Take children away from good moms simply because they are POOR?????

Yep folks you read this right. razor wants to take children away from moms whose only "crime" is poverty.

razor Says:

July 22nd, 2009 at 8:02 am

Why should anyone be allowed to have custody of a child if they cannot afford to do so? Why is LW complaining about lack of support and how poor she is? What if the father DIED? She would be in exactly the same boat but with noone to whine about.

Actually razor, she would be able to get Scoial Security for the chidlren. While it would probably not be as much as she was ordered receive for them through child support, it would be more than what she gets now, which is zero.

Truth about Trusts

Eric Morris Says:

July 21st, 2009 at 6:05 pm
A trust would require an Executor and filing documents with the state court system. These are public record and could be easily tracked down by authorities. It would be virtually impossible for a state investigator to not find the assets.

The "requirement of employment" could be included in a trust fund document, but trusts that use that are rarer than hen's teeth, most trusts only have limits "about coming of age" , "reserves", or "payment schedules".

Actually Eric Morris, you really should do your homework about trusts funds. There are trust funds which are protected by any creditor, until the money is paid out. He can then protect it by having a joint tenants in entirety account with his current wife. There are ways to get around everything if you play the law. With a tenants in the entriety bank account with his wife, generally nobody is allowed to attach the bank account. So the trust is protected, the money received from the trust is protected. This is entriely plausible.

Glenn Discusses Single Motherhood/Fatherhood by Choice Movement on The Ron Smith Show in Baltimore

5 (Editor Note - Post Number)
Claudia Says:

January 10th, 2009 at 11:08 am
In the United States, unlike many other countries in the world, divorce is unilateral (one person decides) and no-fault (no reason needed). In addition the woman in this government sponsored action is richly rewarded by her decision to divorce. In a marriage, it is not if she will divorce him, it's when.

The single dad movement is a consequence of this, but it is spit in the ocean.

The single mother is the hope of the future. The money is on the table and the bet made, as there are now more families with single mothers as leaders than any other arrangement.

At the end of the day kids need and want their natural father and mother.

Quite ironically there is a post above this one which the MAN says that he speaks to his female friends and they all know they have the upper hand in a divorce. Must not be where I live, because all the women I speak to know they do NOT have the upper hand. I only have one comment towards this poster....You state that one person can decide to end the marriage and that person need not list any reason whatsoever. Well I did not want to end my divorce, I just wanted to end the abuse. So I guess under your theory, I could have been able to and should have been able to - end my marriage. And what of the children in our marriage? Should they continue to see father abusing mother? I cut nearly all contact with father out except for court ordered times and there is no abuse in my house. The rare exception is when contact is made by abusive dad. Children go to dads hosue and what happens there? Dad is Disneyland daddy. Dad badmouths mom. Dad tells children - you are just like your mom and then later goes on to say how bad mom is. What messages are being sent with his hate spewing. Children return to mother and a sort of deprogramming must take place. Children whine, scream, hit, abuse animals, refuse to comply with simple requests (pick up your toys, take a bath, time for friends to go home, time to wash clothes, time to set table, time for bed). After a few days of deprogramming the children are now back and whatever was sent home from dads has disappeared. Children ask what they can do to help - mom can I do dishes tonight? Mom see my room it is spotless (well not exactly spotless but at least you can walk on the floor without stepoping on cars, legos, or dolls). We then have about 6 or 7 good days - children do the few chores and their homework - and then the down cycle starts again. Children know that "dad" time is quickly approaching so they revert back to the "I don't have to do this". While the violence displayed when returning from dad's house is not as prevelanty it is still there to a degree. Child then goes to dad's and the cycle begins anew.

Should this child be exposed to the nastiness at dad's simply because he has rights? What rights does this child have?

6 (Editor Note - Post Number)
Tom Says:

January 10th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I am planning on having a baby using a surrogate in 3-4 years.

I do agree however that it is a pretty expensive way to go: IVF will cost you $100,000 a pop, and is not guaranteed to work out (i.e. you may have to try multiple times).

Another alternative: have the same woman carry the baby and give her egg. It costs a lot less ($10,000 I think??) but comes with very high risk. If the mother decides to keep the baby at the end, the court will most likely grant it to her over the surrogate agreement, and you'd be liable for child support without ever seeing your child - not even for a day. That's a pretty horrible scenario!

Finally, taking care of a baby is a lot of work, if you want to keep your job, you have to pay for day care ($1,600 / month) or a maid (same amount but you need an extra bedroom).

And don't forget that baby clothes, food are very expensive too :)

So you need at least a 3-bedroom house (if you want a live-in maid), plus $200,000 for the medical procedure (2 tries), plus at least an extra $2,000 per month to pay the maid and baby needs.

It's not cheap, but if you can afford it, there is no doubt that it is the smartest thing to do (in my opinion anyway).

Please see my previous post on this cultist. Now words that time - no words this time. Don't need any, his insanity speaks for itself.

9 (Editor Note - Post Number)
Tom Says:

January 10th, 2009 at 11:53 am
To Danny:

There are options, you just have to be creative ;-)

For one, you can have the procedure done in a country where medical costs are a fraction of what they are in the US (think Russia or India).

Two, you can rack up some credit card debt to finance this; so what if you can't pay it back? Will they repossess your kids? Of course not.

Single parents have a lot of state and federal programs available for them, check them out.

Four, don't you think that your parents would love to baby sit your kids? That may be a way to save on the day care / maid..

More of this wonderful rhetoric from Male Supremists - take kids away from mom (or in this case make mom non-existent from the start) and get your family to 'babysit'. More of this logic can be seen here.

13 (Editor Note - Post Number)
Rev. Richard Says:

January 10th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I'm a single father, and have been for seven years. There are some economic issues, but what really keeps us strong is keeping a positive relationship between their mother and I. They talk all the time on the phone and have a yahoo chat account to communicate with her as well.
If it were up to me, I wouldn't have become a single parent, but my daughter is really a happy child and knows she's loved by both of us.

This is all well and good Rev. Richard. I am happy for you. Now what do you say to all the women out here whose exes are extremely controlling and abusive? What do you say to the women whose exes said one thing before marriage, and then quickly flip-flopped after she was being controlled by him? Oh I know, women ALL lie about being abused, women ALL lie about how bad men are in order to get the best settlement from divorce possible. That is TRULY how all MRA acticists believe.

Stan's panties are in a knot

Copied from an email so generously sent to me from a member of an FR group :-)

Poor poor Stan.... He is so upset and has his little panties in a knot because some women (and men) are getting together to have a little conference and discuss some divorce and custody cases that have gone extremely awry. They will be talking to abuse victims (and some of those abuse victims will be talking to the professionals as well) about how abused women can protect themselves and their children. And Stan the Man - good PATRIOT that he is - is all a-blubber and wants it to stop. No more BMCC says Stan.

Stan............. go fly a kite!!!! I could think of some other things to say but seriously would you want me to go there?

I must ask though Stan - have you ever gone to the BMCC? How do you know what they promote? Oh I know - because they protect BATTERED MOTHERS, this means they are anti-dad. Now if I was someone who utilized illicit substannces I would ask Stan for some of that good stuff he be smoking lol. But since I am not one of those illicit substance users, I must simply sit back and nod my head in deisbelief.

HATE FEST, 2009 Dear Friends Activists, Non-Custodial Mothers and Fathers, and Parents Rights Groups and supportive organizations; You will find a roster for this conference of hate, bigotry, and violence toward men,boys, children, and even women at http://www.battered motherscustodyco nference. org/presenters_ 2009.htm

You will not see Errin Prizzey, Wendy McElroy, Stephen Baskerville, Grayson Walker, or any number of the well credentialed Activists, Researchers, and Authors who have any other view than the Feminist sanctioned rabid male hate presented at this conference in a sometimes ohh soo patronizing manner. They will not even receive an invite to attend.

We can soon expect another 'White Paper' from this group claiming 'international outcries' against the rampant battering of only women as if all women were battered and none were batterers.

We can expect the "White Paper' to exhort the police and courts for whom this collection of myths, misstatements, misdirections, and outright lies will target with a goal of hurting and harming men even more with greater loss of due process and more false and groundless arrests for merely being male.

I have never seen any professional conference in my many years that is so wildly and viciously biased and promoting of hate and abuse of all men and boys for the acts of a few men who are outnumbered (overall) by the women who are abusers, batterers, child abusers, and murderers.

Of course the White Paper will not cover the well researched, documented, and peer reviewed studies and findings that cover women's battering of men and children.

There will be no semblance of perspective on just what very minor percentage of households have real violence.

There will be no reporting on the overall numbers of women perpetrators versus overall numbers of men perpetrators when the same definitions of violence are used on both.

The lies, misdirections, myths, misstatements, and outright hate excreted from this conference will do more to harm more women, children, and men than it could ever help.

These 'faux' professional conventions misdirect funding and services into uses and approaches that are ineffective at best and at worst not just perpetuate Domestic Violence but increase it mathematically.

Let us be ready to answer the vomiting of false news reports and diarrhea flow of 'new findings' that are nothing but retreads of the same old lies we have heard and successfully fought before.

Let us be ready to discredit these haters or humanity in their quests for more money, power, and popularity while sacrificing the rest of us to their goddess of Feminism.

Feminism (not parity or equality) is a decadence of a too wealthy society. We are no longer wealthy.

Here are some of the direct programs and affects of Feminist sponsored government programs supported by this Conference:

A large part of our impoverishment as a nation is is the same thing that has impoverished so many men and women, the Feminist Lie and the government funding to present a facade of respectability for Feminist programs such as paying healthy women to not work.

Further, the government then gives theses government sponsored "stay at home moms" day care so they do not have to take care of the children they are ostensibly being paid to stay home and care for (crazy enough for you?).

It gets even more bizarre as the fiscal candle gets burned at both ends and the middle.

And, then we jail impoverished men who are disabled, ill, laid off, etc... for being impoverished, but only if he is a father and divorced. Jailing a man costs between $60,000 and 80,000 per year (Author's Note: The cost to incarcerate a person in prison is generally around 64.64 a day - click here for a chart of breakdown of actual expense categories for 44 states) so we not only pay the mother big bucks to kick the man out of the children's lives, we then pay big bucks to keep Daddy in jail. We jail Daddies who are innocent in a "No Fault" divorce and of nothing more than not being able to keep up with the ridiculous taxes called child support assigned by the courts with no rhyme or reason based in reality. These taxes on NCP Daddies sometimes are greater than their gross earnings.

The child support is awarded in hearings for divorce where in 70 to 95% of the time the man is presented with a divorce filing he doesn't want that tells him he has "No Fault" then continues to take away children, property, money, future income, civil rights, freedom to travel and more. "At Fault" real criminals have more rights and due process.

And, I have not even covered the prognosis for the children of divorce where Dad has been cut out of his children's life in 'No Fault' divorce.

Lets count the resulting rape, pedophilia, murder, substance abuse, prostitution, and child abuse resulting from this Feminist policy of 'kick daddy out the door, ignore the Constitution, give him just the clothes on his back, and tell him "See Ya!" '. Removing Daddy turns the kids into 'Feral Humans'.

Watch this conference for anyone suggesting that maybe the 'No Fault' Daddies should not be divorced or kicked out of children's lives. It will never happen.

This is what Battered Mothers promotes at its conferences.

This is going to all of my lists. I would hope that each and everyone of you does the same.

This conference needs to be exposed for what it is, a symposium promoting hate violence, and bigotry.

Patriot Dad

More Yahoo hatred...........

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Deadbeat parent Bill of NO Rights

I was sent this from a friend of a friend of a friend. I happen to agree with it and I know it will make livid those who wish this site would just disappear so here ya go!!!!

Deadbeat Parent Bill of NO Rights!
We, the sensible and responsible people of the United States, in an
attempt to ensure that all children receive every possible opportunity
available to them, and to promote positive behavior as examples for
all children, hereby establish some common sense guideline for
non-custodial parents and liberal policy makers within the government
who appear to be confused by the belief that non-custodial parents are
entitled to rights and privileges, and that excuses should be made for
irresponsible people who, in virtually every aspect of their lives
refuse to accept any responsibility for any of their actions. We hold
these truths to be self-evident:
That the rights of children are more important than the rights of
irresponsible non-custodial parents and that non-custodial parents
liberal policy makers require a common sense "Bill of NO Rights."

ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to start a new family if you are unable to
financially afford the family that you already have. If you did start
a new family, and now argue that paying child support
will hurt you current family, then you need to start making sacrifices
for both of your families. Get another job. Reduce your standard of
living. Stop being selfish and thinking only of yourself.

ARTICLE II:
You do not have a right to an easy life. Non of us has it easy and
responsible people are willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure
that their children have everything that they need-even if it means
working two jobs.

ARTICLE III:
You do not have a right to expect the American taxpayer to provide
your children with free health care or to provide you with educational
programs or job training. That would be nice- but the rest of us have
made sacrifices to obtain insurance for our families and to learn the
skills that are needed to survive in today's world and there is
absolutely no reason why you shouldn't make those sacrifices too.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have a right to a reduction in your child support
obligation just because you exercise your visitation rights. The
emotional well being of your children and your ability to develop a
relationship with your children should be your highest priority in
life and is worth any financial sacrifices that you will have to make.

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that
you have the right to pursue happiness as long as your pursuit of
happiness is not detrimental to others. Your children should not
suffer emotionally or financially because of your pursuit of your own
individual happiness. If they do, then you should be entitled to
absolutely no happiness in your life at all.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to blame your inability to get a job or pay
child support upon your environment; the failure of your own father to
be involved in your life; your race or religion; your lack of
education or anything else that you may dream up. You are the master
of your own destiny and if you can't motivate yourself to learn the
lessons to be successful in life, then you have no right to complain
when the judge sentences you to jail for contempt of court.

ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to withhold the payment of any portion of
your child support when you have other bills that need paying. Your
children are more important than any other financial obligation that
you may have. The only financial right that you have is the right to
reduce your standard of living so that all of the needs of your
children can be bet. You also have the right to get a second job so
that you can meet all of the obligations that you have created for
yourself.

ARTICLE VIII:
You do not have the right to demand visitation rights if you do not
exercise those rights responsibly and fully. If you have not seen or
talked to your children for a number of years, and then demand to see
them now that you are having to pay child support, the rights of the
children to feel secure with you take precedence over any visitation
rights you may believe that you have.
If you have repeatedly failed to visit the children after promising
them that you would. You have no right to insist that when and if you
do show up that you be allowed to exercise the
visitation rights that are contained in the court order.

ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to complain about the amount of child
support that you are required to pay. When you complain, you are
putting a dollar value on the lives and well being of your children
and demonstrates to everyone that you are self-centered and shallow
and do not have the best interests of your children as your top
priority in life.

ARTICLE X:
You do not have the right to demand that the custodial parent provide
a financial accounting to you for the child support that you are
either paying, have paid or are required to pay. No matter what amount
you are paying or are required to pay, you are getting an exception
value for your expenditures. The amount of support that you are paying
does not come anywhere near the costs of raising a child. The
custodial parent is making far greater financial sacrifices-and
devoting his/her entire life to the children and doing the best that
he/she knows how to.

ARTICLE XI:
You do not have the right to have the child support obligation reduced
because you buy school clothes for your children or have the children
for a few weeks during the summer or over the holidays. The costs of
maintaining a home for the children continues whether they are there
or not.

ARTICLE XII:
You do not have the right to relinquish your parental rights just
because you do not want to pay child support. If you do not have a
relationship with your children, it is solely and 100% your fault. If
you claim that you don't have that relationship because the custodial
parent denied you visitation you are living in a fantasy world.

ARTICLE XIII:
You do not have the right to complain about the manner in which the
custodial parent is raising the children. If you do not like what is
being done with the children, you do have the right to get involved
and help the custodial parent by spending more time with your
children. If you do not exercise that singular right, then you are
entitled to no other rights at all.

ARTICLE XIV:
You do not have the right to expect some other man or woman that is
involved in the lives of your children to provide full financial
support for them. That man/woman is not there to replace you, the
biological parent and that person will never be able to take your
place in the lives of your children unless you, by virtue of your own
actions, allow that to happen. If you allow the "step-parent" to
replace you in the lives of your children, then the "step-parent" has
every right in the world to insist that you act responsible for once
in your life and insist-and demand- that you contribute financially to
the well being of your children.

ARTICLE XV:
You do not have the right to expect-or to ask-the courts to grant you
leniency when you have failed to pay the child support that has been
ordered. You acted irresponsibly, and as
compensation to the custodial parent who had to make sacrifice after
sacrifice while your were not paying child support, you now should be
required to make sacrifices as well. Life is not a one way street. You
should be held fully and completely accountable for your actions and
are entitled to no considerations or concessions. You are not a victim
of the judicial system-or what it may do to you as a result of your
irresponsible actions. You put yourself in that position. At that
point, you are no different than any other criminal who has
demonstrated that he/she is unable to live by the rules of society.

I should also add that when one parent makes considerably less than the other, then the higher wage earner should not seek out exorbitant amounts of child support just to punish the low wage earner. This generally applies in cases with non-custodial moms dealing with abusive ex-husbands. Listen guys, you make 100,000 a year or more and your ex-wife only makes 15,000 - you can support the child. Don't make her homeless just because "you can."