Men's equal rights?

Rank Amateur · 03-20-2006, 09:26 AM

Was listening to Mark and Dave on KEX on the way to work the other evening. They were discussing a lawsuit over men's equal rights. The subject was a man's rights when a child is created and of coarse child support. They are sueing under the equal protection clause (something like that).

The gist of this case was, the guy was with a gal who said she could not bear children, but ended up having one. She decided to keep it and now the guy is on the hook for the support. The argument is, that this is unfair, because the female has "all" the rights, the male has "no" say in the outcome. This guy is saying since he was excluded in the decision process, he should not be required to pay child support. I find this an interesting argument, yet don't know if the outcome will serve society or the poor children in these situations. What do you think? Sure would cut down on gold diggers.

Cool Texan · 03-20-2006, 10:10 AM

So he was careless enough to get a woman pregnant, and now does not want to be financially supportive of this child?? Sorry dude, doesnt work like that...and what a great way to start building up a good father-image for this child at an early stage. I would be curious to see how he argues that he was not part of the "decision process", if that's what we're calling it now.

Thumper · 03-20-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Sure would cut down on gold diggers.

"gold diggers" eh? That is what you call the single mom who now gets to raise the child alone.

"Men's equal rights"? You betcha! Child support for the next 18 years.

Including four full years of college.

HeavyMetal BankFisherman · 03-20-2006, 10:59 AM

The guy doesn't think he should pay child support for his child?

There are way too many irresposible people out there that try to get out of thier responsibilities. I bet in his twisted mind he is getting the shaft. The only one getting shafted is the innocent child that will have to grow up with a deadbeat dad.

Radke · 03-20-2006, 11:04 AM

I've been following this story since it came out (to me) about a week ago. I can sort of understand his side, until I listned to him explain it, came away thinking he was a fist class (negative adjactive). If he wanted to be equally in control, he should have considered his options early on, instead of after the fact.

however

Men are not going to get equal rights in this situation. If the woman wanted an abortion, and he did not want 'his' child aborted, she wins (unless she lives in SD). If she wanted to give it up for adoption, she doesn't even have to tell him, she wins. He can probably push for visitation rights and win, providing he does pay support.

but overall, I think the woman holds most the cards in this situation.

I guess it's the price you play to stay in the game?

MetalHead · 03-20-2006, 11:05 AM

Yep he was careless, he pays. She was careless and gets paid. This lawsuit will go nowhere because there are to many with the additudes above. No matter what even though it takes two one is always on the hook. If she doesnt want the child and he does to bad dad. If he doesnt want the child and she does, well you were irresponsible and you gotta pay dad. Its a long standing double standard and the old guard is'nt going to change it. That is why you always teach your son's to CYA. Because regardless of how or why it happens its always the mans fault and responsibilty and if you dont just roll with it your a lowlife/deadbeat ect...

This aught to be a fire starter

elron · 03-20-2006, 11:06 AM

bottom line is....He wasnt careful and let a woman lie to him if you believe his story....He forgot two things. [1]look out for number one and [2] man up if number one doesnt work. Now he should take care of his obligations.

Water Ready · 03-20-2006, 11:32 AM

First and formost, the guy doesn't deserve to be a father,
but now that he is one he should take full responsibility if in fact its his.

The sad part is, unless he gets past this responsibility issue and loves the child, he will never be a good father, and no amount of money will make the child understand why his/her dad didn't want them around.

Very sad for the child either way..... :depressed:

Actually sounds like he wasn't /isn't thinking with the right part of the anatomy.

Just my .02

craigcw · 03-20-2006, 11:48 AM

I think this guy screwed up a legitimate issue. I believe men should have more say in what happens to any baby/child, but perhaps not in the way this case is presented. For example, I believe that if a man has to pay, then he should also have the right to be a father to the child...have some responsibility besides just writing a check.

SOL · 03-20-2006, 12:07 PM

This sexual relationship was formed after the understanding that neither partner wants a child under any circumstances. The woman claimed to be infertile which determined the man's choice to engage in a sexual relationship without contraceptives. When suddenly she "miraculously" had a baby, the man is financially on the hook for 18 yrs, which will be a dramatic set-back in this young man's life.

The main point in case is, that there are many choices a woman has; abortion, adoption, or parenthood. Ultimately she has the right to make the final decision. This suit is trying to find ways for men, and especially young men, to have more input over decisions that will affect their life dramatically.

My hope for this case is that it will bring awareness to this issue that men face. I also hope that it will deter women from the onward continuance of deceptive practices in-order for them to obtain financial security; all the while having Uncle Sam on their side to make sure those checks keep coming in.

I will acknowledge that there are extreme religious and moral complications to this case. I will also accept that society has a bigger interest in the child�s welfare over the father�s financial responsibilities. Additionally, I understand that both parents need to support the child but the point here (and there are MANY cases like this) there was an understanding that neither partner wanted a child, indefinitely. If that�s the case and the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be financially responsible. In reality, when it really comes down to it, women get a minimum of $100,000 for saying; �oops, I forgot to take my pill.�

In conclusion, sign me up to get fixed.

Let the flaming commence�

:lurk: :lurk: :lurk: :lurk:

OceanBlue · 03-20-2006, 12:09 PM

This is a very messy issue. I haven't followed the case, but this is my perspective - as a woman:

If she lied and told him that she couldn't get pregnant - she owns the responsibility 100%.

If she didn't lie and this is what a doctor told her, then the couple needs to figure out what their course of action will be. I'd have some hard questions for the doctor, but the bottom line is that they're in this situation because they believed she couldn't get pregnant. (I've seen this happen over and over actually - unless there's a surgical reason that a woman cannot get pregnant or some kind of birth defect where essential anatomy is missing... I sure wouldn't believe it!)

The woman has all the "rights" because that child is housed within her body. I don't think that any person, including the father of the child, has the right to demand that she bear the child, give it up for adoption or abort it any more than any person has the right to tell a man he has to have a vasectomy. BUT - if he says he doesn't want the child, then she needs to make her decision based on taking 100% of the responsibility of that child.

Thumper · 03-20-2006, 12:46 PM

How could any man (and I mean a real man) father a child, whether or not intentionally, and then try to avoid providing for its welfare. Who could do that? Who could say --- "Well, she lied to me, so I will not provide financial support for my child."

Boggles the mind.

Radke · 03-20-2006, 01:58 PM

Please remove the word 'man' from your response and replace it with 'parent'.

The probability of a non-custodial mother paying her child support is approximatly that of a man, but not quite as high. The studies I've read is that it is about 5 percent below the typical non custodial father.

The term deadbeat dad makes my skin crawl.

The term Deadbeat parent, I won't argue with.

Lets face it, not everyone is cut out to be a parent. Emotionally, financially, or otherwise.

Molly B · 03-20-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

This is a very messy issue. I haven't followed the case, but this is my perspective - as a woman:

If she lied and told him that she couldn't get pregnant - she owns the responsibility 100%.

If she didn't lie and this is what a doctor told her, then the couple needs to figure out what their course of action will be. I'd have some hard questions for the doctor, but the bottom line is that they're in this situation because they believed she couldn't get pregnant. (I've seen this happen over and over actually - unless there's a surgical reason that a woman cannot get pregnant or some kind of birth defect where essential anatomy is missing... I sure wouldn't believe it!)

The woman has all the "rights" because that child is housed within her body. I don't think that any person, including the father of the child, has the right to demand that she bear the child, give it up for adoption or abort it any more than any person has the right to tell a man he has to have a vasectomy. BUT - if he says he doesn't want the child, then she needs to make her decision based on taking 100% of the responsibility of that child.

HeavyMetal BankFisherman · 03-20-2006, 03:26 PM

I guess if he had used protection he might not be in this predicament

That would have been the smart/safe thing to do.

Dullhook · 03-20-2006, 03:34 PM

What a sad story this is. The only thing that matters here is the welfare and well being of this innocent baby. This child deserves to be loved and cared for by someone. If these people aren't capable or willing in their hearts to do it, they should put him up for adoption.

There are plenty of loving people that would cherish this child and give him (her) the love God intended.

Pete · 03-20-2006, 04:38 PM

I read this thread and wonder about Kid's Rights. Regardless of either parent's honesty, it would be a shame if the child is burdened without a fair opportunity to become a happy, successful person.

ampersat · 03-20-2006, 04:40 PM

As with so many things, if you take the situation and flip it over, it seems so very different (or maybe the same):

Same couple, same situation. She's pregnant and does not want the child, but he wants to raise the child. What then? Do you think the courts would afford him the right to do so even though it means her having to carry the pregnancy to term? Women have the right to choose but would it be found that men do as well?

ampersat · 03-20-2006, 04:40 PM

Out of curiosity, Pete, in what way would the child be deprived of "a fair opportunity to become a happy, successful person"?

(whoopsie, double post, but I'll use it anyway)

Water Ready · 03-20-2006, 05:46 PM

this is about the whoopsie post to pete

Amp,
Let me try...

Second grade scenario;
Hi my names Jimmy, and my moms a nurse, and well.........my moms a really good nurse, but I never see my dad, but moms says he's a great guy.

Missed oppurtunity to talk about a father and how proud they are of him, and the spiral begins.

Success can happen, but would be mostly from anger, or, just the "good will" to succeed out of anger.
As far as being happy, that will be a huge responsibility for the mom alone, in todays society to help teach it and make a check also.

I guess there's always "MY SPACE".

Sorry went away a bit, and still think the father needs to grow up and take responsibility.

Just my .02

Pete · 03-20-2006, 05:59 PM

My point, Amp, is that we have Mom and Dad arguing about which of them has rights, but no one voicing the rights of the child. Kids happen. It's planned or it's not planned, but that shouldn't affect the kid's rights, should it?

happybrew · 03-20-2006, 06:19 PM

I do not think the problem is one of rights. It is the fact that the marital act is now viewed as a recreational activity. It has been cheapened to the point where the very obvious and powerful biological and emotional function is forgotten or ignored or disregarded.

It is an act which creates new persons. It forever changes family relationships. It brings about the reality of grave and important obligations to a new person and to those affected by the arrival of new life.

But we cheapen the act and treat it much like a traffic accident when it develops to its natural conclusion, that designed by nature and biology. We look for fault and who will pay and bring it to litigation. In so doing, we do not treat the child as an object of love. We treat this new person much as we would a crumpled fender on a used car.

happybrew

PapaHog · 03-20-2006, 06:25 PM

If you make a baby you need to step up to the plate and be a parent.

Being a parent is a lot more than making support payments.

Being a parent involves bonding, visitation, trips to the zoo, trips to the doctor and dance class. School conferences and planning for family vacations. School functions and being there for special occasions birthdays, Christmas, fishing trips and camping in the campground at the coast. College and weddings and support in all they do that makes you proud and loving them more when they disappoint you.

I could go on and on but you get the picture. Make a baby and do the father thing. You will get back so much more than you give it will make you feel so good. When you look back it would have all been worth it.

peace

Water Ready · 03-20-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

But we cheapen the act and treat it much like a traffic accident when it develops to its natural conclusion, that designed by nature and biology. We look for fault and who will pay and bring it to litigation. In so doing, we do not treat the child as an object of love. We treat this new person much as we would a crumpled fender on a used car.

Nicely done, but sadly put Happy Brew :depressed:

PGJPJ · 03-20-2006, 06:46 PM

A little off topic, but we are getting very excited. Our child is due in 3 days. We both wanted him, we both tried for him, and we both can't wait to meet him.

But that will be for another post!!!

See ya then.

Old Coot · 03-20-2006, 07:36 PM

SOL, do you REALLY believe what you wrote? Do you really think that child support grants a single mother "financial security?"

I've reviewed hundreds of settlement agreements and support orders through the years, and I'll bet a new Abu that not more than a dozen of those hundreds of fathers got hit with support of $500/month or more per child. Most were under $350. Have you priced out diapers, formula, baby food, dental care, daycare, kids' clothes and shoes, food and medical expenses in the last decade or two? Oh yeah, before too many years, baby is going to need his/her own bedroom, too - but two bedroom apartments cost the same a singles, right? Oh yeah, single moms abandonded by the biological fathers are really cutting fat hogs.

You comment that Prince Charming will suffer a major impact in his young life if he has to pay support. Awwwwww, my heart is breaking! A baby is going to impact him, but not the mother? She isn't going to be awake at all hours for the next ten years taking care of the kid's needs? She isn't going to be scrambling for someone to cover her so she can go to the doctor or a job interview or to pick up the kid from daycare so she can go to the garage and get the Rolls back from the mechanic? The kid will change its own diapers and rock itself to sleep while teething and suffering ear infections and measles and mumps and whooping cough and flu. Yeah, there will be no impact on Mom's life. Why, with all her riches from child support, and dthe great looks from all that beauty sleep she'll be getting, she'll likely be the social queen of the city. Single guys will be lining up to take her and the baby/toddler/pre-schooler out for dinner and dancing or a weekend at the beach.

And we should be concerned because Mr. Wham-Bam-Thank-You-Ma'am will suffer a major impact in his young life because he knocked up some gal while playing rutting stud? What, is the guy retarded? Is he only 12? He doesn't know where babies come from? He's never heard of a doctor making a mistake? Nobody's ever told him a lie before? He's never heard of all those people who can't conceive, so they adopt and BAM! three months later there's a bun in the oven? This horse's butt thinks he's been had because he played a high-stakes game with literal life-and-death consequences and lost? Gimmie a break! We have a ten-year old mind here running a fertile body. His only concern is for his own gratification and to hell with everybody else, including the life he helped create. Yeah, this is a true hero.

(Of course the child won't suffer because daddy is a selfish low-life. While daddy punishes mommy by withholding support, the baby can take a job at the corner store to pick up a few bucks to make household ends meet and cover some of the costs like new clothes for first grade and such. Maybe daddy will take her for a ride in his new boat.)

Surprise genius! You play, you pay. Life isn't a game. It's played for real, and blunders have real consequences. Men accept that, whiners and other lower forms of life run for their mommies and lawyers to make it all better, and then gloat while their victims (the child) suffer for their moment of selfish pleasure.

For some of us in the older generations, character still counts. If I stepped in a pile of this guy's character, I'd burn my shoes.

OC. Proud father, accomplished diaper-changer, bottle feeder, burper, youth-group leader and college tuition payer. I have an old third-hand boat and it's been worth it!

ampersat · 03-20-2006, 08:09 PM

WR - there are many ways in which a life can be mangled. Even a seemingly normal family, or that which we deem to be a normal family, can produce a monster.

Pete - you have a great point, sort of. What are the kid's rights in a situation like this?
To be financially supported: well yeah, but a lot of great people grow up in poverty, whether they knew it at the time or not. Often the richest lives are born through the heights of poverty.
To be emotionally supported by both parents: they could each do it on their own. Would a child feel any less supported by two independent persons?
To grow up in a "normal" family: I don't think anyone's family is normal.
What rights does a child have? For that matter, what rights do any of us have being a child of parents? We're each dealt a hand in this life; it's what we make of it that matters.

HappyBrew: you have an excellent point. Here we are arguing about the rights of one person or the other when the point of the matter is the responsibilities that we bear for our actions. We all want rights but we don't want the responsibilities. Be that as it may, we have passed that point and are forced to argue who, if anyone, has rights and who, if anyone, can legally set aside their responsibilities.

Thumper · 03-20-2006, 08:19 PM

Old Coot --- Thank you.

SOL · 03-20-2006, 08:41 PM

Yes sir I do.

Child support is all relative to how much the father is making or will be making in the next 18yrs. If you flip burgers at BK, yeah you probably won't have to dip too deep in your pockets (<$350), but if your a computer programmer (like the father in the case) or somewhat sucessful, you can count on paying at LEAST $500 a month.

Also, its pretty hard for a Doctor to make a mistake if your missing reproduction organs, or if you cannot ovulate. Which in turn would lead you to believe you don't need to waste money on contraceptives. This wasn't a Mr. Wham-Bham-Thank You-Mam as your so colorfully put it. They had a relationship for some time. My guess, like thousands of others, the guy starts to think about leaving and the woman "accidently" gets pregnant to hook the man into relationships and financial obligations.

And if you don't think this stuff happens, your just plain ignorant.

happybrew · 03-20-2006, 08:57 PM

Quote:

HappyBrew: you have an excellent point.

Actually, I'm not sure you understood my point. A guy can pay child support because that's his "responsibility". That doesn't make it okay. One can pay for damaging another person's vehicle and fulfill their "responsibility" just as easily as one can pay child support.

It's not about cold, hard, impersonal duty. It's about a lack of love. That child is owed far more than a financial obligation. That child is owed an intact family in which to thrive.

Our culture destroys families by making the marital act the moral equivalent of a Sunday drive. "Oops, there was an accident, I wasn't careful enough." results in one of two things: payment or non-payment. "I don't want to pay because it wasn't my fault" is still playing on the same field as "I guess I better be a man and pony up that check every month." That's not being a man at all. That's being a "responsible consumer".

A real man will love his children and their mother, not just pony up a check. Love is self-sacrificing. It is the joy in doing things for the sake of the other, and sometimes the sorrowful acceptance of the pain of hurt or loss at the hands of the other without thought for revenge or self-interest.

But that is far too radical an idea for the "sexual revolution". No revolution ever goes far enough. They are all content to stop where the revolutionaries take the place of the fat bourgeois merchants, and the sexual revolution is no exception. The sexual revolution has become what it criticized, and its advocates exploit the other and impose repressive rules to limit what is acceptable.

It is too afraid of what it might find to go further, and thus will not advocate that people engage in total self-giving. It frowns on those who do, and censures them in public places, much like the Victorian sensibilities of earlier generations.

Just think about it for a minute. The emotional distance between fathers and their children in broken families, the prudish expectations that everyone must contracept in order to do it in the socially approved way, and the disconnect between physical act and true emotional intimacy... It's the new Victorian prudishness, same as the old but with a new wrapper on it. Nothing changed during the sixties and seventies. It had the appearance of change, but it was the old calling itself the new. There is no calling for a complete self-giving. It was a new set of rules enforced by the majority, only this time the social protections for the children were jettisoned like the emotional protections for the children had been jettisoned during the Victorian age.

And in the meantime there remains a lack of love between men and women and between parents and children. It's no wonder so many turn to meth to try to grasp what is missing in their lives.

happybrew

Rank Amateur · 03-20-2006, 09:13 PM

I'm sure there are horror stories on both sides of the fence, having been a guy who got to pay child support (and payed every last dime)I can tell you the impact is real. It is truly a bummer to have your kids ripped from your home and then get to pay for the priviledge too. I don't care what anybody says, my kids will never be the same for it.

While this guy is trying to get out of paying child support, it does hinged on the question of equal rights. This could have a very interesting outcome and as has been posted before, some men may actually want their children, then what?

PapaHog · 03-21-2006, 07:47 AM

Quote:

I'm sure there are horror stories on both sides of the fence, having been a guy who got to pay child support (and payed every last dime)I can tell you the impact is real. It is truly a bummer to have your kids ripped from your home and then get to pay for the priviledge too. I don't care what anybody says, my kids will never be the same for it.

While this guy is trying to get out of paying child support, it does hinged on the question of equal rights. This could have a very interesting outcome and as has been posted before, some men may actually want their children, then what?

My son after a long and expensive court battle was awarded custody of his son, my grandson, and he was awarded child support.

She has not made one payment. Yet for the years she had custody he never missed a payment.

Deadbeat Mom when it comes to child support yet she loves him and he loves her.

CATCH AND EAT · 03-21-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

How could any man (and I mean a real man) father a child, whether or not intentionally, and then try to avoid providing for its welfare. Who could do that? Who could say --- "Well, she lied to me, so I will not provide financial support for my child."

Boggles the mind.

Jack my friend, you hit the nail on the head.

The dude will pay and the courts will see to it. Just because he believed the lady does not mean he should have seen it as a free pass to behave poorly and without respect to her. The man (if you want to call him that) is a scumbag.

Ocean Blue, you are right, there should be some hard questions for the doctor but ultimately nature has a way to thwort doctors pronosis and it is amazing how wrong they can be.

jvp · 03-21-2006, 09:18 AM

I wonder how many of the so rightious have actually had to pay support or deal with the support enforcement. I have and it isn't fun.
Do I believe that he should stand up and be a father absolutely.
Do I believe that most of the flamers have not had this experience absolutely.

Rank Amateur · 03-21-2006, 10:03 AM

That's a good point jvp! When I was all done with my support and spousal, the DA's office does a final tally and of course they said I owed more, but then again each time they tallied up payments they got a different answer.

I actually had to take a day and go to Salem and count the months on a calendar for the gal so she could understand that there are only 12 months in a year.

In fact I was over billed, but if I wanted that money back, I would have to take the ex to court, the state would not get it back for me, even though they were the ones who demanded it.

For any of you guys or gals who pay support, never, never feel sorry and fork out a direct payment to the ex when the state is late sending your payment notice. This really messes up the paper work and they just can't seem to understand that you would be a nice person and not want to see your kids go hungry. My suggestion, buy them some food to tie them over and write it off.

Radke · 03-21-2006, 10:06 AM

[/quote]

Jack my friend, you hit the nail on the head.

The dude will pay and the courts will see to it. Just because he believed the lady does not mean he should have seen it as a free pass to behave poorly and without respect to her. The man (if you want to call him that) is a scumbag.

[/quote]

So just that I got this straight!

She lied, but is a 'Lady'.
He believed her, so he is a 'scumbag'

Do I got that right CE?

oh yeah. and intimacy between consenting adults, is that the 'behaving badly' part right?, (on his part only of course)

SOL · 03-21-2006, 10:49 AM

Radke, you will have to excuse these guys..Their wifes have to preview their posts to make sure they didn't marry a sexist.

And before you all start flaming me for that, it's just a joke... If you can't laugh then you haven't been fishing this year and for that you have my sympathy.

husker · 03-21-2006, 10:59 AM

why is this man a scumbag? if he is trying just to sidestep his misbehavior ok...scumbag.....but if the woman....did decieve him then shame on her.....however all of you are correct.....abstaining would have been the 1 and only way to insure no accidents happened.....however a bit of raingear is always a mans best friend

CATCH AND EAT · 03-21-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Jack my friend, you hit the nail on the head.

The dude will pay and the courts will see to it. Just because he believed the lady does not mean he should have seen it as a free pass to behave poorly and without respect to her. The man (if you want to call him that) is a scumbag.

[/quote]

So just that I got this straight!

She lied, but is a 'Lady'.
He believed her, so he is a 'scumbag'

Do I got that right CE?

oh yeah. and intimacy between consenting adults, is that the 'behaving badly' part right?, (on his part only of course)

[/quote]

Okay, the term "Lady" is inappropriate. How about loose lying Jezabell? :grin:

He's a scumbag because he doe not want to own up to supporting that which he had a part in creating. And obvoiusly she was no lady

.

We all have beliefs as to when sex is appropriate so we will not even visit this discussion.

bigwhite · 03-21-2006, 12:24 PM

My Fiance and I had this same discussion last night.

Obviously there are a MILLION Moral, ethical issues involved in a decision like this. Everyone will have their own opinion, that is influenced by their past.

The big issue is paternity fraud: Check this out - watch the video: http://hometown.aol.com/vetsvspf/
Right now there is NO laws to protect a man from Paternity fraud. If the woman names a man as the father HE is responsible and must pay child support untill he can prove in court the child is not his. This can take YEARS!! In the between time he must continue to pay and there is no recourse/reimbursement for this $. IMHO fraud is fraud and it should be dealt with in the same way...

bigwhite · 03-21-2006, 12:29 PM

The lawsuit information is availible and can be seen online at: nationalcenterformen.org

Thumper · 03-21-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Right now there is NO laws to protect a man from Paternity fraud. If the woman names a man as the father HE is responsible and must pay child support untill he can prove in court the child is not his.

The definitive paternity test, administered in your own home by a licensed technologist, resolves the issue within a few days. $600. End of story.

https://www.paternitytesters.com/platinum_package.html

bigwhite · 03-21-2006, 01:58 PM

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...es/b155166.pdf

It took over six months after he proved to the court he was not the father to stop the child support.

So no.. a in home test isnt the end of the story.

Thumper · 03-21-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...es/b155166.pdf

It took over six months after he proved to the court he was not the father to stop the child support.

So no.. a in home test isnt the end of the story.

Yeah. It really is. The case you cite is ten years old. The fellow didn't even try to appeal for more than five years. He really should have lost the appeal on that basis alone.

A lot has happened in the world of paternity testing in the past ten years.

Apple Steeler · 03-21-2006, 03:07 PM

Why should it matter if it was 5 years before he appealed? A woman has a right to apply for child support up until the childs 18th birthday right? Obvioulsy the guy has not been paying attention to 101.

Thumper · 03-21-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Why should it matter if it was 5 years before he appealed?

Because the California Code Of Civil Procedures, Sec. 473, specifies a six-month period for appeal of such findings. Danged laws!

They keep getting in the way.

Rank Amateur · 03-21-2006, 05:25 PM

If you read the text of the appeal, section 473, is basically null and void. I would think if a county keeps trying to use that section as a defense in taking money from people who are unfairly burdened with child support they are going to get there behind handed to them. The court was not too thrilled with this abuse of power or did they not spell that out clearly enough!

SOL · 03-21-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Obvioulsy the guy has not been paying attention to 101.

I haven't been listening this week, I wonder if Tom has brought this up at all?

jvp · 03-22-2006, 05:09 AM

Quote:

That's a good point jvp! When I was all done with my support and spousal, the DA's office does a final tally and of course they said I owed more, but then again each time they tallied up payments they got a different answer.

I actually had to take a day and go to Salem and count the months on a calendar for the gal so she could understand that there are only 12 months in a year.

In fact I was over billed, but if I wanted that money back, I would have to take the ex to court, the state would not get it back for me, even though they were the ones who demanded it.

For any of you guys or gals who pay support, never, never feel sorry and fork out a direct payment to the ex when the state is late sending your payment notice. This really messes up the paper work and they just can't seem to understand that you would be a nice person and not want to see your kids go hungry. My suggestion, buy them some food to tie them over and write it off.

I finally had to have the state of Utah tell the state of oregon to butt out since they had no idea what they were doing. Oh yea and it isn't 18 yrs of support it is support until they finish college/grad school/etc/etc/etc. No time limit just until they finish school.

Thumper · 03-22-2006, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Oh yea and it isn't 18 yrs of support it is support until they finish college/grad school/etc/etc/etc. No time limit just until they finish school.

I guess what stuns me is that I considered it an honor to support my God-given children until they were through with their education. I don't sense that warm fuzzy feeling on this thread. :whazzup: Anyhow, I 'spect this old coot has said enough.

Rank Amateur · 03-22-2006, 07:55 PM

Well if all that support would go to our children, we would have that warm fuzzy feeling!

ampersat · 03-22-2006, 08:09 PM

The bottom line on this is that she gets to decide the entire outcome. If she didn't want the child, she has options. If he didn't want the child, he doesn't.