Thread: You know what I say to mother's who whine?

I my case the ring was appraised at 31,500 dollars. Stan.

$31,500 !!

For a ring?

Thirty one thousand five hundred friggin' dollars. !!

What did you get for the engagement?

OK, I see where you are going with this. Equal access and custody. Therefore, each parent will buy what is necessary while the child is in their care...

Yes, I support this.

But what if one walks and does not want to share parenting? Should the cp then be 100% responsible for the children, even if this is not her wish?

BOTH parents should be held totally, wholly, individually, jointly and severally responsible and accountable for the financial security, health - physical, mental, emotional and spiritual -, education and well being of their children. No ifs, no buts.

Quote from onegirl

Don't get me started on the lawyers. Lawyers do NOT belong in family court, imo. My husband represented himself in court and we do not regret it one bit.

Let's be careful blaming the lawyers ONLY.

Yeah, they are about 25% to blame but let's remember that they are doing their job. Lawyers make money from clients by representing them in legal matters.

If the family courts weren't set up the way they are, there would be little for the lawyers to make money on. The family courts don't have to be as adversarial as they are but the "winner take all" mentality is a money maker for the state....and the lawyers.

You may not be aware of this onegirl but the states get money from the Federal government for the collection of child alimony. The amount is based on how much they collect. This becomes a matter of the courts charging ridiculous amounts of child alimony so they can maximize the amount of federal tax dollars the state gets. It is a con game.

Of course, I am talking about the US, where I am, I cannot speak for other nations.

So you see, the state set it up and the state and the lawyers capitalize on it. That puts the lawyers at about 25% responsible and the state and fed governments at 75%.

This whole con game needs to be shut down, extortion is illegal...unless the government does it. I am not even sure the family courts are Constitutional. I wish there were an easy way to boycott the family courts.

Quote from Percy

$31,500 !!
For a ring? Thirty one thousand five hundred friggin' dollars. !!
What did you get for the engagement?

I got a 90 dollar gold band!

Quote from Percy

BOTH parents should be held totally, wholly, individually, jointly and severally responsible and accountable for the financial security, health - physical, mental, emotional and spiritual -, education and well being of their children. No ifs, no buts.

I'll consider that option when men gain reproductive rights and when men are treated equally in the family courts. As it stands...100% rights = 100% responsibility.

I still can't justify slavery, be it a man or a woman.

Just curious, when did the family courts open their doors?

Quote from onegirl

It is not right for any parent to have to go it alone unless they choose to do so... That goes for men and women. I do not support injustice towards any person.

Isn't slavery an injustice?

All I am saying is the laws should treat everyone equally. Regardless of sex. I know this is not the case, but it is what I believe in.

Quote from Garak

I'll consider that option when men gain reproductive rights and when men are treated equally in the family courts. As it stands...100% rights = 100% responsibility. I still can't justify slavery, be it a man or a woman. Just curious, when did the family courts open their doors?

They exploded in the 70s and 80s. After divorce became extra popular.

I'm Republican in my politics and my favorite President was Ronald Reagan.

His largest regret in his whole life? While Governor of California he pushed for and succeeded in changing divorce to "No-Fault". This was quickly adopted across the US.

Then divorces lost their stigma and became super popular. And family court grew immensely along with all the related services and hangers on. There were many unintended consequences from making divorce no-fault.

Ronnie wanted others not to have public divorces which make the newspapers. Well that did not occur, many are in the papers anyway. He did this because of the anguish which resulted from all the publicity back when he was a movie actor.

Quote from Garak

You may not be aware of this onegirl but the states get money from the Federal government for the collection of child alimony. The amount is based on how much they collect. This becomes a matter of the courts charging ridiculous amounts of child alimony so they can maximize the amount of federal tax dollars the state gets. It is a con game.

SERIOUSLY??? HOW is that legal???

Quote from onegirl

All I am saying is the laws should treat everyone equally. Regardless of sex. I know this is not the case, but it is what I believe in.

..and it won't happen.

Women are not chased down like men are for child alimony because society won't stand for it.

Seriously, if politicians went on TV talking the same shit about deadbeat mothers as they do fathers...chivalry would kick in AND the feminists would throw raise hell.

So you see, the laws will never be exercised equally when it comes to this.

I was always told that if you can't play fair, don't play at all. Well, if the laws can't be exercised equally, then get rid of them.

Besides, the laws themselves are morally and legally questionable. Slavery and extortion are illegal and that is what we have going on these days.

Quote from onegirl

SERIOUSLY??? HOW is that legal???

How is ANYTHING the family courts do legal?

Well, most of it is not but the government is accountable to no one.

Quote from Stan

They exploded in the 70s and 80s. After divorce became extra popular.

I'm Republican in my politics and my favorite President was Ronald Reagan.

His largest regret in his whole life? While Governor of California he pushed for and succeeded in changing divorce to "No-Fault". This was quickly adopted across the US.

Then divorces lost their stigma and became super popular. And family court grew immensely along with all the related services and hangers on. There were many unintended consequences from making divorce no-fault.

Ronnie wanted others not to have public divorces which make the newspapers. Well that did not occur, many are in the papers anyway. He did this because of the anguish which resulted from all the publicity back when he was a movie actor.

Yes, I know Reagan said that.

He was duped by the feminists, like so many of us have been. The family courts are a feminists wet dream.

I read up on the NY family courts. It seem that there were Childrens courts dating back to the early 1800's. Those courts were more or less designed to prevent children from going to trial in normal criminal courts.

The family courts, as we know them today, the feminist wet dream...didn't come about until 1962 and have only gotten worse since. This is only NY though, I don't know about the other states or other nations.

Point is, people have become so accustomed to the family courts (and all that they bring with them) that they think we couldn't raise children or go on with life without them.

In fact, life went a longer time without them, than they have been in existance.

Remember people, the more you ask government to fix, the more power you give them.

The family courts will continue to get worse and worse, I do hope no one is holding their breath thinking they will magically get better. That isn't the pattern with government.

Just curious, when did the family courts open their doors?

What do you mean?

Quote from onegirl

What do you mean?

I mean the family courts are not a founding part of this nation! They are as feminist as NOW is. Since feminism is a special interest movement...where does that put the family courts? Just a thought.

I would be willing to bet the family courts are yet another thing that would have our forefathers rolling in their graves.