Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 261
  1. #101
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,075
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3302
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    And I am sure Justin Bieber will have to take one, too, whether he likes it or not.
    Surely there has to be some case established first, no?

    Otherwise wouldn't it open the doors to so many others demanding DNA tests of famous people on the outside shot they might be related? For that matter, how many non-famous people might start asking courts for DNA tests because they think their spouse screwed around on them or that their parents aren't their parents etc? The whole thing snowballs into as season of Maury Pauvich in a big hurry.

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    7,340
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post
    ...

    Statutory rape is real rape. Rape is rape, there's no real and pretend. And yes, I think the charges should stand, and the sentences should be the same, whether or not the rape was done by a man or a woman. The whole point of an age of consent is that the law doesn't believe people under a certain age are able to consent to sex, so whether or not the sex was consensual is irrelevant if a person is under the age of consent. I believe should look at the level of violence (if any) involved when sentencing.
    ...
    Statutory rape is no longer "rape" in California and many other states, simply because the idea that a 17 year old cannot give consent until a given date, is now recognized as something of a legal fiction. A state could just change the age of consent, but states cannot change the simple fact that force negates consent. Male statutory rapists should not be treated differently from female statutory rapists; but statutory rapists should be treated differently from those who use force.

    Also, if support payments are not being used to care for the child, at all, the custodial parent can be charged with various crimes (non support, child endangerment, etc.).

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    7,340
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by numbers123 View Post

    Attyfan - the father can seek custody, go to court with evidence that the mother has been arrested more than once, provides alcohol to minors and still have lost. The courts don't always recognize a better living situation just the womb.
    I agree that courts often wrongfully deny custody to father, but fathers have better chances now than in over a century. I know of many cases where mothers are paying support to custodial fathers. Also, at least in my part of California, many parents (primarily fathers, but some mothers) who keep the records proving that they paid support "in kind" (paying school fees, medical care, etc.) get credit towards their support payments .... unless there is a really gross disparity in income.

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Infected with the joy of skating!!
    Posts
    10,390
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    7460
    Quote Originally Posted by overedge View Post
    I don't know how accurate the Star story is on conveying the details that are in the lawsuit. But IMHO the baby-mama's description of how she and the Biebs got around to doing the nasty sounds like a description of how a naive 21-year-old thinks things happen backstage at a big concert. Not how things actually happen.
    So how does it actually happen, overedge ?
    Keeper of Nathalie Pechelat's bitchface.

  5. #105

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Beijing, China
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11013
    Quote Originally Posted by attyfan View Post
    Statutory rape is no longer "rape" in California and many other states, simply because the idea that a 17 year old cannot give consent until a given date, is now recognized as something of a legal fiction. A state could just change the age of consent, but states cannot change the simple fact that force negates consent.
    I'm not following. If statutory rape is not rape because the age of consent is "fiction", what is the point of having an age of consent? If an 18 year old has sex with a 12 year old, and the 12 year old says it's okay, is it ok? What about 15? 16? Are you saying the law in California, despite there being a legal age of consent, disregards the legal age as long as force isn't being used? What's the point of even having a law against statutory rape if it's not considered rape? What's the point of have a legal age of consent if it is disregarded as "fiction"? If the law thinks a 17 year old can consent, then the law needs to choose a lower age of consent.

    Quote Originally Posted by attyfan View Post
    Male statutory rapists should not be treated differently from female statutory rapists; but statutory rapists should be treated differently from those who use force.
    I said that. You're the one who said that statutory rape doesn't exist because the legal age is considered "fiction" and statutory rape doesn't involve force so isn't considered rape. What is it considered then? No force, the legal age is considered "fiction", so what's the crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by attyfan View Post
    Also, if support payments are not being used to care for the child, at all, the custodial parent can be charged with various crimes (non support, child endangerment, etc.).
    There is nothing to stop the guardian spending the bare minimum on the child and the rest on themselves.

  6. #106
    engaged to dupa
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Heaven for climate, Hell for company.
    Posts
    18,917
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1083
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post


    There is nothing to stop the guardian spending the bare minimum on the child and the rest on themselves.
    And just how would you change the world, Angelskates? Every parent I know who receives child care payments spends it for the good of the child. You must know of a lot of selfish, greedy bastards who have kids in order to live the high life. Sheesh. Part of the good of a child is housing so, yes, it might be used to make house payments or pay rent. It might be used to help pay utilities - the good of the child.
    3539 and counting.

    Slightly Wounding Banana list cont: MacMadame.

  7. #107
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,017
    vCash
    1529
    Rep Power
    0
    For the last two years of high school, I refused to go live with my mother. She was bipolar and an alcoholic and it was a terrible situation. She recognized that she was a total fcuk up and stopped begging us to come there at some point.

    My parents had joint custody, and she received child support. She received that child support for the entire two years during which I did not live under her roof or use her utilities, her food, or anything else. My dad paid everything I needed for school, always, bought me all my clothes, etc., the entire time they were divorced.

    Yeah, there are people who spend it on the good of the child. I'm sure that happens in the majority of cases. But I don't see the need to insult Angelskates when what she describes most certainly does occur in some situations.

    For what it's worth, I don't think my mother is a selfish, greedy bastard. I think she was screwed up and desperate. And I don't think hyperbole is necessary.

  8. #108

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Beijing, China
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11013
    Quote Originally Posted by milanessa View Post
    And just how would you change the world, Angelskates?.
    What's with the insult and condescending tone? I've already said what I would change.

  9. #109

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looking for cupcakes
    Posts
    30,710
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    14096
    I think that the greater good for the child is subjective too. If you use the child support money to buy say $30.00 designer jeans for a toddler and $10.00 puma socks and complain that child support doesn't cover your housing, food, diapers, the $400 car payment for a new car and your girls' night Friday beer party (because you deserve a girl's party night) is that the greater good of the child? Even if you work at a place where you are allowed to bring home free food and your mother brings you free food (healthy since she works for a large corporation food service where perishables like fruits/vegs and some meats are given to the staff on an every other day or weekly basis)?

    If 80% of the time the father has court ordered visitation that the mother must comply with, the child has new clothing some with the tags still attached so that everyone knows there is new clothing, is that for the greater good of the child? That's two times a week and every other weekend? If the father is driving an older car which paid for, still requires repairs and the father buys clothing for his child at the goodwill. Slightly worn, but in good shape. An entire winter wardrobe including coat and snow pants for $25.00 vs. the $30.00 pair of jeans?

    I am sure that there are many cases child support is not being paid in order to punish the mother. I am sure that there are many cases where child support does not cover the costs of raising a child, but then there are many cases where parents who are together can not cover the costs of raising children. I am also sure that there are many cases where the mother is neglecting her children and spending the child support money on other things.

  10. #110
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,511
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    6860
    Quote Originally Posted by WindSpirit View Post
    The girl in question I think is full of shit. Even if he's sexually active (eek), why on earth would he choose to have his first time with a random weird chick when he has Selena Gomez?
    Apparently he didn't start dating her until after this encounter.

    Quote Originally Posted by milanessa View Post
    So you're an expert on American family law?
    She's right though. There is no auditing system in place and definitely no laws or even rules for how child support is spent.

    Quote Originally Posted by attyfan View Post
    Also, if support payments are not being used to care for the child, at all, the custodial parent can be charged with various crimes (non support, child endangerment, etc.).
    Do you know anyone that has happened to? Because I sure don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by numbers123 View Post
    I am sure that there are many cases child support is not being paid in order to punish the mother.
    Like my dad. And all the dads I saw in court every time my mom took him to court. The number of men I know who see child support as a moral duty is actually pretty small. Even the decent men who pay it often pay it grudgingly and with lots of carping about how the wife spends it.

    Quote Originally Posted by numbers123 View Post
    I am also sure that there are many cases where the mother is neglecting her children and spending the child support money on other things.
    There are some but, your own experiences aside, this is very much the minority case. Statistics show that the children's living situations go down in quality with divorce the vast majority of the time. The income at the custodial house (including child support) is usually much less than half of what it was when the household was intact.
    "Cupcakes are bullshit. And everyone knows it. A cupcake is just a muffin with clown puke topping." -Charlie Brooker

  11. #111

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looking for cupcakes
    Posts
    30,710
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    14096
    I think that everyone's living situations go down in quality with the divorces. I have seen it from both sides - my sister and her kids, my brothers and their kids and now of course my grandson.

    In each case, each family financial situation was impacted by the loss of a two income family lifestyle. In my sister's case the standard and quality of their lives increased 10 fold since he made good money, but gambled and was never home. My brothers paid their child support as ordered and more. For the most part, my nieces and nephews only had to ask for something reasonable and it was taken care of - for example college educations. My one brother lived on the west coast and his children lived in the midwest. He made certain he was part of their lives for everything.

    All I am saying is that there are many situations - several of them described here, that indicates that the father is not always the deadbeat or the vindictive one which has been displayed by the media and child support laws.

    Can I ask why your mom took you to court to see the proceedings?

  12. #112
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    State of frustration
    Posts
    560
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    There are some but, your own experiences aside, this is very much the minority case. Statistics show that the children's living situations go down in quality with divorce the vast majority of the time. The income at the custodial house (including child support) is usually much less than half of what it was when the household was intact.
    We're talking about a 17 y/o multi-millionaire. Of course this is a minority case

    I live in Texas, and family case law is not 'perfect' here to put it mildly. So I can see these scenarios happening, even if they are the minority. Texas favors the mother at all costs. Mother may take the $2400 per month in child support and blow half or all of it on crack or meth. Father knows what's going on, demands the custody agreement be changed. Judge does NOT even order a simple thing like a Utox to test for drugs. I figure, just test an inch of her 24" length hair one by one, and you will see she is a chronic cocaine addict. NOTHING. So father has to continue paying that amount knowing that hardly any of it is going to his kids.

    It's not simple. One of my friends left Texas (she did family law) because it was sooooo harmful and she could not ever see a helpful change in the situation.

  13. #113
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,721
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by numbers123 View Post
    All I am saying is that there are many situations - several of them described here, that indicates that the father is not always the deadbeat or the vindictive one which has been displayed by the media and child support laws.
    ^^This.

    Also:

    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to numbers123 again"

    My nephew's mother took trips to Vegas, Nashville and Florida while the kid was in boarding school and admitted to a friend on her FB wall that it was all funded by child support since the kid wasn't home to support. My brother kept paying. His visit to a lawyer wasn't intended to stop paying but to get the amount reduced to reflect his payment of school fees and her not having the kid at home. It would have been difficult so he didn't pursue it and she kept getting the money. And, fwiw, he had to go to court to claim paternity, get visitation and arrange child support in the first place because she intended to keep him entirely out his son's life.

  14. #114
    Watch me move
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    16,719
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Coco View Post
    So how does it actually happen, overedge ?
    Well, for one thing, it's more common than not after the show ends for there to be a car or bus with its engine running, waiting for the "talent". And the "talent" gets hustled offstage, right into the car or bus which then takes off. This is for security reasons, but also because tours run on really tight schedules, and usually the tour has to start moving on to the place of the next show almost immediately.

    If there is any kind of partying or whatever, it takes place in the car/bus, or back at the hotel, or on the transportation to the next show. If there is any kind of event at the venue involving people who are not part of the tour (e.g. meet-and-greet with contest winners) it happens *before* the show - if nothing else, that lets the tour managers control the schedule (as in "sorry, you'll have to leave now, Mr. Talent has to get ready for the show".) So baby-mama's claim that everything happened after the show doesn't ring true.

    Also, it is very rare for the "talent" to be anywhere without supervision, even grown-up talent. You might not realize the supervision is there, but it is. And they are really good at stepping in and defusing whatever trouble they see coming. So, again, for baby-mama to claim that the Biebs took her away to a quiet place backstage to make out without anyone noticing is suspicious. I would imagine that for an underage person with fanatical fans, and with a squeaky-clean image to preserve - and in the days of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. - the supervision would be even more close, and the minders would be even more cautious than they might be otherwise.
    Last edited by overedge; 11-07-2011 at 02:25 AM.
    Who wants to watch rich people eat pizza? They must have loved that in Bangladesh. - Randy Newman on the 2014 Oscars broadcast

  15. #115
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,837
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I know a few years ago stats showed in the majority of cases where the father sought custody, the father was granted it. The issue was relatively few fathers sought custody. Apparently now in cases where the father has sought custody, the stat is now closer to fathers being awarded custody 50% of the time:
    Is 50/50 unfair?

    This breakdown has become increasingly common in divorce cases involving children, where fathers who seek primary physical custody are now awarded primary custody about 50 percent of the time, according to Working Mother Magazine.
    http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Feb/59220.html

    Also stats showed following a divorce, the custodial parent's standard of living usually decreased while the non-custodial standard increased. Now, that was a few years ago, but typically men had better standards of living following divorce than did women.

    The reason why it's not sufficient to substitute supplies for support is bc a child needs a safe home, heat, safe dishes to eat off of, reliable transportation, dental check-ups, etc. Anecdotally, I've heard a *lot* of baby daddies think they should be able to substitute diapers for child support bc they don't want one penny of their money going to benefit the mom. [And no, not all men are alike]. So they're ok with buying diapers and some baby clothes. Problem is the child needs a lot more than that to thrive. Children need safe fully-furnished homes to live in, and those homes will necessarily house the custodial parent. The impulse to keep the custodial parent away from any possible benefit of child support is generally rooted in vindictiveness rather than care over a child's well-being. And that's why courts don't allow non-custodial parents to furnish diapers in lieu of actual support.

    In pdilemma's case, I assume the reason the support order continued is bc should anything cause the child to not be able to attend school, the mom has to have a home ready and waiting for the son to return. Iow, she has to continue maintaining a suitable family home whether the son is boarding there or not. And indeed, when the sin got kicked out of school, she had to house him again without much notice.

    The real issue is the dad apparently hasn't sought custody for whatever reason, and in that case there really shouldn't be griping about the support then.

    I realize people like to take the side of family members in custody cases, but I think far too many times family members only nurse a sense of grievance and stoke animosities between the parents to a very damaging degree.

  16. #116

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    7,340
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post
    I'm not following. If statutory rape is not rape because the age of consent is "fiction", what is the point of having an age of consent? If an 18 year old has sex with a 12 year old, and the 12 year old says it's okay, is it ok? What about 15? 16? Are you saying the law in California, despite there being a legal age of consent, disregards the legal age as long as force isn't being used? What's the point of even having a law against statutory rape if it's not considered rape? What's the point of have a legal age of consent if it is disregarded as "fiction"? If the law thinks a 17 year old can consent, then the law needs to choose a lower age of consent.
    In California, sex with someone between the ages of 16 and 18 is called "illegal sex", and, it is not considered to be a "serious felony" (i.e., someone convicted is eligible for probation, etc.). Sex with someone under 14 is child molestation -- a serious felony. Sex with someone between 14 and 16 is only child molestation (serious felony) if there is a certain age gap; otherwise, it is illegal sex. The law tries to adjust to reality in setting age limits. On the one hand, minors need a certain amount of protection, and the younger the child means the more protection needed. As applied to the near-adults (like 17 year olds) there is nothing happens on one's 18th birthday, that magically enables one better able to make decisions than on the day before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post
    I said that. You're the one who said that statutory rape doesn't exist because the legal age is considered "fiction" and statutory rape doesn't involve force so isn't considered rape. What is it considered then? No force, the legal age is considered "fiction", so what's the crime?
    I didn't say that statutory rape doesn't exist; I did say that it isn't "rape" in the true sense of the word because of consent. That the law may deem the consent invalid because of the age is a different matter than saying that the consent didn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post
    There is nothing to stop the guardian spending the bare minimum on the child and the rest on themselves.
    The child will share the guardian's shelter (purchased or rented with child support); otherwise, someone else (who is sheltering the child) will get the support. I haven't seen too many cases (outside of the Harry Potter books) of guardians buying food and not letting the child eat enough, although I did read of one case, where a parent was convicted of abuse for failing to feed the children adequately.

  17. #117
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,721
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    In pdilemma's case, I assume the reason the support order continued is bc should anything cause the child to not be able to attend school, the mom has to have a home ready and waiting for the son to return. Iow, she has to continue maintaining a suitable family home whether the son is boarding there or not. And indeed, when the sin got kicked out of school, she had to house him again without much notice.

    The real issue is the dad apparently hasn't sought custody for whatever reason, and in that case there really shouldn't be griping about the support then.

    I realize people like to take the side of family members in custody cases, but I think far too many times family members only nurse a sense of grievance and stoke animosities between the parents to a very damaging degree.
    You missed the part about her maintaining a home by taking expensive vacations, then?

    He did not seek custody at the time the boarding school issue came up because the school is technically a public school and he lives in a different state. If he had obtained custody, the kid would not have been eligible to attend the school. In spite of it being a public school, he had to pay about $3000 a year in fees for room and board (this year's is non-refundable) plus he was providing about $200 a month in incidental school and personal expenses for the kid. His desire was not to deprive the mother of child support but to at least get the amount reduced to reflect that she was not providing room and board to the child nor was she providing for any of the child's expenses out of the support she was receiving. She, in fact, repeatedly took my nephew's spending money for her own use when he was home on breaks. This did not go to court as the costs of getting a new child support decree were prohibitive and the likelihood of any change small according to the lawyers he spoke to, even though one of them felt that a reduced amount was in order unless the kid ceased to attend boarding school.

    As for her providing a home, she is living in someone else's home for free.

    As for seeking custody...my brother has the misfortune of working for the railroad which means he works unpredictable hours--no set shifts or days and trips away from home overnight at times. Because of this my parents and I have assisted greatly with child care when my nephew was too young to be home alone. Family law practice's take on his getting custody: very small chance due to the nature of his job. The unemployed mother (she has not even attempted to find a job for over five years) who lives in someone else's house is considered a more stable parent by the fine system we have.

  18. #118

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looking for cupcakes
    Posts
    30,710
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    14096
    my son did seek custody - had 50% until the final decree when the Iowa courts said that it is better to live with mom. Despite things that were documented and best left unsaid.

    I don't believe that the courts or the public have changed their minds about the custody issues - that for whatever reason believe that the mother is the better parent and that dads are deadbeats.


    But I concede to all of you who know better.
    Last edited by numbers123; 11-06-2011 at 08:33 PM.

  19. #119
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    37,687
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    15218
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    I know a few years ago stats showed in the majority of cases where the father sought custody, the father was granted it. The issue was relatively few fathers sought custody. Apparently now in cases where the father has sought custody, the stat is now closer to fathers being awarded custody 50% of the time
    There are several men in my family who have gotten custody of their kids and in only one case was it a protracted, drama-filled affair in which the mother was definitively proven unfit. I've also known a lot of custodial dads just in my day-to-day life. I've been familiar with those stats for years, thanks to reading lots of family research, and have always been a little puzzled at how many people are convinced that the mother always gets custody.

    However, I think a lot of men are advised that seeking custody is a waste of their time, and so don't even try. I'd like to see some stats on how many men are told not to bother before I assume that men don't ask for custody because they don't want it--although I will say that many men I have known haven't wanted custody, especially if the children are young. Another thing is that in divorces and breakups, the man often leaves and the woman has physical custody in the family home at that point. That makes it very difficult to for the parent who does not have the children at the home (regardless of sex of parent) to get custody because of the disruption the children will face by the time the hearings roll around.

    So while the above stats are useful, I'd like to know how many fathers who do not seek custody have been advised by lawyers to not seek custody, as I suspect that would affect at least some percentage of the group that doesn't ask for custody.

    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    The reason why it's not sufficient to substitute supplies for support is bc a child needs a safe home, heat, safe dishes to eat off of, reliable transportation, dental check-ups, etc.
    When I took a Family Law class many eons ago, we were told that child support is not intended to provide a child with basic necessities, but is designed to allow the child to enjoy the standard of living that child would have if the parents had stayed together. If anyone knows of a way that the child can enjoy such a standard of living while the custodial parent can't, you should write a paper about it for the family courts.

    You know, when someone cites statistics or other information that contradicts personal experience, it's not denial of that personal experience. It's just a way of providing some perspective on how common or not that personal experience is and how aptly it can be applied across the board. It's not an attack on a poster's honesty.
    Trolling dates all the way back to 397 B.C. - People began following Plato around and would make fart noises after everything he said.

  20. #120

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    the rink of course!
    Posts
    3,207
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    52
    Bieber has reportedly ordered the lab work and will be counter-suing said baby-mama. Her lawyers won't return calls and reportedly have gone underground, running scared.
    "awwww....shades of Janet Lynn" - Dick Button on anyone who makes more than one mistake in their program.

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •