Child Support when not on Birth Cert.

[planetmark]

Dude, it has nothing to do with "equal status" between this guy and Abraham. You said the Bible gives moral requirement to "support the child". I'm making the point that the Bible does NOT say that, as evident in the story of Abraham and his son Ishmael. And I then stated that if you have a Bible verse to the contrary, that points out our "obligation" in this area, then offer it. You offered instead a verse that "suggests doing good", etc...

You sound like you are justifying the system, and falling prey to the propaganda of "child support". If it is a moral obligation, then 1) it is up to each person individiually to fulfill 2) don't bring the government into it.

I never said anything about any "certainty" of who's child this is. I am aware the orgininal poster mentioned the uncertainty. To counter the inevitable "propaganda", I threw in the bit about taking of a man's child, but it appears to have been taken wrongly by you. IF it's his child, they have no right taking it away and forcing him to pay. IF it is NOT his child, there is no further discussion. But...

The ENTIRE ISSUE HERE is that the thieves in control WILL destroy this man if he gives one inch on jurisdiction. Period. THEY don't care if he is or is not the father. Paternity fraud is rampant, and to even start to argue the merits of this situation is to give in to jurisdiction, and thereby to stand idle in the cross-hairs of the system's best sniper. "Paternity" is a "merit", and is IRELLEVANT. It is 100% propaganda, and will be used against him, no matter what, if he acquieses to the "test". The issue is statutory jurisdiction. Don't lose sight of this.

Like I said, in any situation like this, a man has to FIGHT first. Then, after he beats the thieves back, THEN he can handle the moral aspects as his heart and faith dictate. I don't know why you're all hot and fiery about this, but you are making a mistake in suggesting that anybody should trust the system to determine anything, let alone "paternity" in a child support case. I'm not meaning anything personal to offend you Jerry. Just pointing out that this, of all government issues, is THE ONE issue that nobody should ever give an inch on. This is a "civil" issue with an absolute criminal punishment, without the need to prove or even suggest wrong doing. Being "male" is the crime. Don't touch it. Run away. FIGHT NOW. Don't play with jurisdiction. Kill it outright and up front. Deal with the "moral issues" later, without government interference. That's all I'm saying.

[planetmark]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Now, you did not address the other moral obligations that we as a community of man have toward one another.. to care for one another, to meet the needs of those that are not capable of providing for themselves.. Etc.

Respectfully, I would suggest such discussion be deferred to a separate thread. It's a valid and important topic, and would make for a lively discussion, I'm sure, but I feel it would derail the topic here.

[powder]

Originally Posted by planetmark

Like I said, in any situation like this, a man has to FIGHT first. Then, after he beats the thieves back, THEN he can handle the moral aspects as his heart and faith dictate. I don't know why you're all hot and fiery about this, but you are making a mistake in suggesting that anybody should trust the system to determine anything, let alone "paternity" in a child support case. I'm not meaning anything personal to offend you Jerry. Just pointing out that this, of all government issues, is THE ONE issue that nobody should ever give an inch on. This is a "civil" issue with an absolute criminal punishment, without the need to prove or even suggest wrong doing. Being "male" is the crime. Don't touch it. Run away. FIGHT NOW. Don't play with jurisdiction. Kill it outright and up front. Deal with the "moral issues" later, without government interference. That's all I'm saying.

200% agreement. The system justs wants you to pay. forget about fact, morals, equality..... just pay.

Planetmark hit it on the nose.

For all you folk that have suggested that I am supporting the system.

If you really think that child support is not a moral issue and rather just a jurisdictional issue, then by all means, sweep the moral value of the subject under the carpet and barge into the courts demanding your jurisdiction.

"You sound like you are justifying the system, and falling prey to the propaganda of "child support". If it is a moral obligation, then 1) it is up to each person individiually to fulfill 2) don't bring the government into it."

I raised all four of my children and had no problem with it... never got any support from the state while doing that either. By the way,, one of those children is not mine... she is from a previous marriage of the wife..



Further I say naught.

Jerry.

[Akira]

niteuser,

First... welcome to the forum...

Originally Posted by niteuser

we had a child

We??? sounds like you know its yours... or you have taken some degree of responsibility.

but they was unsure about who the father was so they did not put me secured party on the birth cert.

They? her family? the hospital? did you bring up the possibility you weren't the dad, or did you just go along with someone elses idea for some reason?

After all she has done I need to just leave em in the dust

If the child is yours... There is nothing mom can do, that justifies you leaving your child behind !!

You need to find out if the child is yours...

If it is, and mom really is as bad as you represent her to be, then you need to pursue custody, for the good of your child, which should be easy, as mom has already shown she has 'unclean hands'.

If you know it's your child, and you're trying to weasel out, then you rightly deserve all the hell the state brings you.

If it isn't your child, then you have nothing to sign over, and your conscience is clear, unless of course, the child is now 10, and believes you really are their dad. Just like a common law marriage... if you've been walking the walk for years, under common law, you're married and are the kids dad. period.

The hard part in all this is, if the state pays for the dna test, and you're found out to be the dad, then you have already aquiesed to their presumed authority, and should you want to be 'the best dad you can', its already to late to get the state out of a situation, they have no right to be involved in (see my opinion below).

If you know you're not the dad, and the child doesn't already call you dad, then Planetmark gave you prudent advice, make the state prove their authority.

Your smartest move, should you have the resources, is to pay for your own dna test, independent of the state. It will be worth it, in the long run.

Somethings tells me, however, you already know whether you're the dad or not...


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Akira]

God gives a child to both parents. Both parents have a God given right to a life with their child. The child, likewise, has a God given right of access to BOTH parents, equally. Neither parent has the right to keep the other parent, from the child, unless a crime has been PROVEN, in a court of (common) LAW. All else is extortion and kidnapping.

In my humble opinion, the mother of my children, isn't worthy of much, but my children need a mother, and no one, but God himself, has the authority to take her from them. All things being equal, no one, but God, has the authority to keep their father (me) from them, either. End of story.

Since I have learned the law, I went looking for folks to share my new found knowledge with, intent on helping to spare future families the inevitable pain and suffering at the hands of a meddling, and abusive state authority, interested, only, with it's own self serving agenda. Ironicly, I couldn't find anyone worthy. The programming runs to deep, and most weren't competent enough for the challenge.

The judges and lawyers have nothing to worry about... there will always be slave citizens who will need a congressional mom and dad to make their decisions for them, tell them how to run their life, and to spank their butt when they are bad.

The fathers that fit into this catagory, have little sense of morality, or responsibility, don't acknowledge their children, and aren't interested in a life with them. I agree, these 'dads' (and mom's) need to have child support money forcibly extracted.

But in those situations where both parents are interested in a life with their children.... a 3rd parties opinion is of no value or relevance. The state is nothing more than another arrogant ass with an opinion. The state takes advantage of an already difficult situation, dangles a 'security carrot', tempting mom to cash in, and sell out, so the state might further it's own agenda. No crime proven against the ex? No standing for the state.

Any parent that would use their child as a weapon "to get even" or for leverage to manipulate the ex's behavior, clearly has a 'slave' mentality, and, minimally, needs counseling, and, imho, jeopardizes their competency for 'primary residence'.

Any father that desires and is willing to fight for a life with his children, cannot be denied, by any man, or any group of men, no matter what they call themselves. Any father willing to take a stand, should be evidence enough, that the state is an unwelcome 3rd party, and needs to take the door.

Planetmark is doing the right thing, by insisting the state prove it's authority to force their opinion, since mom alone, cannot enlist the states participation in a decisiion, that God himself has given mutually and exclusively to Mom & Dad, alone, whether the state percieves them as legally married or not. No army of gunslingers, regardless of resources, can buy relevancy for the states position, unless invited by both parents, knowingly, willingly, and intentionally.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[planetmark]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

I raised all four of my children and had no problem with it... never got any support from the state while doing that either. By the way,, one of those children is not mine... she is from a previous marriage of the wife..

I raised all SIX of my children without the state's help too. And by the way, my new wife also has SIX children that I'm now raising. And when I get mine back, that will make quite a houseful...

Does anybody in all this have any right to demand money from anybody else? With the state involved, this is a money pot waiting to be tapped, and then everybody can suffer. As I said, no government entitiy has the capacity (or the right, morally or legally) to make proper discernment of anything regarding custody or support, especially in a court of "equity" where the "judge" can make the decision single handedly, without a jury, without respect for the law, and without knowing anything about any of the parties involved. They only see it as a way to make a whole lot of slaves and a whole lot of money for themselves.

But, as I said, this is getting way off topic. Discussion about child support in general deserves it's own thread. But I can't see how any soverign would think it a good idea for "government" to steal someone's money at gunpoint, no matter if there is a dirtbag deadbeat involved or not. As Mark Stevens so clearly puts it, the real issue is the violent manner in which they do it, at gunpoint with threats of being shot or stuck in a cage if you don't "obey" their "legal opinions". I believe this issue is already handled and accounted for adequately through the teachings of the Bible, as well as in the common law resulting from millenia of human development, and it doesn't involve "government" or "judicial" thuggery. I'd be happy to share more on that, but again, in a different thread.

Suffice it to say, I believe the "child support" controversy now exists in our society simply as a mechanism to make slaves and cash flow for the defacto tyrant "government". And they are abusing children to create the controversy. So that makes anybody involved with the "child support industry" nothing more than filthy child abusers who should be tortured first, then hanged. IMHO.

Back to the point of this thread. FIGHT now. FIGHT hard. Throw off their presumed statutory jurisdiction. Kill the beast up front. Then you will answer to society, and ultimately to God, for what moral decisions you make after that. Being "soverign" means being responsible for your actions. Don't let "big brother" make your decisions, and don't walk away from your child after you beat the system.

Read the post entitled "did the laws change in 1933".

Jerry.

[Akira]

Read the post entitled "did the laws change in 1933".

[marksgirl]

Originally Posted by Akira

Read the post entitled "did the laws change in 1933".

I read this last night, but I couldn't figure out what it had to do with child support. Maybe my brain was just too tired to catch on, but then again... If I'm missing something important, can you please enlighten me? Thanks.
Also, I'd like to throw out my personal opinion/experience here about child support. After all the things I've learned this past year, if I could go back and change what I did when I got divorced, I would change a lot. For starters, I wouldn't consider asking for child support enforcement from the state, and I would have asked that it not even be mentioned in the divorce papers. My ex wasn't happy about being separated from his family, but until I filed for cs, he was faithfully giving me money out of his paycheck to cover the mortgage and other expenses. Once I filed, though, he (rightfully) got upset and didn't give me money again. Luckily, my parents were able and willing to help out. I believe that child support enforcement is wrong; the state "government" has no business telling anyone that they have to pay someone else money. I also know my ex; he had some problems but he's still a good man and a good father, and I believe that if I'd never forced the issue, he would still today be sending money to help out, and he'd be happy to do it, too.
I know my opinion probably sounds strange, especially coming from a woman, but gender doesn't change truth. The courts are definitely biased against men. If a game is pre-programmed to have one side always win, where's the honest "victory" in getting something from the other side? There isn't. Nobody wins in divorce, but if you can keep the issues between the two of you and not involve the state, at least nobody LOSES everything.
I have corrected my "error" somewhat by sending the cs "gestapo" my request for them to cease collecting cs from my ex. (I did this months ago) When I called recently to ask how to cancel a cs order, they said, "you sent us a letter back in xxx, so it's already been done." The only thing now that I don't know how to fix (and probably can't) is that I accepted TANF for 6 months, and the cs people are now collecting the amount that he "should have" paid during that time. It's twisted logic; if I didn't have an order to receive cs, they would have wanted me to get one; if I didn't have anyone to get cs from, they still would have given me the same amount of money and would never have expected any of it back. I'm out of their hands now, and have no intentions of ever putting myself, my children, or my ex back in their control again.