Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That all changes when another life is involved. So say all the state feticide laws. Kill a pregnant woman? That's two homicides, not just one. Why? Because the fetus has the human right to life.
Just so I understand your logic, are you saying that because your son has full custody, that renders dysgenic‘s claim that “the presumptive custodial parent is the mother” as a false statement?
When the mother is the custodial caretaker of the children why would she not be the presumptive custodial parent?
If there were a 50/50 custodial care taking of the children then there would be a presumptive 50/50 custodial custody.
In many states there is a 50/50 presumption until it is shown who wants or is able to fill the role of custodial parent.
I can tell you a strange one. My little brother, a jerk, married a woman who had a 5 year old girl. They divorced when she was 10. The divorce court made him pay support until the girl turned 18, because the girl considered him her father. I had never heard of that before, But he gets no sympathy from me. He has been married 4 times. All the divorces were his fault.
There's a presumption that the children are related to the father, but that's rebuttable, he could have asked for a DNA test to prove it wasn't his child.
That all changes when another life is involved. So say all the state feticide laws. Kill a pregnant woman? That's two homicides, not just one. Why? Because the fetus has the human right to life.
Not legally. It changes when there is independent life (birth).
Fetal homicide laws are separate and being challenged, they are based on the assumption that the fetus was wanted by the mother and would have been a person not that it has a right to life. I dont agree with these laws and think the charge should be Mayhem, but none of that is relevant.
The fetus is part of and dependent on the mother and thus hers.
I know some of you guys are upset that women and their fetuses and even babies are no longer the property of their husbands or sperm donors. You just need to accept that and move on.
Just so I understand your logic, are you saying that because your son has full custody, that renders dysgenic‘s claim that “the presumptive custodial parent is the mother” as a false statement?
That's what I said and it's law in California as well as a number of other states:
Quote:
"In California, there is no presumption that a mother is entitled to custody of her child. Both parents are equally entitled to custody of a minor child. The court’s primary concern is the “necessary or proper” arrangement for the child, not the gender of the parent. In fact, the state of California presumes that joint custody is most often in the best interests of the child. It is up to the parents to either work together to create a joint custody and visitation plan that works, or to file for a different custody arrangement." https://info.legalzoom.com/child-cus...nia-21347.html
By law. Parents are legally required to support their minor children. At least in New Jersey. I don't know where you are, but it can't be that different, and I'm starting to think you don't actually have children, or you would know that.
AGAIN, as has already been explained to you, when child support is established after a divorce, it is based on a number set by the state, and the percentage each parent brings to their total income is used as the percentage of that set number that each parent pays.
(For purposes of this argument, we are talking about basic support, not the convoluted support agreements wealthier people may have so that Chelsea and Jayden can go to private school, have flying lessons, vacations to Nepal, etc. I'm talking about the normal, average person's child support.)
So, AGAIN, I'll give you the example using round numbers. Say that number is $1000. (When I got divorced, it was 1500 and change.) If I made 65% of our total income, and my ex made 35% of our total income, I was REQUIRED to provide $650 toward her support and he would be REQUIRED to pay $350.
Of course, he paid NOTHING, because he wasn't employed at the time; however, the court still ordered that he pay $50 a week until he found a job, so in reality I was REQUIRED to pay 100% of our daughter's support because no one else was supporting her. Of course, he didn't pay the $50, and when he got a job, he eventually occasionally paid me $50 here and there, sometimes even gave me $100 in the same month. Woo-hoo.
When she was 16 and he had pulled himself together enough to have a good job, I took him back to court to get him to pay the correct amount (that he SHOULD have been paying for years), and he got a lawyer and fought to get it reduced, so by the time it all went through, the child support from 16 to 18 ended up being just enough to have covered my lawyer bill.
Just because the custodial parent doesn't send someone a check doesn't mean they aren't required to support their child, which is what you seem to be trying so very desperately to get people to believe. We PAY the rent, buy the food, pay for the school supplies, etc, and we are REQUIRED BY LAW to support our children and provide those things.
There is a lot wrong with treatment of Dads in family court. But this poster is nothing short of privileged whining. Poor dear.
There is. And for every woman I know who supported her kids alone because Dad flaked off and refused to support his kids, I know men who paid their child support regularly and were active fathers in their children's lives.
I don’t know how else to explain to you that I am advocating 50/50 as I believe both parents are equally important. .
I don't believe you.
Quote:
I speak with some authority because I have dealt with this issue all my life first as the child of unmarried parents, with the dozens of friends and family members in this same situation, as the mother of kids born while being unmarried who spend the time 50/50 with me and their father and from my professional experience dealing with this issue.
Yet you are in complete denial of the reality of the situation.
Quote:
From your last post it seems you are not ok with 50/50 but you advocate 100 father and 0 mother.
No, i didn't say that.
Quote:
If I am misinterpreting I am sorry but it is really hard to find any coherence in your arguments.
Oh, please. It's incredibly simple, but you just won't accept reality, you would rather deny and obscure. Unmarried Mom's have full custody and parenting rights of children by default, unmarried Dad's have 0 custody and parenting rights by default. This is a very simple and clear cut proof of discrimination against men.
Quote:
Another thing is your google research does not equal a law degree in all 50 states and territories. Even experienced lawyers disagree and you can find cases going to one direction or the other as it depends in the unique facts of each case. Good luck
Amazing. Amazing the lengths that you will go to deny reality. Amazing that you choose to fight tooth and nail rather than simply acknowledge the truth.
I will post the statutes in all 50 States when i get the chance.
It does NOT depend on the facts of each case, that's the point. In EVERY unmarried situation, in EVERY State, it works the exact same....
You must really be dug into an anti Father, pro discrimination agenda to go this far in your level of denial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
