Important victory for men down under (child support)

[Jitterbug]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24632954-5001021,00.html

MOTHERS are being forced to pay back as much as $60,000 to men they wrongly claimed fathered their children following a contentious reform of child support laws.

...

Not surprising to see women's rights groups b!tching about it.

It's a big step in the right direction!

 

[Heretolearn]

still very biased here but a good step.

 

[window]

As Tom Leykis sais...if she isn't using birth control she wants to get pregnant.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear All,
So many bitter stories,so many suicides,perhaps the pendulum is swinging back?

 

[KontrollerX]

Great news. :yes:

 

[window]

Sorry guys have a read of this...shocking.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24639854-421,00.html

 

[window]

Now they're saying you don't even have to live under the same roof to have a de facto relationship in place. It really is becoming ridiculous.

 

[Jitterbug]

Sorry guys have a read of this...shocking.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24639854-421,00.html

That is seriously fvcked up!

One small step forward with the child support thing, and this is a giant leap backward!

Can't wait for the bachelor tax...

 

[ketostix]

That is seriously fvcked up!

One small step forward with the child support thing, and this is a giant leap backward!

Can't wait for the bachelor tax...

That's how they work it in the U.S. too. We'll gain a small step forward but at the expensive of compromising over a giant leap backwards.

 

[jophil28]

Now they're saying you don't even have to live under the same roof to have a de facto relationship in place. It really is becoming ridiculous.

Geez I am ashamed to be an Aussie after reading this proposal. The feminists must be in happy land today..
This is arrant nonsense and unenforceable. Just another feast for lawyers.

I guess that men who have affairs will just end them twentyTHREE months in.

 

[Mr. Me]

Sole Parent's Union president Kathleen Swinbourne said garnisheeing a mother's wages would only hurt the child.

"The money has already been spent on rearing the child," she said. "If the mother is forced to pay it back, its hard to imagine the child won't be disadvantaged."

If the child already enjoyed the benefit of the money being spent on them in the past, then how does garnishing future wages of the mother negate that?

Would it also be argued, that if the mother was to have her wages garnished for any other legal debt she owed, that it would only hurt the child, and therefore, the liability should be waived?

So is the criteria for liability limited because it "would only hurt the child"? So, say a person doesn't pay their mortgage, but to take the house away would only hurt the child, so the negligent mortgagee becomes liability free?

I say it would hurt the child to see their mom get away with fraud. I say it would hurt the child to live with someone who commits fraud.

 

[armadon]

Yeah but a dude could hook up with a rich chick and get the same benefits. Lay the pipe good and you could be takin care of.

 

[bigjohnson]

Yeah but a dude could hook up with a rich chick and get the same benefits. Lay the pipe good and you could be takin care of.

Ya except rich chicks get that way by screwing over a rich dude and taking his money. Rich guys got that way by earning it.

 

[puma183]

<<Sole Parent's Union president Kathleen Swinbourne said garnisheeing a mother's wages would only hurt the child.The money has already been spent on rearing the child," she said. "If the mother is forced to pay it back, its hard to imagine the child won't be disadvantaged." >>

So you mean if I rob a bank, they can't prosecute me provided I am the custodial parent of a child? I mean my child will be disadvantaged if they lock me up and take back the stolen monies. What logic!!!?

 

[jophil28]

<<Sole Parent's Union president Kathleen Swinbourne said garnisheeing a mother's wages would only hurt the child.The money has already been spent on rearing the child," she said. "If the mother is forced to pay it back, its hard to imagine the child won't be disadvantaged." >>

So you mean if I rob a bank, they can't prosecute me provided I am the custodial parent of a child? I mean my child will be disadvantaged if they lock me up and take back the stolen monies. What logic!!!?

Don't expect reason, logic or fairness from a woman who is defending other women who deliberately cheated on their husband, and then systematically deceived him into raising the other man's child.