothing but it makes me feel
like I'm doing something.
I also watch candidates, even in local elections and despite what they
say, look at what they've done.

As you say, follow the money.
Father's involvement is actually discouraged to a large extent. If being
a father or even the ludicrious "father figure" were reality, fathers
would be given at least equal consideration for custody.

And then you get the fools who say "Be a real man/father and pay your
'child support'".

That or the state would finance education through college for all since
the state ultimately profits.

Which makes the rampant sexism of government utterly obvious.

Sadly, true.

With the propaganda proporting "normal and successful" as being married
and having children, the numbers of men seeing the truth and refusing to
marry seems to be growing.
The problem is that the state has deep pockets (it digs into ours) to
finance it's pro-woman, anti-male positions and propaganda. What will
change will be that even more programs and incentives will come to the
forefront for women and men will be further penalized and chastized. This
can only be changed by men as a cohesieve group.

No, it can only be changed at the barrel of a gun. Since the enemy is
willing to DIE for their cause, then so must the oppressed if they want
any success in defeating this social cancer.

Post by Phil #3
Phil #3

But those supporting the child support industry are not willing to die to
defend it but are willing for fathers to die (figuratively and actually) to
promote such a sexist society.
If they were willing to die for it, I quite imagine they'd be willing to pay
for it as well, which they are not. Instead they demand others pay according
to their opinion of what the "best interest of the child" is, which is a
limited and sexist socialism: 'according to HER wants; according to HIS
ability'.

Phil #3

Chris

2009-07-31 15:30:57 UTC

Post by RogerN
Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their
child.
This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even
have to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice
went
to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced
to
take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about
these
laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed
for not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum
has swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying
child support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so
they blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to
be to interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the
letter of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who
made the laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a
dad to be a dead beat dad?

Part of the problem is that in many states/counties, the job of judge is
a political one and is either appointed to the position or you have to
run for the office. Either way, it is fraught with political
grandstanding and favoritism.
For instance, did you know that, aside from the Fraternal Order of
Police, most political groups that regularly support any given judge's
election/reelection are pro-feminist in nearly every instance?
Another part is the bias inherent in each and every person. I don't give
a hoot in hell what they may claim, all people have some level of bias
and an opinion on it, and that bias is part of who they are, it shapes
their decision making process each and every time they must make any
decision. And that is key to the problem - bias inherent in the legal
system, in particular, the so-called family court system.
The family court system is very heavily biased, just look at the wording
of the laws that it enforces. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, most any
domestic violence law(s), and a host of others are all very anti-male and
anti-family in nature. And if you think that's bad, it doesn't stop with
the legal system, if you need food stamps or any form of public
assistance, for no mater how short a period, the state wants to know
everything about your family life. That way, if you're a single or
divorced mother the state can go after your X for reimbursing it the
money that they shelled out to the mother.
I cannot say I've ever heard of even a single case where, if the person
was male, that the state went after the NCP mother for
reimbursement, but
I suppose it could happen, too.
False chivalry, personal bias and radical influences upon the legal
system have turned it into a quagmire for men and boys. All that's
required is a finger to be pointed, the papers filed, and the machine of
enforcement springs to life to crush another hapless soul.
Little, if any proof is ever required to substantiate the claim that
anyone (let's be honest, women rarely have this befall them, it is mostly
men that face this horror and because of the MSM's portrayal of the
stereotypical deadbeat father, they often times face this monster alone,
without any help or support for the kind of warfare they are about to
find themselves trapped in) is anyone else's parent.
Once it is done, it is very, very rarely ever undone thanks to one
simple, yet powerful phrase that nearly every judge, politian, lawyer,
has had ram-rodded down their collective throats by a media that bandies
it about like a club.. "..best interest of the child.." It is that very
phrase and that alone which will put the fear of almighty God into every
judge and politian for miles. It is a political third rail the likes of
which have probably never been seen in recorded history.
It's the shield that every one with an agenda, from rad-fems to political
grandstanders, will hide behind whenever someone, anyone, questions the
status-quo.
That is how childless men are jailed for non-support of children that are
not theirs. That is how DNA is not allowed to prove one's innocence in a
default support case.

My question is: if DNA is unnecessary to find the man guilty, then why use
it in the FIRST place?

Absolutely. That is why I watch commercials and companies that make
donations to women's causes and refuse to have anything to do with
companies that in any way lend a hand to or validate the anti-male
discrimination so rampant. One consumer does nothing but it makes me
feel like I'm doing something.
I also watch candidates, even in local elections and despite what they
say, look at what they've done.

As you say, follow the money.
Father's involvement is actually discouraged to a large extent. If being
a father or even the ludicrious "father figure" were reality, fathers
would be given at least equal consideration for custody.

And then you get the fools who say "Be a real man/father and pay your
'child support'".

That or the state would finance education through college for all since
the state ultimately profits.

Which makes the rampant sexism of government utterly obvious.

Sadly, true.

With the propaganda proporting "normal and successful" as being married
and having children, the numbers of men seeing the truth and refusing to
marry seems to be growing.
The problem is that the state has deep pockets (it digs into ours) to
finance it's pro-woman, anti-male positions and propaganda. What will
change will be that even more programs and incentives will come to the
forefront for women and men will be further penalized and chastized.
This can only be changed by men as a cohesieve group.

No, it can only be changed at the barrel of a gun. Since the enemy is
willing to DIE for their cause, then so must the oppressed if they want
any success in defeating this social cancer.

Post by Phil #3
Phil #3

But those supporting the child support industry are not willing to die to
defend it but are willing for fathers to die (figuratively and actually)
to promote such a sexist society.
If they were willing to die for it, I quite imagine they'd be willing to
pay for it as well, which they are not. Instead they demand others pay
according to their opinion of what the "best interest of the child" is,
which is a limited and sexist socialism: 'according to HER wants;
according to HIS ability'.

Haven't quite looked at it that way. But now that I think about it, NEVER do
they tend to HIS wants nor do they ever consider HER ability. It is always
the reverse.
So much for "EQUAL protection".........

Post by Phil #3
Phil #3

RogerN

2009-08-01 13:47:07 UTC

<snip>

Post by Phil #3
But those supporting the child support industry are not willing to die to
defend it but are willing for fathers to die (figuratively and actually)
to promote such a sexist society.
If they were willing to die for it, I quite imagine they'd be willing to
pay for it as well, which they are not. Instead they demand others pay
according to their opinion of what the "best interest of the child" is,
which is a limited and sexist socialism: 'according to HER wants;
according to HIS ability'.
Phil #3

What should mater is if the man being ordered to pay should be responsible
for supporting the child.

Apply the same logic to something else... Let's say, for example, an 8 year
old girl is raped by a stranger. So, the man believed to be the rapist is
in prison... later they find the wrong man is in prison due to solid DNA
evidence. Now, if the little girl feels safer with her rapist in prison,
should they leave the wrong man in prison because it is in the best interest
of the child? After all, she may have trouble sleeping if she knows her
rapist is not locked up. Maybe an innocent man should rot in prison because
it's in the best interest of the child, sounds like child support!

RogerN

Chris

2009-08-02 16:05:18 UTC

Post by RogerN
<snip>

What should mater is if the man being ordered to pay should be responsible
for supporting the child.
Apply the same logic to something else... Let's say, for example, an 8
year old girl is raped by a stranger. So, the man believed to be the
rapist is in prison... later they find the wrong man is in prison due to
solid DNA evidence. Now, if the little girl feels safer with her rapist
in prison, should they leave the wrong man in prison because it is in the
best interest of the child? After all, she may have trouble sleeping if
she knows her rapist is not locked up. Maybe an innocent man should rot
in prison because it's in the best interest of the child, sounds like
child support!

According to the "child support" people, it's also in the best interest of
the child to incarcerate the assigned "father" for not paying the woman
money. Not sure exactly how that is an interest for such child. Perhaps the
child feels safer? Not hardly. It is in the best interst ONLY of the "child
support" people because it makes them feel good about causing harm to yet
another man!

Post by RogerN
RogerN

Phil #3

2009-08-03 17:53:06 UTC

Post by RogerN
<snip>

What should mater is if the man being ordered to pay should be responsible
for supporting the child.

Keep in mind that paying the mother is not 'supporting a child'.
Child has a bad dream: write the mother a check.
Kid failing in school, increase mom's income.
Kid having sex, mom needs a new car.

Post by RogerN
Apply the same logic to something else... Let's say, for example, an 8
year old girl is raped by a stranger. So, the man believed to be the
rapist is in prison... later they find the wrong man is in prison due to
solid DNA evidence. Now, if the little girl feels safer with her rapist
in prison, should they leave the wrong man in prison because it is in the
best interest of the child? After all, she may have trouble sleeping if
she knows her rapist is not locked up. Maybe an innocent man should rot
in prison because it's in the best interest of the child, sounds like
child support!
RogerN

Sadly, that is exactly the case for many in prison and not limited to rape
cases, although there are many of them.
Prosecutors are fighting the reopening of cases where DNA evidence is
available and was never used, was hidden or conveniently "lost". Then there
are prosecutorial witnesses, "experts" that have been proven to have lied
and even fabricated evidence in order to convict those charged such as Joyce
Gilchrist of Oklahoma City. The result is that many in prison are actually
not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted and those who are
guilty are walking free among us.

Phil #3

RogerN

2009-08-01 23:00:13 UTC

<snip>

Moderator

2009-08-25 02:08:59 UTC

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/675960495506ef1f#

Post by RogerN
<snip>

What should mater is if the man being ordered to pay should be responsible
for supporting the child.
Apply the same logic to something else... Let's say, for example, an 8 year
old girl is raped by a stranger. So, the man believed to be the rapist is
in prison... later they find the wrong man is in prison due to solid DNA
evidence. Now, if the little girl feels safer with her rapist in prison,
should they leave the wrong man in prison because it is in the best interest
of the child? After all, she may have trouble sleeping if she knows her
rapist is not locked up. Maybe an innocent man should rot in prison because
it's in the best interest of the child, sounds like child support!
RogerN

Dusty

2009-07-31 17:08:31 UTC

Post by RogerN
Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their
child.
This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even
have to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice
went
to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced
to
take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed
for not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum
has swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying
child support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so
they blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to
be to interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the
letter of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who
made the laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a
dad to be a dead beat dad?

Part of the problem is that in many states/counties, the job of judge is
a political one and is either appointed to the position or you have to
run for the office. Either way, it is fraught with political
grandstanding and favoritism.
For instance, did you know that, aside from the Fraternal Order of
Police, most political groups that regularly support any given judge's
election/reelection are pro-feminist in nearly every instance?
Another part is the bias inherent in each and every person. I don't give
a hoot in hell what they may claim, all people have some level of bias
and an opinion on it, and that bias is part of who they are, it shapes
their decision making process each and every time they must make any
decision. And that is key to the problem - bias inherent in the legal
system, in particular, the so-called family court system.
The family court system is very heavily biased, just look at the wording
of the laws that it enforces. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, most any
domestic violence law(s), and a host of others are all very anti-male and
anti-family in nature. And if you think that's bad, it doesn't stop with
the legal system, if you need food stamps or any form of public
assistance, for no mater how short a period, the state wants to know
everything about your family life. That way, if you're a single or
divorced mother the state can go after your X for reimbursing it the
money that they shelled out to the mother.
I cannot say I've ever heard of even a single case where, if the person
was male, that the state went after the NCP mother for reimbursement, but
I suppose it could happen, too.
False chivalry, personal bias and radical influences upon the legal
system have turned it into a quagmire for men and boys. All that's
required is a finger to be pointed, the papers filed, and the machine of
enforcement springs to life to crush another hapless soul.
Little, if any proof is ever required to substantiate the claim that
anyone (let's be honest, women rarely have this befall them, it is mostly
men that face this horror and because of the MSM's portrayal of the
stereotypical deadbeat father, they often times face this monster alone,
without any help or support for the kind of warfare they are about to
find themselves trapped in) is anyone else's parent.
Once it is done, it is very, very rarely ever undone thanks to one
simple, yet powerful phrase that nearly every judge, politian, lawyer,
has had ram-rodded down their collective throats by a media that bandies
it about like a club.. "..best interest of the child.." It is that very
phrase and that alone which will put the fear of almighty God into every
judge and politian for miles. It is a political third rail the likes of
which have probably never been seen in recorded history.
It's the shield that every one with an agenda, from rad-fems to political
grandstanders, will hide behind whenever someone, anyone, questions the
status-quo.
That is how childless men are jailed for non-support of children that are
not theirs. That is how DNA is not allowed to prove one's innocence in a
default support case.

My question is: if DNA is unnecessary to find the man guilty, then why use
it in the FIRST place?

Absolutely. That is why I watch commercials and companies that make
donations to women's causes and refuse to have anything to do with
companies that in any way lend a hand to or validate the anti-male
discrimination so rampant. One consumer does nothing but it makes me feel
like I'm doing something.
I also watch candidates, even in local elections and despite what they
say, look at what they've done.

As you say, follow the money.
Father's involvement is actually discouraged to a large extent. If being
a father or even the ludicrious "father figure" were reality, fathers
would be given at least equal consideration for custody.

And then you get the fools who say "Be a real man/father and pay your
'child support'".

The One springs to mind right away.. and all his little hangers-on, too.

That or the state would finance education through college for all since
the state ultimately profits.

Which makes the rampant sexism of government utterly obvious.

Sadly, true.

With the propaganda proporting "normal and successful" as being married
and having children, the numbers of men seeing the truth and refusing to
marry seems to be growing.
The problem is that the state has deep pockets (it digs into ours) to
finance it's pro-woman, anti-male positions and propaganda. What will
change will be that even more programs and incentives will come to the
forefront for women and men will be further penalized and chastized. This
can only be changed by men as a cohesieve group.

No, it can only be changed at the barrel of a gun. Since the enemy is
willing to DIE for their cause, then so must the oppressed if they want
any success in defeating this social cancer.

There's a slight problem with that.. how to do it without looking like a
wing-nut. But of course, that's -exactly- how the Enemy of Man sees it,
even without the media to tow the party line.

Chris

2009-07-30 19:24:38 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even
have to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice
went
to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed
for not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum
has swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying
child support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so
they blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to
be to interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the
letter of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who
made the laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a
dad to be a dead beat dad?

Part of the problem is that in many states/counties, the job of judge is
a political one and is either appointed to the position or you have to
run for the office. Either way, it is fraught with political
grandstanding and favoritism.
For instance, did you know that, aside from the Fraternal Order of
Police, most political groups that regularly support any given judge's
election/reelection are pro-feminist in nearly every instance?
Another part is the bias inherent in each and every person. I don't give
a hoot in hell what they may claim, all people have some level of bias
and an opinion on it, and that bias is part of who they are, it shapes
their decision making process each and every time they must make any
decision. And that is key to the problem - bias inherent in the legal
system, in particular, the so-called family court system.
The family court system is very heavily biased, just look at the wording
of the laws that it enforces. VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, most any
domestic violence law(s), and a host of others are all very anti-male and
anti-family in nature. And if you think that's bad, it doesn't stop with
the legal system, if you need food stamps or any form of public
assistance, for no mater how short a period, the state wants to know
everything about your family life. That way, if you're a single or
divorced mother the state can go after your X for reimbursing it the
money that they shelled out to the mother.
I cannot say I've ever heard of even a single case where, if the person
was male, that the state went after the NCP mother for reimbursement, but
I suppose it could happen, too.
False chivalry, personal bias and radical influences upon the legal
system have turned it into a quagmire for men and boys. All that's
required is a finger to be pointed, the papers filed, and the machine of
enforcement springs to life to crush another hapless soul.
Little, if any proof is ever required to substantiate the claim that
anyone (let's be honest, women rarely have this befall them, it is mostly
men that face this horror and because of the MSM's portrayal of the
stereotypical deadbeat father, they often times face this monster alone,
without any help or support for the kind of warfare they are about to
find themselves trapped in) is anyone else's parent.
Once it is done, it is very, very rarely ever undone thanks to one
simple, yet powerful phrase that nearly every judge, politian, lawyer,
has had ram-rodded down their collective throats by a media that bandies
it about like a club.. "..best interest of the child.." It is that very
phrase and that alone which will put the fear of almighty God into every
judge and politian for miles. It is a political third rail the likes of
which have probably never been seen in recorded history.
It's the shield that every one with an agenda, from rad-fems to political
grandstanders, will hide behind whenever someone, anyone, questions the
status-quo.
That is how childless men are jailed for non-support of children that are
not theirs. That is how DNA is not allowed to prove one's innocence in a
default support case.

My question is: if DNA is unnecessary to find the man guilty, then why use
it in the FIRST place?

If you think about it, they aren't being deprived because "father figure" is
code for a man paying FREE MONEY to the mother of such children.

What's even WORSE is forcing the father to pay money for the woman's sole
choice; a choice impossible for HIM to make!

Post by Kenneth S.
This clear and obvious discrimination against men has
absolutely no justification in principle. It's the result of the
crudest type of special interest politics. It reflects the fact that
"in the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up."
If no "masculinist" organization arises to effectively
challenge this blatant discrimination, men can only make their
decisions about relationships with women in the knowledge that it's
entirely possible that they can very easily put at a major
disadvantage by the woman in question. Men must make the same kinds
of calculations that African Americans had to make at the time of the
Jim Crow laws in the U.S. Do I avoid making eye contact with that
white woman, or even cross the street to get away from her? Or the
present-day male equivalent, do I marry and have a family, knowing how
heavily the odds are stacked against me?

Indeed! Being a father is considered a state of being worthy of punishment
by the government people. Of course there are always the fools that will
proclaim that such punishment is merely "being responsible". "Hey black
woman, be 'responsible' by sitting at the back of the bus".

Bob W

2009-07-26 23:39:06 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even have
to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed for
not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum has
swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying child
support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so they
blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to be to
interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the letter
of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who made the
laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a dad to be a
dead beat dad?

Everyone of these non-father paying CS cases I have heard about has a judge
who believes it is in the "best interest of the child" to not remove the
man's responsibility from their lives since the man is the only father they
have ever known. The judicial "logic" is releasing the man from a parenting
role does more harm to the kid than telling the kid the truth or going after
the mother for paternity fraud.

The judges would rather continue the status quo than address letting the
child know the truth or prosecute the mother for her role in the deception.
IMO the cover-up is worse than the original misidentification and the man
has to pay for years to come to allow the court to go through this twisted
thinking about the facts.

The "best interest of the child" thinking gives the judges something to hide
behind to justify the injustice they endorse at the man's expense.

Ted

2009-07-27 00:49:53 UTC

Post by Bob W
The "best interest of the child" thinking gives the judges something to hide
behind to justify the injustice they endorse at the man's expense.

Is it all really in the best interests of the child? No.

- Surveys are now showing that father absence correlates with poorer
outcomes for children.

- The system diverts money away from the support of the child (partly
by taking it out of the control of the father, and partly taking it
away from the family into the State coffers).

Not quite the "interests of a child" but the interest of society
generally: it is leading to a decrease in birth rates.

The "best interests" fraud is a point for attack.

RogerN

2009-07-27 01:16:34 UTC

<snip>

Post by Bob W
Everyone of these non-father paying CS cases I have heard about has a
judge who believes it is in the "best interest of the child" to not remove
the man's responsibility from their lives since the man is the only father
they have ever known. The judicial "logic" is releasing the man from a
parenting role does more harm to the kid than telling the kid the truth or
going after the mother for paternity fraud.
The judges would rather continue the status quo than address letting the
child know the truth or prosecute the mother for her role in the
deception. IMO the cover-up is worse than the original misidentification
and the man has to pay for years to come to allow the court to go through
this twisted thinking about the facts.
The "best interest of the child" thinking gives the judges something to
hide behind to justify the injustice they endorse at the man's expense.

Thinking about this, I think it would be in the best interest of my children
if they got support from the Judges that make these rulings. These judges
make more money and have better benefits than I do, it would be in my
children's best interest if they received the percentage from the Judge's
income. After all, the judge is for doing what is in the best interest of
the child even if it involves making someone support children that are not
theirs. Or, perhaps these judges are hypocrites and only want OTHER men to
pay for children that are not theirs?

Before I had heard of these things, I thought if DNA evidence proved a man
was not the father, the woman should be made to pay the man back in
payments, and the real father should be found and have to pay the child
support. That would be the right way to do it, it's hard to believe how far
off the political way is from the right way.

RogerN

Kenneth S.

2009-07-27 02:53:42 UTC

Post by Bob W

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even have
to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed for
not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum has
swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying child
support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so they
blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to be to
interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the letter
of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who made the
laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a dad to be a
dead beat dad?

Everyone of these non-father paying CS cases I have heard about has a judge
who believes it is in the "best interest of the child" to not remove the
man's responsibility from their lives since the man is the only father they
have ever known. The judicial "logic" is releasing the man from a parenting
role does more harm to the kid than telling the kid the truth or going after
the mother for paternity fraud.
The judges would rather continue the status quo than address letting the
child know the truth or prosecute the mother for her role in the deception.
IMO the cover-up is worse than the original misidentification and the man
has to pay for years to come to allow the court to go through this twisted
thinking about the facts.
The "best interest of the child" thinking gives the judges something to hide
behind to justify the injustice they endorse at the man's expense.

This application of the "best interests of the child"
principle is self-evidently fraudulent. Either that, or the judges
who use it are intellectually deficient -- and surely it isn't
possible that a judge is stupid, is it?

These judges are not requiring that the man in question
continue to act in a paternal role to children that were adulterously
conceived by the mother. They are merely telling the men in question
that they must continue to pay "child support" money to the mothers
who deceived them.

Chris

2009-07-29 12:58:49 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even have
to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed for
not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum has
swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying child
support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so they
blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to be to
interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the letter
of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who made the
laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a dad to be a
dead beat dad?

Everyone of these non-father paying CS cases I have heard about has a judge
who believes it is in the "best interest of the child" to not remove the
man's responsibility from their lives since the man is the only father they
have ever known. The judicial "logic" is releasing the man from a parenting
role does more harm to the kid than telling the kid the truth or going after
the mother for paternity fraud.
The judges would rather continue the status quo than address letting the
child know the truth or prosecute the mother for her role in the deception.
IMO the cover-up is worse than the original misidentification and the man
has to pay for years to come to allow the court to go through this twisted
thinking about the facts.
The "best interest of the child" thinking gives the judges something to hide
behind to justify the injustice they endorse at the man's expense.

This application of the "best interests of the child"
principle is self-evidently fraudulent. Either that, or the judges
who use it are intellectually deficient -- and surely it isn't
possible that a judge is stupid, is it?
These judges are not requiring that the man in question
continue to act in a paternal role to children that were adulterously
conceived by the mother. They are merely telling the men in question
that they must continue to pay "child support" money to the mothers
who deceived them.

Hooray! It's about time someone finally says it like it is. Men are NEVER
required by ANY court to parent ANY child.......... EVER. The ONLY thing
such courts do is force them to pay money...... PERIOD.

Chris

2009-07-30 05:12:03 UTC

Post by Bob W

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even have
to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed for
not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum has
swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying child
support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so they
blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to be to
interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the letter
of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who made the
laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a dad to be
a dead beat dad?

Everyone of these non-father paying CS cases I have heard about has a
judge who believes it is in the "best interest of the child" to not remove
the man's responsibility from their lives

Such "responsibility" being to pay the woman FREE money. Other than not
immediately brandishing a weapon, I wonder what the difference between this
and strong-armed robbery is?

Post by Bob W
since the man is the only father they have ever known. The judicial
"logic" is releasing the man from a parenting role does more harm to the
kid than telling the kid the truth or going after the mother for paternity
fraud.
The judges would rather continue the status quo than address letting the
child know the truth or prosecute the mother for her role in the
deception. IMO the cover-up is worse than the original misidentification
and the man has to pay for years to come to allow the court to go through
this twisted thinking about the facts.
The "best interest of the child" thinking gives the judges something to
hide behind to justify the injustice they endorse at the man's expense.

Dusty

2009-07-30 05:19:34 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even
have to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed
for not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum
has swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying
child support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so
they blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to
be to interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the
letter of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who
made the laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a
dad to be a dead beat dad?

Everyone of these non-father paying CS cases I have heard about has a
judge who believes it is in the "best interest of the child" to not
remove the man's responsibility from their lives

Such "responsibility" being to pay the woman FREE money. Other than not
immediately brandishing a weapon, I wonder what the difference between
this and strong-armed robbery is?

No matter what it's called, it is still extortion.

Phil #3

2009-07-30 13:49:58 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even
have to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed
for not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum
has swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying
child support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so
they blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to
be to interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the
letter of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who
made the laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a
dad to be a dead beat dad?

Everyone of these non-father paying CS cases I have heard about has a
judge who believes it is in the "best interest of the child" to not
remove the man's responsibility from their lives

Such "responsibility" being to pay the woman FREE money. Other than not
immediately brandishing a weapon, I wonder what the difference between
this and strong-armed robbery is?

There is no difference. "Strong-armed robbery" is that achieved through
force and fear but without a weapon. Courts have the backing of weapons but
use force and fear very effectively first.

Phil #3

Post by Bob W
since the man is the only father they have ever known. The judicial
"logic" is releasing the man from a parenting role does more harm to the
kid than telling the kid the truth or going after the mother for
paternity fraud.
The judges would rather continue the status quo than address letting the
child know the truth or prosecute the mother for her role in the
deception. IMO the cover-up is worse than the original misidentification
and the man has to pay for years to come to allow the court to go through
this twisted thinking about the facts.
The "best interest of the child" thinking gives the judges something to
hide behind to justify the injustice they endorse at the man's expense.

Chris

2009-07-29 12:37:09 UTC

Men can be jailed for not supporting a child that is not their child. This
is wrong, plain and simple. This not only effects the men, it also effects
the families of the men falsely named as the father. Men don't even have
to
know the woman, one man was in major CS trouble because the notice went to
him by mistake, the wrong person at the wrong address. What can men do
about it? Is their legal action that we can take or are we forced to take
illegal action? We need to do more than discussing it here. Can we somehow
organize and take action against the outrageous child support laws that
trample on the innocent? We really need to do something about these laws
that are just plain outright wrong!
RogerN

\Taking illegal action is inadvisable - we are up against the power of
\the State. Any action must be political, in my opinion. That's
\difficult - what politician is going to go against mass public
\sentiment? Father's groups and men's groups exist but make slow if
\any headway. The problem is the unconscious bias against the welfare
\of men and for the welfare of women-and-children - this may have made
\sense in the past but modern conditions make it counterproductive: it
\is actually worsening the position of children.
\
\It seems like discussion is all we can do. We can at least try to
\highlight the more glaring inequities and attempt to shame the
\politicians who live off them. Another thing of value would be to try
\to understand the social forces behind what is going on.
\Understanding your enemy puts you in a much better position when the
\time comes for action.
It would seem that if the mass public knew that men were being jailed for
not supporting children that were not theirs, the public should be
outraged at the law. I think at least part of the problem was all the
dead beat dad stuff we heard on the news media, now that the pendulum has
swung to the opposite extreme, (childless men jailed for not paying child
support) where is the news media to report on it?
I doubt that when the laws were made, they were ever intended to be used
to jail childless men for non-support. But our judges and lawyers don't
have enough sense to understand the intent and purpose of the law so they
blindly apply the letter of the law. A judges job is supposed to be to
interpret and apply the law, but all they do is blindly go by the letter
of the law and apply it in ways never dreamed of by those who made the
laws. Who would have ever thought you don't have to even be a dad to be a
dead beat dad?

Probably the same people who think men should be forced to pay money to some
woman for a choice he did NOT make........

Post by RogerN
RogerN

Meldon

2009-07-28 23:39:46 UTC