Reason #965,281 to not bother with single moms...

Page 4 of 5 [ 75 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

15 Apr 2011, 4:39 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Does it really make any difference whether there was a legal paper or not for it?? The xv points mentioned there are obvious evidences that he morally adopted these boys as his children and therefore he has the moral responsibility toward them after the divorce (like the biological father). He doesn't have the right to drop his father role just because he and their mother got divorced , fatherhood can't be circumstantial.

The law is made to protect the weak , and the weak in that case are the boys.

Right. I don't understand why so many are hung up on the DNA and legal papers. If he has been a significant part of their lives for an extended period of time, he is their father. Period.

_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.

Suomalainen
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 53
Location: Finland

15 Apr 2011, 11:06 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

The biological father was already paying child support $1017 a month though.

blue_bean
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,617
Location: Behind the wheel

16 Apr 2011, 1:22 am

So she's getting child support from both the stepdad AND biological father? IMO that shouldn't be allowed. It should be ONE payment per child from ONE father. But the loophole means she can marry and shack up with guys over and over again to cheat the system.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

16 Apr 2011, 2:24 am

Suomalainen wrote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

The biological father was already paying child support $1017 a month though.

I agree on that part, it's a messed up loop, maybe they should ask the boys who do they consider 'dad'

, I dunno, one father is needed to be defined.

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

16 Apr 2011, 2:38 am

I think the court's decision is just,
but I want to point out that if it ain't on the books, it doesn't matter, from a legal POV.

There was no legal adoption.

_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.

Suomalainen
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 53
Location: Finland

16 Apr 2011, 3:32 am

In general, more individual judging of all divorces, custody, child support etc could be considered "fairer", but then we would get more burden on the system and also subjectivity and fuzziness is bad for the rule of law in general.

wefunction
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,486

16 Apr 2011, 6:41 am

blue_bean wrote:

If he's only receiving the money because of the children, when he no longer has the children but continues to claim them, that money should rightfully go to supporting the children - its intended purpose for being providing in the first place. This isn't rocket science.

Oh no! Women all over will start having babies and then will form long term relationships with men over and over again just to get them to support them so they'll never have to work! Because you know that's all women want to do... scam men with their babies so they don't have to work!

Besides, who says a child can only have ONE father and a child can only receive ONE payment of support? What a silly stipulation that has no basis in any law anywhere! If both are rightfully liable to the child's wellbeing, they should both be responsible. Frankly, I'm tired of the old stereotype that mothers are money-hungry stealing all they can from men to buy fur coats and fancy cars. If men are receiving money specifically to care for these children and they're no longer caring for these children, that money should go to care for these children. She had a legitimate relationship with this man wherein he had an integral part of these children's lives. Now he's the one running the scam by getting more money than he's entitled to by using the children.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

16 Apr 2011, 7:29 am

deadeyexx wrote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Quote:

ii) Mr. Zacharias was listed as father and filled the “father role” in the boys’ baptisms;

The man has legally adopted the boys, he's their father, and therefore he will be accountable as their father in case of divorce. Period.

I can't even get what's wrong in that case.

Where do you see this? I see no legal adoption. However they did become his DEPENDENTS. Big difference.

He recieved $400 a month he wouldn't have recieved otherwise for those two dependents. Yet for 15 months, the money went straight to him. Recieving money for depends you don't have is normally fraud. However, there was a loophole since he was still married.

Good for that judge to close this loophole.

If he was married to the mother and the children have taken his surname, then he has essentially legally the children.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

16 Apr 2011, 7:32 am

wefunction wrote:

blue_bean wrote:

Btw, blue_beans is a woman , in case you don't know.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

16 Apr 2011, 8:22 am

wefunction wrote:

mv wrote:

Looks like hyperlexian beat me to it!

Dang! I must've gone invisible again.

i don't think we were saying the same thing... ?

spongy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,055
Location: Patiently waiting for the seventh wave

16 Apr 2011, 9:22 am

hyperlexian wrote:

wefunction wrote:

mv wrote:

Looks like hyperlexian beat me to it!

Dang! I must've gone invisible again.

i don't think we were saying the same thing... ?

She mentioned that the whole double standard may exist on society but that courts are beginning to treat both genders equally.
Having said that I had to go through this thread a couple of times to see where she mentioned it(somewhere along the middle of the comment you quoted previously).

As for wefunction comment being unnoticed it was started out by mentioning some sort of family discussion and not everyone here wants to read about that kind of things(I tend to skip those comments and I would have skipped yours if you hadnt said anything) IMO hyperlexian gave a shorter reply that was somewhat clearer
Edit:@wefunction remember to only use your invisibility powers for evil :lol:

_________________
Please take the time to answer this quick survey to help improve the community

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt255139.html

blue_bean
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,617
Location: Behind the wheel

16 Apr 2011, 10:15 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

wefunction wrote:

blue_bean wrote:

Btw, blue_beans is a woman , in case you don't know.

I was just sayin'. If some woman ends up with half a dozen support payments per month when all they have is one kid it's not fair IMO.

As per the court document:

Quote:

It is not disputed that Mr. Zacharias has been receiving $400.00 per month from Veteran Affairs as a benefit for having Trevor and Griffin noted as his dependants.

It just doesn't seem to specifically say if he was continuing to recieve this benefit for the kids AFTER the separation. If he was, I agree, he should forward it on to the kids in some way. BUT he can still claim them as a dependant now that he's paying child support for them. There's actually no scam on his end, he's doing whats perfectly legal. They are in fact still his dependants because he is continuing to financially maintain them via child support, and they always will be for as long as he's paying. He had to back pay the child support to about Jan 2010 ($6000), so in effect he's had to pay that "ill-gotten" veterans affairs money received between the separation date and the hearing date forward to the kids. Easy come easy go.

wefunction
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,486

16 Apr 2011, 2:01 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

wefunction wrote:

blue_bean wrote:

Btw, blue_beans is a woman , in case you don't know.

Women can perpetuate stupid stereotypes about women, especially single mothers, too.

blue_bean
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,617
Location: Behind the wheel

16 Apr 2011, 11:57 pm

wefunction wrote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

wefunction wrote:

blue_bean wrote:

Btw, blue_beans is a woman , in case you don't know.

Women can perpetuate stupid stereotypes about women, especially single mothers, too.

Would you prefer me to join your side and perpetuate the stereotype of men being irresponsible pigs?

mv
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

17 Apr 2011, 8:53 am

wefunction wrote:

mv wrote:

Looks like hyperlexian beat me to it!

Dang! I must've gone invisible again.

Sorry, wefunction (and I love your stuff, including your post here) - it wasn't a slight, I was just very narrowly focusing on the "depends on custody arrangements and income" part of it, not the more general "courts are becoming more equalized" part of it.

Still trying to get the hang of conversation!

wefunction
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,486

17 Apr 2011, 2:24 pm

blue_bean wrote:

wefunction wrote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

wefunction wrote:

blue_bean wrote:

Btw, blue_beans is a woman , in case you don't know.

Women can perpetuate stupid stereotypes about women, especially single mothers, too.

Would you prefer me to join your side and perpetuate the stereotype of men being irresponsible pigs?

Who said that was my side? When did I ever say such a thing? I'm not here for the hostility, you can keep it.

Page 4 of 5 [ 75 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Reason #965,281 to not bother with single moms... Post Reply New Topic

Reason #965,281 to not bother with single moms...