The whole tread is available here: http://tinyurl.com/4ftbh
This is message No. 40 in the tread.
"Zoe Brown" <zoenaomibrown@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:cin5cn$2hk$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> If the ex-wife doesn't like that, she can get a council house.
>
Or she can start to work.
> No thanks - the parents should be paying for the child and not the tax
> payer
> !!!
>
>
I can agree with this (the parents should be paying for the child and not
the tax payer) ONLY if the government stop to interfere with the family
and
stop to unfairly divide children and family properties.
People causing divorce should pay for all damages done to the whole
family,
especially children.
If the government policy is destruction of the family (which is the case
now!), the government (using taxpayers money) should pay for the damage
done.
Or people can change the policy by changing the government. This is
unfortunately impossible in Australia as the most of the politicians are
lawyers and all lawyers are crooks.
If one parent (usually the father) can't spend time with his children
this
parent should not pay for privilege to have children as this right is
taken
from (usually) him.
OP said that she do not see her father, so why he should pay her?
Also, DNA test should be obligatory on the day of birth as 10% of children
are conceived by mother's lover and not by the husband.
Here are just few excerpts from the original post together with my humble
opinion:
-- "he has been an asshole at least as far back as the age when I could
recognise assholes."
* If my daughter think about me that I am a permanent asshole and do not
need any contact with me, why will I sup****t her?
-- "When the CSA came into being, he never paid more than the minimum
amount
the CSA forced him to pay."
* CSA calculated amount based on costs of living and his income. This
amount
is already higher than reasonable.
-- "For the last few years, he has been paying only 200 quid per month."
* He is paying how much is he told to pay by the CSA.
-- "He has never given me anything directly since he left my mother. He
has
hardly ever visited or contacted me. "
* I doubt that 18 years old daughter ever tried to contact him or gave
something to him. Love is mutual. If someone is calling me asshole, why
would I give presents to this person? And if there was/is restraining
order
in place I can't do it as visiting own children against RO is illegal in
the
UK and Australia.
-- "I have got a place in a good college reading the subject of my choice,
starting. But it is far
from my mother's home. So I have to move into rented college
accommodation."
* She is obviously looking for "free" lifestyle away from parents
expecting
others to pay for it.
-- "I wrote to him and phoned him."
* Maybe she should meet him in person? Looking in the eyes when talking
make
miracles. And children usually do not have restraining orders like fathers
usually have.
-- "He said as soon as the CSA stopped forcing him to pay my mother (when
will this be) he would make a contribution to me"
* He is obviously promoted to walking wallet by the CSA. Why is her mother
"milking" him for so many years. Because "WIMIN" think this is why the men
exist and this is what she teach her daughter. From there OP is coming.
Conclusion:
1.Marriage should be for life and without interference from others, just
like is in the Family law defined.
2. People playing with marriage should bear the consequences themselves.
3. The government, Family Court, lawyers and the CSA should stay away as
what are they doing is against the Family law (illegal and unlawful).
4. Social security should stop to bread "single mothers" and limit
payments
to them for a maximum of 2 years.
Just my 2 cents.
Next PM
|
