Thursday, February 08, 2007
READER COMMENTS TO PATERNITY FRAUD NEWSPAPER OPINION PIECE
Well said!
The emperor has no clothes........the notion that you can replace dad with money and that that money is being spent on the children is absurd.
80% of the prison poplation is from fatherless homes, and mothers can spend CS any way they want since they don't have to account for it to anyone.
Posted by Robert on February 8, 2007 05:13 AM
The Child Support System of this country in reality, practice and design has more to do with a continous effort to collect and funnel enormous amounts of money through a system which realizes vast profits on the backs & misery of the children and non-custodial parents. The Child Support system reaps an enormous amount of interest from collected funds lining their coffers before it is slowly disbursed to Custodial Parents, also from the large amount of undisbursed funds for whatever the reason.
The Child Support System is essentially a Banking operation which does not fall under any national banking laws. There are no periodic statements of accounts provided to the Custodial or the non Custodial parent. ie regarding funds collected against funds disbursed. Therefore, niether party is able to reconcile their Child Support account. There are no milestone child support cut off dates in the system such as with the Social Security administration. Non custodial parents continue to pay child support for children who have pasted their 21th birthday, are no longer with the custodial parent. ie, married, deceased, incarcerated, in the military, left the country, where abouts unknown & etc. Undisbursed funds collected are never returned to the non-custodial parent ,so what is done with these monies? Custodial parents are not required to notify the system if there is a change in their economic situation. There are Child Support awards much greater than the immediate needs of the child that's being squandered by irresponsible Custodial parents instead of being directed to an appropiate savings for the child's future. The term Custodial Parent does not always mean a responsible parent and the Child Support system is more of a profitable government racateering system that hides behind their design and duping the public under the color of law, that their approach on the matter of Child Support is in the Childs best interest. I suppose the aforementioned point and issues are not spoken about in the Media because it's not Politically Correct.
Posted by Lou Robinson on February 8, 2007 08:25 AM
Lou Robinson's comment is the best I've read. It could not be anymore on the mark. Back in the late 80's early 90's, family courts in texas were getting away from awarding alimony and feminists knew they would have to develop a "backdoor" approach to still get alimony without the label. Feminists knew "Child support" would be their meal ticket because there is no accountability. "Child support" is code for alimony. Custodial egg donors and State Attorney Generals hide behind law enforcement to steal money by proxy. They are all cowards and racketeers. What upsets me more though is how many Fathers tolerate it, and how much money they waste on futile legal efforts (attorneys = racketeer) when they should take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately the only way to protect our children and next generation of fathers from bondage and restore justice is through a zero tolerance approach (bloodshed), like fallen hero Herbert Chalmers did when Attorney General of Missouri refused to stop stealing (known as garnishing) his wages for children that were not his. "Every Father that fights, refuses and resists injustice ..... is part of the solution" and "For every Father that conforms to injustice ..... is part of the problem" and "Every Father that does not stand up for what is right ...... makes it harder on his fellow brother"
Steve Hutchings / Texas
Posted by Steve Hutchings on February 8, 2007 02:11 PM
Well said!
The emperor has no clothes........the notion that you can replace dad with money and that that money is being spent on the children is absurd.
80% of the prison poplation is from fatherless homes, and mothers can spend CS any way they want since they don't have to account for it to anyone.
Posted by Robert on February 8, 2007 05:13 AM
The Child Support System of this country in reality, practice and design has more to do with a continous effort to collect and funnel enormous amounts of money through a system which realizes vast profits on the backs & misery of the children and non-custodial parents. The Child Support system reaps an enormous amount of interest from collected funds lining their coffers before it is slowly disbursed to Custodial Parents, also from the large amount of undisbursed funds for whatever the reason.
The Child Support System is essentially a Banking operation which does not fall under any national banking laws. There are no periodic statements of accounts provided to the Custodial or the non Custodial parent. ie regarding funds collected against funds disbursed. Therefore, niether party is able to reconcile their Child Support account. There are no milestone child support cut off dates in the system such as with the Social Security administration. Non custodial parents continue to pay child support for children who have pasted their 21th birthday, are no longer with the custodial parent. ie, married, deceased, incarcerated, in the military, left the country, where abouts unknown & etc. Undisbursed funds collected are never returned to the non-custodial parent ,so what is done with these monies? Custodial parents are not required to notify the system if there is a change in their economic situation. There are Child Support awards much greater than the immediate needs of the child that's being squandered by irresponsible Custodial parents instead of being directed to an appropiate savings for the child's future. The term Custodial Parent does not always mean a responsible parent and the Child Support system is more of a profitable government racateering system that hides behind their design and duping the public under the color of law, that their approach on the matter of Child Support is in the Childs best interest. I suppose the aforementioned point and issues are not spoken about in the Media because it's not Politically Correct.
Posted by Lou Robinson on February 8, 2007 08:25 AM
Lou Robinson's comment is the best I've read. It could not be anymore on the mark. Back in the late 80's early 90's, family courts in texas were getting away from awarding alimony and feminists knew they would have to develop a "backdoor" approach to still get alimony without the label. Feminists knew "Child support" would be their meal ticket because there is no accountability. "Child support" is code for alimony. Custodial egg donors and State Attorney Generals hide behind law enforcement to steal money by proxy. They are all cowards and racketeers. What upsets me more though is how many Fathers tolerate it, and how much money they waste on futile legal efforts (attorneys = racketeer) when they should take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately the only way to protect our children and next generation of fathers from bondage and restore justice is through a zero tolerance approach (bloodshed), like fallen hero Herbert Chalmers did when Attorney General of Missouri refused to stop stealing (known as garnishing) his wages for children that were not his. "Every Father that fights, refuses and resists injustice ..... is part of the solution" and "For every Father that conforms to injustice ..... is part of the problem" and "Every Father that does not stand up for what is right ...... makes it harder on his fellow brother"
Steve Hutchings / Texas
Posted by Steve Hutchings on February 8, 2007 02:11 PM
Labels: Paternity Fraud
Comments:
<< Home
We believe that there should be reforms in the family court system to allow for the use of DNA Testing to disprove paternity. And we believe that there are serious flaws in the child support collection and distribution systems. However, we do not think that "Child support is code for alimony." And we find the term "egg donor" to be offensive. More important, we believe that Lou Robinson's mistatements of the law do not help advance the cause of reform.
What is wrong with using real science to resolve this issue. The system disenfranchises the any noncustodial parent and makes them no more than a paycheck.
# posted by 
: 4:10 AM
: 4:10 AM
We believe that science should be utilized to resolve the question of parentage in disputed cases. That is where aoption of some version of the Revised UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT would come into play.
Log on to http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE78/78_3B.htm to review Utah's version of the Act. More specifically, read:
78-45g-607. Limitation -- Child having presumed father.
(1) Paternity of a child conceived or born during a marriage with a presumed father as described in Subsection 78-45g-204(1)(a), (b), or (c), may be raised by the presumed father or the mother at any time prior to filing an action for divorce or in the pleadings at the time of the divorce of the parents.
(a) If the issue is raised prior to the adjudication, genetic testing may be ordered by the tribunal in accordance with Section 78-45g-608. Failure of the mother of the child to appear for testing may result in an order allowing a motherless calculation of paternity. Failure of the mother to make the child available may not result in a determination that the presumed father is not the father, but shall allow for appropriate proceedings to compel the cooperation of the mother. If the question of paternity has been raised in the pleadings in a divorce and the tribunal addresses the issue and enters an order, the parties are estopped from raising the issue again, and the order of the tribunal may not be challenged on the basis of material mistake of fact.
(b) If the presumed father seeks to rebut the presumption of paternity, then denial of a motion seeking an order for genetic testing or a decision to disregard genetic test results shall be based on a preponderance of the evidence.
(c) If the mother seeks to rebut the presumption of paternity, the mother has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that it would be in the best interests of the child to disestablish the parent-child relationship.
(2) For the presumption outside of marriage described in Subsection 78-45g-204(1)(d), the presumption may be rebutted at any time if the tribunal determines that the presumed father and the mother of the child neither cohabited nor engaged in sexual intercourse with each other during the probable time of conception.
(3) The presumption may be rebutted by:
(a) genetic test results that exclude the presumed father;
(b) genetic test results that rebuttably identify another man as the father in accordance with Section 78-45g-505;
(c) evidence that the presumed father and the mother of the child neither cohabited nor engaged in sexual intercourse with each other during the probable time of conception; or
(d) an adjudication under this part.
(4) There is no presumption to rebut if the presumed father was properly served and there has been a final adjudication of the issue.
Post a Comment
Log on to http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE78/78_3B.htm to review Utah's version of the Act. More specifically, read:
78-45g-607. Limitation -- Child having presumed father.
(1) Paternity of a child conceived or born during a marriage with a presumed father as described in Subsection 78-45g-204(1)(a), (b), or (c), may be raised by the presumed father or the mother at any time prior to filing an action for divorce or in the pleadings at the time of the divorce of the parents.
(a) If the issue is raised prior to the adjudication, genetic testing may be ordered by the tribunal in accordance with Section 78-45g-608. Failure of the mother of the child to appear for testing may result in an order allowing a motherless calculation of paternity. Failure of the mother to make the child available may not result in a determination that the presumed father is not the father, but shall allow for appropriate proceedings to compel the cooperation of the mother. If the question of paternity has been raised in the pleadings in a divorce and the tribunal addresses the issue and enters an order, the parties are estopped from raising the issue again, and the order of the tribunal may not be challenged on the basis of material mistake of fact.
(b) If the presumed father seeks to rebut the presumption of paternity, then denial of a motion seeking an order for genetic testing or a decision to disregard genetic test results shall be based on a preponderance of the evidence.
(c) If the mother seeks to rebut the presumption of paternity, the mother has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that it would be in the best interests of the child to disestablish the parent-child relationship.
(2) For the presumption outside of marriage described in Subsection 78-45g-204(1)(d), the presumption may be rebutted at any time if the tribunal determines that the presumed father and the mother of the child neither cohabited nor engaged in sexual intercourse with each other during the probable time of conception.
(3) The presumption may be rebutted by:
(a) genetic test results that exclude the presumed father;
(b) genetic test results that rebuttably identify another man as the father in accordance with Section 78-45g-505;
(c) evidence that the presumed father and the mother of the child neither cohabited nor engaged in sexual intercourse with each other during the probable time of conception; or
(d) an adjudication under this part.
(4) There is no presumption to rebut if the presumed father was properly served and there has been a final adjudication of the issue.
<< Home
