Immigrants have US Rights.

[hvp05]

Actually that is rightly called baseless slander accusations and it is not "abandonment" at all.

Tracing this discussion back, she was talking about her own experiences. She even said, "I don't know where you did your research but I could introduce you to some live examples!," so it would not be "baseless slander" if she could prove it.

Besides, for it to be slander - as has been told to you soooo many times before - she would need to be talking about one person specifically. The only individual she did mention was her ex-husband. And I am fairly sure godsbutterfly would know more about her story than you do. Thus, again, that would not be slander.

The Churches are a fine place to get food and assistance and there is always welfare and food stamps too for the very poorest.

I laugh when you are proven wrong on something then immediately regurgitate the false crap as if nothing's wrong. I provided numbers from outside sources... and you provide vague one-liners.

The separated parents are injured too and it is not a one sided event - except unjustly made one sided by the accusers and to the unjust laws.

The law aims to preserve the family more than you do. The law bases support on both parents' incomes, and is willing to grant visitation - as a separate issue, remember - in all but the nastiest cases. You, on the other hand, want the custodial to bear the full burden of raising the child while the non-custodial can run around doing whatever they wish. That view is considerably more one-sided than the law.

You having the 3 "wonderful children" means you have the prize, you have the man's children, and you hold them captive like kidnapped prisoners

I just wanted to make sure everyone noticed this part. You spewed this garbage against TP, other custodial parents, and now godsbutterfly. And you want to cry about slander and lies...

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

Tracing this discussion back, she was talking about her own experiences.

Well I was talking about everybody in the whole thieving system and not just her case.

Besides, for it to be slander - as has been told to you soooo many times before - she would need to be talking about one person specifically.

Not, in child support thievery we have group slander against many people at the same time.

The separated parents are slandered as a group by the unjust system and by the accusers.

I laugh when you are proven wrong on something then immediately regurgitate the false crap as if nothing's wrong. I provided numbers from outside sources... and you provide vague one-liners.

I guess you are still refering to the food stamps (since you do not say), and I told you before and here say it again:

Social Services is all computerized and applicants are qualified and given the foof stamps (Independence Card) within a few hours and not in a few days.

The law aims to preserve the family more than you do. The law bases support on both parents' incomes, and is willing to grant visitation - as a separate issue, remember - in all but the nastiest cases.

The law claims to help families and the best interest of the children but they are not Gods and the law has failed at it miserably.

The law needs to be repaired and reformed.

You, on the other hand, want the custodial to bear the full burden of raising the child while the non-custodial can run around doing whatever they wish. That view is considerably more one-sided than the law.

If the custodial does not want to provide custody then they need to give the custody to the other parent.

Custody means to provide custody and not to demand the money from the one that does not have custody.

I just wanted to make sure everyone noticed this part. You spewed this garbage against TP, other custodial parents, and now godsbutterfly. And you want to cry about slander and lies...

Well thank you and I do appreciate that.

Here it is again: The custodials hold the children like kid-napped prisoners and demand ransom money of child support from the separated parents if they ever want to see their own children again.

This is as dirty and hateful thing as I have ever seen done. Using the parents' children to steal the parents' money.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Well I was talking about everybody in the whole thieving system and not just her case. Not, in child support thievery we have group slander against many people at the same time.

The separated parents are slandered as a group by the unjust system and by the accusers. I guess you are still refering to the food stamps (since you do not say), and I told you before and here say it again:

Social Services is all computerized and applicants are qualified and given the foof stamps (Independence Card) within a few hours and not in a few days. The law claims to help families and the best interest of the children but they are not Gods and the law has failed at it miserably.

The law needs to be repaired and reformed. If the custodial does not want to provide custody then they need to give the custody to the other parent.

Custody means to provide custody and not to demand the money from the one that does not have custody. Well thank you and I do appreciate that.

Here it is again: The custodials hold the children like kid-napped prisoners and demand ransom money of child support from the separated parents if they ever want to see their own children again.

This is as dirty and hateful thing as I have ever seen done. Using the parents' children to steal the parents' money.

You should have kept your **** in your pants. I am only thankful thatyou are not around to pollute your childrens minds.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

You should have kept your **** in your pants. I am only thankful thatyou are not around to pollute your childrens minds.

I see it is hard to understand,

even though I have said it over and over again,

but my own case is closed and over.

So I am not complaining for myself, and not talking about myself.

I am trying to help other parents and other families that are being attacked and mistreated by our misguided system.

 

[This_person]

But I must agree that it is called abandonment ONLY by the law and the accusers but by no one else.

The law and the accusers (which is everyone but the abandoner) are the only ones that call it abandonment. Who does that leave that as the "no one else"? That's right, the abandoners (or, in your case, your word was "desert"). Hmm, I wonder why the only people that don't call it what it is are the people who do it? Can you think of a reason?

The accused feel no guilt under those accusations because they are baseless slanders and no real truth.

No, it's a disconnect with reality. Most do eventually feel guilty.

If you don't feel guilty, why do you say you repented?

Providing for the children is what "custody" means.

What is your source for this? This is not a dictionary nor legal definition, so I am very curious why you believe something so untrue and unprovable.

You having the 3 "wonderful children" means you have the prize, you have the man's children, and you hold them captive like kidnapped prisoners so the dad must pay you child support cash or else he never sees his wonderful children again.

The children are not prizes, not cars, and not kidnapped. They are humans who want their mother and father to both act responsibly, to be held accountable to the children's safe and good upbringing.

As HVP, MMDad, and many others have repeated shown you, visitation is not tied to child support payments. You can be far behind and still see the kids, it's the law as it is now.

Now, you can't be so far behind that there's a warrant out for your arrest. But, that would just be irresponsible, or you would be held accountable.

What were your definitions of responsible and accountable again?

The custodial claim of being harmed by having their own God-given children is an ugly fraud.

You're right, using such an invective is clearly fraud on your part. I've yet to hear a custodial claim they were "harmed by having their own God-given children."

I've claimed, and I've heard others claim, that they were harmed by the other parent, because the other parent failed to provide anything for their child. But never once have I ever heard or read of someone claiming this baseless fraud you portray above.

 

[This_person]

You should have kept your **** in your pants. I am only thankful thatyou are not around to pollute your childrens minds.

Actually, he tried very hard to pollute his own son's mind to continue to not pay any support for the son's child. The son must have been raised by a good man while Jimmy was hiding in other states, because he at least had enough goodness in him to pay after months of trying not to - he didn't follow his dad's advice at all.

Either that, or the lack of booze and drugs (not to mention the prison sex) were less attractive to Junior than to dear ol' dad who kept going back for it.

 

[godsbutterfly]

Actually that is rightly called baseless slander accusations and it is not "abandonment" at all.

But I must agree that it is called abandonment ONLY by the law and the accusers but by no one else.

The accused feel no guilt under those accusations because they are baseless slanders and no real truth.

One BIG reason that the child support system fails today is because the custodials and the law expect us to believe their pack of lies about the children.

Like the un-truth that the family is abandoned when it is not, like the children are suffering need and they are not.

So long as the custodials and the law base their claims on false slanders as is done now then the resistance will grow, and rightly so. The Churches are a fine place to get food and assistance and there is always welfare and food stamps too for the very poorest.

But most custodials have a job and money for their own children.

Providing for the children is what "custody" means. I do not justify the one leaving the family but I do not blame them either.

The separated parents are injured too and it is not a one sided event - except unjustly made one sided by the accusers and to the unjust laws. The dad has lost his three (3) children and that means "lost" not "won" or "walked away".

You having the 3 "wonderful children" means you have the prize, you have the man's children, and you hold them captive like kidnapped prisoners so the dad must pay you child support cash or else he never sees his wonderful children again.

You are a kid-napper demanding ransom money and the unjust laws empower that wrong doing.

The custodial claim of being harmed by having their own God-given children is an ugly fraud.

You twisted evil-speaking fool. How dare you accuse me of "kidnapping" my own children for the sake of money? You haven't a clue what happened in that household. Their so called father was busy having sex with every slut he could find and getting drunk and walking thru our house with a butcher knife slicing wires and throwing a butcher knife at me. It missed fortunately. He didn't want his children and he didn't want our marriage. Do you understand that? He left us. I told you before I kept things going for 6 months in that house by myself. Then I needed help. You honestly think I should have given those kids to him? First of all he didn't want them and secondly he had a serious history of violence and abuse. I had no parents alive. The welfare system wouldn't help unless he admitted he wasn't giving us any help which of course he wouldn't do. A real man, a real father would never have made his children go thru all of that, would never have threatened to drive his truck thru his son's bedroom. Go ahead and defend him, you low-life, but don't you EVER say anything about my motives for keeping my children with me.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

You twisted evil-speaking fool. How dare you accuse me of "kidnapping" my own children for the sake of money? You haven't a clue what happened in that household. Their so called father was busy having sex with every slut he could find and getting drunk and walking thru our house with a butcher knife slicing wires and throwing a butcher knife at me. It missed fortunately. He didn't want his children and he didn't want our marriage. Do you understand that? He left us. I told you before I kept things going for 6 months in that house by myself. Then I needed help. You honestly think I should have given those kids to him? First of all he didn't want them and secondly he had a serious history of violence and abuse. I had no parents alive. The welfare system wouldn't help unless he admitted he wasn't giving us any help which of course he wouldn't do. A real man, a real father would never have made his children go thru all of that, would never have threatened to drive his truck thru his son's bedroom. Go ahead and defend him, you low-life, but don't you EVER say anything about my motives for keeping my children with me.

Having an evil hateful baby's dad for one child is not quite the same as having three kids and now that the divorce is final and you want more child support from that same babies' dad and so it is not a proper claim saying the father is evil still.

So if the dad is that evil then can he visit his own children? or do you only want his child support?

 

[godsbutterfly]

Having an evil hateful baby's dad for one child is not quite the same as having three kids and now that the divorce is final and you want more child support from that same babies' dad and so it is not a proper claim saying the father is evil still.

So if the dad is that evil then can he visit his own children? or do you only want his child support?

What do you mean one child? He was the father of all three of my children. He has never been stopped from seeing them by anybody but himself. By the way, they are all grown so I want nothing from him monetarily. Also, I never said he was evil. I said he had a history of abuse and violence. I said you were evil-speaking because you had the audacity to say I only kept my kids for the money and you know nothing of the deep love my children and I have for each other.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

What do you mean one child? He was the father of all three of my children. He has never been stopped from seeing them by anybody but himself. By the way, they are all grown so I want nothing from him monetarily. Also, I never said he was evil. I said he had a history of abuse and violence. I said you were evil-speaking because you had the audacity to say I only kept my kids for the money and you know nothing of the deep love my children and I have for each other.

I was saying and still do say that the child support system works that way.

Even if you are nice and wonderful then the unjust law still does that dirty work for the custodials.

Then the separated parents must either turn away from their family or pay the unjust ransom money in child support.

Any child needs their real separated father (or mom) regardless of the cutodials feelings, and indifferent to the law.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I was saying and still do say that the child support system works that way.

Even if you are nice and wonderful then the unjust law still does that dirty work for the custodials.

Then the separated parents must either turn away from their family or pay the unjust ransom money in child support.

Any child needs their real separated father (or mom) regardless of the cutodials feelings, and indifferent to the law.

 

[hvp05]

Well I was talking about everybody in the whole thieving system and not just her case. Not, in child support thievery we have group slander against many people at the same time.

I know that was your point... hence why I said for her to be perpetrating slander/libel, she would need to be referring to someone specific. You can not slander/libel a general group because different people have different cases, and there are exceptions to every generalization.

I guess you are still refering to the food stamps (since you do not say), and I told you before and here say it again: Social Services is all computerized and applicants are qualified and given the foof stamps (Independence Card) within a few hours and not in a few days.

You are such a fool. What did I say in the post you quoted? I said I had links to USDA documents which prove you wrong, and the best you could return with were unsubstantiated claims... and here you are proving my point.

Show me a link. Show me anything that proves you right against the USDA's documents. Not your "personal experience". Not your . Not a blog of some other loser's "personal experience". I want official documents. This should be easy, since you have all the facts on your side. Of course, you couldn't do it the first time I posted the information, but here's a second chance.

If the custodial does not want to provide custody then they need to give the custody to the other parent. Custody means to provide custody and not to demand the money from the one that does not have custody.

Which parent has custody (aka, primary placement) is insignificant; support is owed regardless of who the child lives with, because the child is the product of both people. And you know it.

Well thank you and I do appreciate that. Here it is again: The custodials hold the children like kid-napped prisoners and demand ransom money of child support from the separated parents if they ever want to see their own children again.

This is why most rational, honest people believe you are a disgusting human being - not only do you spew base personal attacks, you take pride in using that 'tactic'.

This is as dirty and hateful thing as I have ever seen done. Using the parents' children to steal the parents' money.

Yeah, that would be dirty... if it were ever to happen. You know what I have seen that is just as dirty? A contemptuous, vengeful lost soul who accuses every custodial parent who receives child support as holding their children for ransom... and then uses this vile offense as part of his political campaign platform.

Then the separated parents must either turn away from their family or pay the unjust ransom money in child support.

Really? I know of at least one case where the father left home of his own free will, some three (3) years before his ex-wife even sought support. Can you guess whose case that is?

Any child needs their real separated father (or mom) regardless of the cutodials feelings, and indifferent to the law.

You know, this is really getting irritating. So I'm not going to say anymore to this point. I'll let these sites pose the argument for me...

Family Law - Child Support - Visitation
"If child support is not paid, must visitation be allowed?"
Yes. The issues of child visitation and child support are separate issues.

Failure to pay child support is typically insufficient grounds to stop the right of the non-custodial parent to visitation with his/her child. Thus it is typically treated as a separate issue, the failure of one not having a determinative effect upon the other. (Source.)

Child support and visitation rights are separate issues. The court determines both and will usually order the non-custodial parent to pay support and the custodial parent to make the child available for visits.

The custodial parent must obey the court order for visitation, even if the non-custodial parent cannot or will not pay child support. (Source.)

The latter site is a private firm that operates for the purpose of pursuing and receiving child support payments from those who refuse to pay, and even they report that visitation must be allowed despite failure to pay... because that's the law. (Plus, notice that page is directed specifically at Maryland.)

So deny that, shatferbrains. I'll be waiting...
(I know you will attempt to wiggle out of it in your unique, obfuscatory way, but that will reinforce my point even better.)

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

I know that was your point... hence why I said for her to be perpetrating slander/libel, she would need to be referring to someone specific. You can not slander/libel a general group because different people have different cases, and there are exceptions to every generalization.

Whole groups get slandered all the time.

The Palestinians, the African Americans, Migrant workers, the privledged whites, separated parents, and etc.

At least I do know that crud like "slander" has no boundaries.

The fact that the slander might be untrue for individuals and for the group is part of the point here.

 

[MMDad]

You are a kid-napper demanding ransom money and the unjust laws empower that wrong doing.

Jimmy, don't even think about callling me vulgar ever again. What you posted here is the most vile, vulgar, disgusting accusation I've ever seen on these forums. You make me sick.

By the way, you are always making claims of "slander" and "libel." Yet you called this woman a kidnapper and accused her of demanding ransom, even though you know she did no such thing. You made these accusations solely because you think it will gain you something politically.

You better hope she isn't the vengeful type, or you may be facing some legal repercussions. An apology would probably be a good idea right now.

 

[This_person]

Whole groups get slandered all the time.

The Palestinians (sic), {illegal aliens}, separated parents who refuse to support their children, and etc.

:fixed:

BTW, some groups (like those quoted above), not only get slandered, they also have a tendency to be disgusting to the vast majority of people.

 

[~mellabella~]

Actually that is rightly called baseless slander accusations and it is not "abandonment" at all.

But I must agree that it is called abandonment ONLY by the law and the accusers but by no one else.

The accused feel no guilt under those accusations because they are baseless slanders and no real truth.

One BIG reason that the child support system fails today is because the custodials and the law expect us to believe their pack of lies about the children.

Like the un-truth that the family is abandoned when it is not, like the children are suffering need and they are not.

So long as the custodials and the law base their claims on false slanders as is done now then the resistance will grow, and rightly so. The Churches are a fine place to get food and assistance and there is always welfare and food stamps too for the very poorest.

But most custodials have a job and money for their own children.

Providing for the children is what "custody" means. I do not justify the one leaving the family but I do not blame them either.

The separated parents are injured too and it is not a one sided event - except unjustly made one sided by the accusers and to the unjust laws. The dad has lost his three (3) children and that means "lost" not "won" or "walked away".

You having the 3 "wonderful children" means you have the prize, you have the man's children, and you hold them captive like kidnapped prisoners so the dad must pay you child support cash or else he never sees his wonderful children again.

You are a kid-napper demanding ransom money and the unjust laws empower that wrong doing.

The custodial claim of being harmed by having their own God-given children is an ugly fraud.

Where do I even begin on this? Jimmy, I will not hurl insults at you as I can see the others do that well enough for me. But I will correct you on EVERY aspect of where you are wrong.

The 'accused' in this situation, DOES feel guilty for his actions. He may not have before, but now he regrets that he missed so much of my life, and hates that I now live in another state.

These are not baseless accusations, as you would have every one believe. My dad WALKED OUT on me, my brother and my sister. He did so on his own volition. He could have opted to go for custody, but DID NOT BOTHER. By his own admission to me some years afterwards.

And you want to talk of claims of suffering when really the children don't suffer? Let me put it to you this way. YOU WERE NOT THERE! You have no idea what my siblings and I went through at that point. So don't you DARE open your mouth about things that you have no idea what you're talking about. Because that makes you an uninformed liar, however intentional or unintentional it may be.

My dad didn't have to lose us. He choose to. I tried to see him, repeatedly. But he was always too busy, or had some other excuse. When the truth was he just didn't have the time for me. Why? Because he didn't make the time. NOT because of anything my mom 'did' to him. She never withheld his rights to see us, even when he got behind in child support.

My mom and I owe you no explanation on why things were handled the way they were. But I am sick of your presumptious, judgmental, and rude attitude towards those who do what is best for their families. It has to stop, or you are going to find yourself regretting what you say to the wrong person one day.

 

[~mellabella~]

I would also like to add, that I still love my dad and drive to Virginia frequently to see him. Relationships heal and mend when people work at fixing them. Forgiveness is a beautiful thing.

And a side note, don't let me ever hear you speak to anyone in my family that way again. Talk to me all you want, but I will not tolerate that kind of uncalled for disrespect.

 

[This_person]

Where do I even begin on this? Jimmy, I will not hurl insults at you as I can see the others do that well enough for me. But I will correct you on EVERY aspect of where you are wrong.

The 'accused' in this situation, DOES feel guilty for his actions. He may not have before, but now he regrets that he missed so much of my life, and hates that I now live in another state.

These are not baseless accusations, as you would have every one believe. My dad WALKED OUT on me, my brother and my sister. He did so on his own volition. He could have opted to go for custody, but DID NOT BOTHER. By his own admission to me some years afterwards.

And you want to talk of claims of suffering when really the children don't suffer? Let me put it to you this way. YOU WERE NOT THERE! You have no idea what my siblings and I went through at that point. So don't you DARE open your mouth about things that you have no idea what you're talking about. Because that makes you an uninformed liar, however intentional or unintentional it may be.

My dad didn't have to lose us. He choose to. I tried to see him, repeatedly. But he was always too busy, or had some other excuse. When the truth was he just didn't have the time for me. Why? Because he didn't make the time. NOT because of anything my mom 'did' to him. She never withheld his rights to see us, even when he got behind in child support.

My mom and I owe you no explanation on why things were handled the way they were. But I am sick of your presumptious, judgmental, and rude attitude towards those who do what is best for their families. It has to stop, or you are going to find yourself regretting what you say to the wrong person one day.

I have a great deal of sympathy for you, any siblings you may have, and your mother.

Jimmy spouts his baseless lies because of his guilt regarding his son. He knows he abandoned his family:

When I first separated I paid all the bills as she stayed in our house and that was rediculous as it was like I just was not home, so then I stopped and she would not file for divorce or for child support so again it was unacceptable, then it was thought that they could live off the family or the gov if need be, but since there was property and credit available then the time restraints became a problem, so I deserted to let them figure it out. It took another two years (1983) before a divorce decree was issued.

He ran west and hid until someone else figured out how to provide for his wife and pre-school-aged child.

Psychologically, I believe he has rearranged reality in his mind to view divorce, child support, and custodial parents as the "bad guys" in life so that he can reconcile his previous actions with his conscience. Note, he constantly talks about how he has "repented", yet he's never claimed to actually do anything to repent - and if he wasn't feeling guilty for anything, why would he need to repent?

You see, it's not personal against your mother, nor against me, nor any of the other multitudes he's arrogantly and unjustly accused of being in the wrong. He's railing against himself, transferring his anger to everyone who's acted the opposite of himself.

 

[~mellabella~]

I have a great deal of sympathy for you, any siblings you may have, and your mother.

Jimmy spouts his baseless lies because of his guilt regarding his son. He knows he abandoned his family:He ran west and hid until someone else figured out how to provide for his wife and pre-school-aged child.

Psychologically, I believe he has rearranged reality in his mind to view divorce, child support, and custodial parents as the "bad guys" in life so that he can reconcile his previous actions with his conscience. Note, he constantly talks about how he has "repented", yet he's never claimed to actually do anything to repent - and if he wasn't feeling guilty for anything, why would he need to repent?

You see, it's not personal against your mother, nor against me, nor any of the other multitudes he's arrogantly and unjustly accused of being in the wrong. He's railing against himself, transferring his anger to everyone who's acted the opposite of himself.

Well, when all is said and done, sympathy is not needed. I think you should take every life experience, and learn from it. And trust me I have learned a lot! But I do appreciate your sentiments.

As for JPC, well, I'm done on that topic.

 

[This_person]

As for JPC, well, I'm done on that topic.

You'll be a better person for it.

I need a twelve step program to get past answering him!