http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/ Posts for alt.child-support Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:14:48 PST http://www.nnseek.com/ http://www.nnseek.com/img/64.png 64 64 NNSeek http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/tragic_turn_of_events_for_2_indians_and_their_infa_36048436t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/tragic_turn_of_events_for_2_indians_and_their_infa_36048436t.html against her to take infant out of Canada (Ontario?) vacated, in return
for her to withdraw her complaint to police against him.
Last I heard woman had moved to her relations in Vancouver. She is now
telling that it was child care people who forced her to cook up the
police complaint under threat of removing infant from her.
One thing is certain woman having failed to get in writing from the man
a confession of assult that he did not commit made police complaint and
that too after the man obtained court order against him.
Still man has been put in jail, which is rather strange for any legal
system.

This is a tragedy of Indians who are several generations educated high
up in social ladder, and from what I know about this case relatively
settled Indians in the West are unwilling to come to grips with the
ills of "educated" Indians.

On 25 Dec 2006, 08:41, josh...@gmail.com wrote:
> To summerise,
>
> Having failed to get in writing from husband that will secure her life
> financially in emigrated country Canada wife with help of some
> ill-advised Indians filed a complaint with police that husband has
> assaulted her and has refused to provide for one month old child of
> two.
>
> Wife has filed the report with police at least 8 days after leaving
> house and at least two days after the husband obtained Court's
> Injunction against the wife.
>
> Husband had filed the case with the Court of him fearing child may be
> taken out of Canada with help of some Legal Aid.
>
> It would be appropriate for the Legal Aid person who assisted him to
> file the case with the Court tto assist him in getting him out of
> detention Centre first and than assist him in facing the charges.
>
> It looks the man detained is terribly frightened and has been unable to
> contact the Legal Aid people who assisted him at first.
>
> The Man's residence is at Postcode M6L1B4 and he is in detention centre
> at Postcode M1L 2K9.
> Wonder if he got first help at
> North York Legal Aid Office
> 45 Sheppard Avenue East
> Suite 106
> Toronto M2N 5W9
> Telephone: (416) 730-1588
======
Date: 24 Dec 2006 19:09:09 -0800
Wife complaint has been that husband assaulted her and he is is not
giving maintainance to the child.

Wife tried over a week to get the husband sign a write up put to him
saying " I apologise for my misconduct", " I was have no claim over the

infant" and such things.


This was through the neighbour who supplied house key to husband and
told the husband that she is gone to shelter.


Subsequent to the husband taking out a court of law order against the
wife and the nurses (midwives) who were paying home visit to check on
the infant who he thought have got the wife in the shelter, the order
saying that the infant cannot be taken out of Canada without Court's
permission.


The nurse was approached first as two days after the wife disappeared
nurse was scheduled to visit the infant.


Nurse advised the husband to speak to her known plice privately, and
police had told him that he cannot report wife missing as wife has left

on her own will but can report the child missing. Husband failed to
make a formal report to police fearing what might happen to the child,
would the child be taken away from the mother and put in care.


Subsequent to husband getting the order that wife cannot remove the
child from Canada, the wife called the husband on phone and threatened
him, and it became clear that wife had not gone to shelter and that the

neighbour who returned keys to husband was in league with the wife in
getting self incriminatory write up signed.


Husband's sister has managed to contact several pepople in Canada and
they have promised to get the man out of detention center.


A detainee with the man who has come out on bail has approached the
sister to transfer $4000 to his bank account, so he can put the bail.


Wonder if there is any legal help available to such detainees.


The man had gone to the court to get the order on the stregth of legal
help.


Wonder why that help has gone silent.
=====
On 23 Dec, 11:00, "Romanise" gmail.comwrote:


Hunsband is apparently put in jail on complaint from wife.


2 weeks back a boy I knew for past 18 years called me from India asking

me if I can help his brother in law whose wife has gone to shelter with

30 days oldinfantgirl while he was out to work on Friday.


Wife hid the key and travel card in the morning and boy got them back a

day or so later from a neighbour.


Boy was approached by this neighbour subsequently with a written
confession that boy has acted badly with the wife and that boy gives up

all rights over the child.


I advised boy not to sign any self incriminatory papers.


Gathering courage boy approached legal help and judge passed injunction

against the wife telling her not to remove child from Canada without
court's permission.


Subsequently the wife signed some allegations against the boy and from
India I hear that boy is in Jail. From India they have written to
Indian Consul in Toronto.


I am in UK and can only write or talk to any body in Canada long
distance.


Have talked to the boy 3/4 times for total of 2 hours.


To me Boy appeared innocent.

Posted In: alt.child-support

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:14:48 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/opinions_36046132t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/opinions_36046132t.html "Relayer" aol.com> wrote in message
news:1169259789.262803.113680@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> Ok, take thhe emotion out of it and give me your opinions on the
> following. I am asking this for a friend of mine (really people). It's
> a little complicated and I think she is getting bad advice.
> **********************************
> Circumstances
>
>
> Father presently has physical custody
>
> Mother has joint custody
>
> Father is remarried
>
> Father makes around $55,000 a year
>
> Mother makes around $30,000 a year
>
> Two kids
>
> At present, the kids live 50%% with Dad and 50%% with mother, although
> there is no support order.for either and Dad has full physical custody.
> He also travels a lot for his job but as I said, he is remarried.
>
> Mother has history of illegal substance abuse (meth) and served jail
> time for it (fairly recently too-hence custody). She is however, in a
> recovery program and now attending night school to finish her degree.
>
> They live 1/2 mile apart.
>
> Father does not abuse them, no history of drug using, kids love both
> parents. Pretty normal guy, remarried.
>
> She has asked him to help buy little things for the kids..normal
> stuff..backpacks, clothes, etc. He reminded her he has cuustody and
> said he will fight it
> **********************************************************************
>
> She is being advised to go for custody and child support and her lawyer
> and friends say she could win. I think she is going to end up getting
> screwed. As of right now, no support order exist, and she has the kids
> 50%% of the time..more than the order stipulates. I think he will
> certaiinly, if brought back into court, ask for support from her. My
> advice to her is to leave things as it is for now, get more recovery
> time under her belt and then go for joint physical custody and forget
> the support..to call it a "draw"
>
> Don't be judgemental on this. Just what do you guys think?

Judges know there are tweakers, but no former tweakers who are still alive.
Meth is so highly addictive people who use it relapse easily and end up back
in custody for parole violations. No judge is going to take the chance of
awarding a custody change to a tweaker.

I have neighbors who are dealing with this issue. They have had their meth
addicted daughter, who has two children and does not have custody, living
with them trying to help her get straight. The daughter can spot a tweaker a
mile away. She has been in and out of the state women's prison and halfway
houses. They finally had to kick her out of their house and call her parole
officer to turn her in again. Yesterday the grandparents (my neighbors) got
custody of the youngest minor grandchild.

Tweakers never quit using meth. They just stop temporarily.

Posted In: alt.child-support

1 Comment

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:38:41 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/opinions_36044596t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/opinions_36044596t.html "Relayer" wrote

.....................................................
>
> She is being advised to go for custody and child support and her lawyer
> and friends say she could win. I think she is going to end up getting
> screwed. As of right now, no support order exist, and she has the kids
> 50%% of the time..more than the order stipulates. I think he will
> certaiinly, if brought back into court, ask for support from her. My
> advice to her is to leave things as it is for now, get more recovery
> time under her belt and then go for joint physical custody and forget
> the support..to call it a "draw"
>
> Don't be judgemental on this. Just what do you guys think?
==
I'm not a guy but I agree with you. She needs to forget the money and get on
with the
responsibility of taking care of herself and being a mother. Parenting isn't
a business, it's a way of life.
Court intrusion is totally unnecessary and foolish in this case.

Posted In: alt.child-support

1 Comment

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:25:00 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/the_liars_keep_lying_again_and_again_35950388t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/the_liars_keep_lying_again_and_again_35950388t.html to the effect of "Why do we keep repeating the truth again and again?
Because the liars keep lying again and again." I am starting to feel
tha way with these deadbeat lists.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070117/NEWS/70117061

I read your article today ("Wanted poster targets new group of deadbeat
dads") and I wish to congratulate you and the Deleware Division of Child
Support Enforcement for enforcing the fact that the CSE is anti-male,
anti-father, and generally speaking anti-NCP.
First off, I would like to note that you took 10 men and no women? Are
women really all that caught up on their payments? Or is it just that
their payments are just to infinitely smaller than the males to make it
look laughable? Why not base it on months behind rather than actual
child support amounts?
Of course, I and millions of fathers know the reason. The child support
division has just about as much concern for children as lifelong
bachelors. It's the money they want, not families intact and bridges
mentioned. They're in it for the paycheck, ca-ching.
I've evaluated lists like this on my blog, the NCP revue
(http://pueblonative.wordpress.com/2007/01/15/okay-kiddies-math-time-again-with-mr.../)
Suffice it to say, if I did the same with this one, the results would
come up the same. Namely, in order to get to this amount, the payments
are far more than "a couple of hundred bucks a month" as one Einstein of
a Texas AG put it.
How much of this is actual child support, and how much of this is
arrears? How much of this child support is based on imputed income
(that is a figure the judge made up), and how much is retroactive, or
before the time that the actual child support order was declared for?
And for that matter, have any of these men been out of work, ill,
hospitalized? Until you answers these questions, I will consider this
list just as useless as any other and these deadbeats dads more dads
beaten dead by a grossly unfair and unjust system.
Looking into these facts might make a more rounded out story, which I
fear modern journalists lack the ethic to pursue.
If you would like, I can send you on another e-mail my phone number
should you wish to run this as a letter to the editor, or you can send
me one (long distance or not).

John Meyer,
Pueblo, CO

Posted In: alt.child-support

no comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:04:11 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/re_it_s_already_happening_35890484t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/re_it_s_already_happening_35890484t.html earthlink.com> wrote:

>http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/050930140708.k6bnuj54.html
>
>Maybe young men are listening and figuring out that relations are too
>costly.
>The damage that family courts have reeked over the years is being noticed by
>the younger generations who find the married is just not worth the risk.
>This of course will generate even more single parent families with a whole
>new complex of problems.
>
>
I do EVERYTHING in my power to educate young men on the child support
system. One guy I work with saw my check and said "That can't be
right!" Before long we all had our paystubs out comparing deductions.
It turned out that over half the guys there (about 100 work there) are
paying child support. After CS, health insurance for the kids and
taxes, none of us usually get to keep even half of what we earn. I
have a son that will be told when he is young exactly what the score
is. I won't tell him about the case between his mother and I, but I
will educate him on the law so that he can see for himself what awaits
him if he isn't careful.

I was (like most guys my age) completely ignorant on the CS system. I
was "protected" from the details growing up. What utter BS! The best
protection is to go in fully informed.

Posted In: alt.child-support

2 Comments

Reply

]]> Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:10:38 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/it_s_already_happening_35873588t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/it_s_already_happening_35873588t.html "DB" sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Jfirh.67915$wP1.56442@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070116/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleuswomen
>
> Just as in Britain, more people in America are choosing to be single!
>
> More like men are getting Smarter and staying out of the marriage trap!
> LOL
I would be interested to see any reliable information on the issue of
whether the knowledge of how men are treated in divorces has filtered back
to younger never-married men, and made them reluctant to run the risk of
getting married. This news story focuses on women. It fudges the issue of
whether they are unmarried because they don't WANT to marry, or because no
man has any interest in marrying them.

In the wider context, it seems to me that the breakdown of the family
has VERY serious consequences for Western countries in matters such as crime
rates and educational standards. Falling birth rates (relative to, say,
Moslems in Western countries and in Moslem countries) also are contributing
to the decline of Western countries.

It is hard to see how these trends can be reversed without making
marriage and family a more appealing proposition for men. In turn, that
will require redressing the balance of power within marriage, which--as
result of things like no-fault divorce, community property laws, and child
support--has for about 30-40 years been shifting in favor of women.

Posted In: alt.child-support

1 Comment

Reply

]]> Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:45:27 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/cse_implying_falsehoods_to_ncps_no_wayyyyyy_35846708t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/cse_implying_falsehoods_to_ncps_no_wayyyyyy_35846708t.html http://www.parkrapidsenterprise.com/articles/index.cfm?id=7459&forumcomm_check_return&freebie_check&CFID...

you mean to say that CSEAs will lie to a person by omission in order to
get a fatter paycheck? Why they're government workers, why would they
lie to the people they are supposed to serve? Next thing you will be
telling me is that Congressmen are abusing pages, or immigration
officials will be padding their already thick salaries with bribes to
let illegals into this country.

Posted In: alt.child-support

no comments

Reply

]]> Wed, 17 Jan 2007 05:01:41 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/ot_dems_proving_just_as_lax_on_ethics_as_republica_35844148t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/ot_dems_proving_just_as_lax_on_ethics_as_republica_35844148t.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16660846/

So what is the message here, kiddies? Why, quite simple: if you want to
lobby a congressman, make sure your a good lay.

Posted In: alt.child-support

no comments

Reply

]]> Wed, 17 Jan 2007 04:47:46 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/how_much_greed_does_it_take_to_raise_a_child_35803444t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/how_much_greed_does_it_take_to_raise_a_child_35803444t.html "neenna66" wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1168931729.874106.304100@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> As I stayted ina previous post, I do not get HOH filing status. My ex
> claims the child on his taxes every year. I have to claim single.

What you said was you do not take the child as an exemption. Tax exemptions
and tax filing status are two separate things with different IRS definitions
for when and how they apply. No state court divorce decree can override
federal tax law. If you gave up the child exemption for some reason you can
still file head of household.
I
> am not askinga toal stranger to pay money to me. I am asking that my
> ex quit lying about his expenses.

CS has nothing to do with the NCP's expenses. It doesn't matter what he
claims as his expenses. His income is the only real factor used for
determining CS awards.

Posted In: alt.child-support

no comments

Reply

]]> Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:11:24 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/how_much_greed_does_it_take_to_raise_a_child_35800372t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.child-support/how_much_greed_does_it_take_to_raise_a_child_35800372t.html "neenna66" wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1168930018.102696.275750@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> I was going to write a very sarcastic and nasty post right back at you.
> But I am a little more refined than that. I do not care what any of
> you woman haters write on this board. I will lurk form here on out.
> To think I could actually carry on an intelligent conversation with any
> of you. Well there were a few posters who seemed to have that ability,
> but your nastiness has far outweighed the value of a good debate and
> problem solving to fix everything wrong with our system. And it is sad
> that you have to resort to using nasty names to get your point across.
> I imagine your next issue will be, well if mom cannot get a good enough
> job to support the child in the manner he or she has been accustomed
> to, then give the child to me. I will do it. All well and good if you
> did it before. My ex DID NOT. I did, plain and simple. I took our
> child to doctor appts, to preschool functions, to church, to birthday
> parties. I did everything except for one small detail. I stayed at
> hoem with little or no income.

The parenting role described above is the basis for the "primary caregiver"
type of child custody. Primary caregiver custody is based on repetitive
tasks, normally defined in such a way they recite the mother's tasks, so
that it becomes a thinnly disguised version of the old "maternal preference"
type of child custody. Primary caregiver custody was changed by all of the
states to the "best interest of the child" child custody standard.

While the best interest custody standard is less rigidly defined, it does
allow for looking at custody decisions from the perspective of the child
rather than which parent performs the most tasks. The best interest
standard also takes into consideration the changing needs of the child over
time. A glaring example would be breastfeeding. While this may be a
critical task for a new born, it can be overcome by a mother extracting her
milk and letting a "best interest" child custody parent feed the child from
a bottle. Likewise, tasks like breastfeeding are only necessary for very
young children. The parenting skills required to raise older, teenage child
are far different.

The best interest standard of custody, which the OP seems to ignore,
includes things like love, family attachments, acceptance, nuturance,
self-esteem, autonomy, discipline, promoting education, expanding
boundaries, etc. Many older children come to live with their fathers
because those are the conceptual child developmemt issues fathers excel at
providing for their children.

Posted In: alt.child-support

no comments

Reply

]]> Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:53:25 PST