American Women

[QUOTE=Npaul]...It would be an abuse of discretion for the court to order a parent with custody to pay the other parents child support. If this is the fiction or fear that you are trying to create and it is not consistent with law or equity.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry for confusing the issues. It just seemed to me that there are so many bizarre and unjust results out there that I just assumed this to be a theoretical possibility. Just a few years ago, I never would've believed it if someone told me that smokers could sue tobacco companies and win but those people are now billions of dollars richer...

I just read that Westley Snipes had an arrest warrant issued against him because some woman wanted a sample of DNA to prove that he was the father of her child but he had refused. This same mentally ill crack user had previously made false claims against half a dozen other celebrities in several other states. As that woman and Viola Trevino proved, you don't need a basis in reality to make the law work for you.

Spike,

Paying child support for a kid that doesn't even exist? Yet another sign that the end times are upon us.

It would have been worth a good laugh, except for the part where the poor SOB has to go to court AGAIN to get his money back.

It's hard to believe that a scam like this could actually work.

Rock

I beg to differ...

The court doesn't HAVE to issue an order for Family Support Division to attach wages and/or sue. I was billed child support for THREE YEARS while enjoying full custody of my two daughters. The courts will look the other way rather than challenge FSD. It is a very tight knit group, and they all know each other. The mechanism works this way: 1. Ex wife goes on welfare. 2. FSD collects money for child support from father to reimburse county for welfare paid out. 3. Family Court covers for FSD because it means money in county coffers. By the way, this was CHILD SUPPORT, NOT alimony! Believe me, I know the difference.

I had my car registration renewal refused and actually had my drivers license suspended WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE (I found out when pulled over for a broken turn indicator; I missed a very important business meeting that probably cost me a couple thousand dollars. The cop damned near impounded my car!). FSD proceedures are very much like all of the (unconstitutional) property forfeiture laws now being enforced against suspected drug dealers (and mongers in some jurisdictions)... it is a system run amok with absolutly NO checks and balances.

You may be right about the court not ordering the custodial parent to pay child support, but... in my experience, the court can do whatever it wants to do. In California, the review/appeal process for a Family Court decision is almost impossible; higher courts as a rule don't like to get involved with the mess that is Family Law. The court didn't rule as such in my case; I had custody and there was no support issue, but FSD just went ahead IGNORED the court order giving me custody and continued to pursue child support for my dead-beat ex. The welfare department was paying her as if she had children living with her, and FSD, by damn, was going to have the county reimbursed! If you don't believe me, I can pm you with my attorney's name and phone number. All you'll have to do is pay his $275 hourly fee for the one hour minimum consultation.

By the way, I just finished reading your post. Are you a lawyer? If so, what jurisdiction? You are spreading some very inaccurate information. See my last post. Parents (almost always Fathers) are regularly screwed by FSD with the court's acquiescence or approval. I went to Famly Court once and waited for one of my many "hearings". I'm dressed up in my standard business attire, nice suit and tie. A scrungy looking bum type comes and sits next to me and starts talking about his case. I'm thinking "Shit, why do these losers always sit next to me?". He goes on and on about his new job, how he is finally making $10 per hour, the most he has ever made in his life(!). He tells me his wife left the county, he doesn't know where she is, and he hasn't seen his kids for two years. Now I'm starting to listen.

Before actually appearing in front of the judge, FSD attorneys "conference" with the "defendants" to try to stipulate for the purpose of saving the judges time (judges don't like to work very much). I was sitting there, so when the FSD guy came to talk to my new "friend", I heard the whole thing. The upshot was, my "friend" wasn't going to see his kids because there was no obligation to tell him where his ex was living. She was on welfare, and they were getting her checks to her, but they wouldn't tell the father where the kids were. Not their problem the FSD attorney explained. What FSD WAS worried about was the arrearage. It seems that my new "friend" owed (sit down now, and hold onto your hat) $55,000 in back support!!!!! This from a guy who was just now making $10 per hour!!!! When the victim said that it would take him 30 years to pay it all off, the smart-assed FSD attorney said: "Just consider it to be a house payment, but without the house". I damned near reached over and slapped that son-of-a-*****!! I was being dragged through the same pile of shit, but I at least had the money to pay the f*cking leaches.

Get real, N, your theory sounds good, but you ain't living in the real world, at least not in MY neighborhood!

I do tend to get obsessive about this topic.

You wrote:

"1. Custodial parent denies visitation, thereafter Judge erases the other parents duty to support for that period of time. (this was the traditional way of thinking but no longer. the judges will simply give the other parent extra visitation to compensate for the lost contact)"

I could find a dozen cases, RIGHT NOW, in which arbitrary denial of visitation by the custodial parent DOES NOT REDUCE THE SUPPORT OBLIGATION. If you EVER go to court and explain that you aren't paying because you have been denied visitation, you will offered two choices: 1. PAY UP, or... 2. GO TO JAIL. No disrespect, and I don't want to start a flame war, but you are WAY off base. I KNOW what happens in California, and I have been in contact with a couple of Father's Rights groups who confirmed that this kind of thing DOES happen all across the country, ALL THE TIME.....

Don't count on logic or the law to save you from the child support scam. In my experience, NOBODY wields more power on the local level than a Family Court judge and their henchmen at Family Support Division.

Spike, out....

A guy walks into a lawyer's office and says, "Can I ask you two questions for a thousand dollars?" The lawyer says, "Sure, what's your second question?"

PsyberZombie and Smut Villian are absolutely correct. Wing women work much better than wing men. Women are much more apt to trust the opinion of another woman regarding a man than they would be to trust that man's male friend. Having a woman friend basically says to other woman that you've been vetted by another woman and been found to be somewhat worthy. It also conforms to the evolutionary psychology theories I touched upon earlier. Woman want a man who can be prolific. If you already have women with you, you're signaling to other women that you already have a good start in that area. Of course there are a lot of strategies to finding a good mate and to mating in general, so not all girls will respond to this. But any signals you can send to potential mates that you are a good catch will help you.

The only good thing about having a lot of girl friends is that they can be useful as wing women. While the girls I'm friends with are often as dorky as I am, they still get me more dates than I can by myself. In fact the only time I've gotten bump-n-grind dances, phone numbers and dates at clubs is when my girl friends bring in other girls to meet me. I suppose I should make more use of them since I've helped them out so often.

Spike, I'm going to defend Npaul a bit and say that he's right about there being no basis in law for a person to be forced to pay the other spouse's child support obligations. He said for a judge to order it would be an abuse of their power. But going with your experiences and what I've witnessed, judges and FSD abuse their discretion all the freaking time. It's just another reason to be careful.

You are absolutely right. Thanks for helping me regain perspective. Npaul IS corrrect, and he is making a statement about the way things are (should be). I missed that point, sorry, by being so wrapped up in my own involvement with the pirates in question.

The FSD and Family Law Courts,and my experience with both of them, have been one of the few areas in my life where I felt totally and completely powerless. They are abusive and beyond any reason or comprehension. I guess I let my bitternes get the better of me.

Npaul, I apologize if my post was too harsh.

Happy New Year to all!!

Spike, out...

The wingwoman concept is an interesting one. It illustrates a profound difference between women and men in the way they think.

Think about it. Let's say you see a woman in the bar or at some social event. She's with a fairly good-looking guy, or even a couple of guys. Most of us would look, and think to ourselves "She's probably taken, ah well just keep looking".

Now, if we are to believe the wingwoman concept, women think a completely different way. The woman sees you with some good looking women and thinks "wow, that guy has those girls with him.... he must be interesting". I guess it makes sense if you think about it. I would have thought that they'd suspect you were some kind of player, but I guess that's not how the female mind works.

In fact, that might be a really good explanation why so many women DO fall for players all the time.

Rock

Rock Dog notes =

[quote][i]Now, if we are to believe the wingwoman concept, women think a completely different way.[/quote][/i]

[i]Of course[/i] women think completely differently than men do , R•D

You noted this your·self over the 'Morality of Prostitution' Board when you wrote that women are looking for 'value' in the men they have sex with ; whereas men just want to have their jollies with a hot young babe

Any·one with any inkling about Human Nature knows that women value Power and Wealth while men value Youth and Beauty

So when you see a beautiful young woman with another guy , you take it to mean that some other guy has already snapped her up

.... but when a woman sees YOU with another woman , that means you've already been 'vetted' for Power and Wealth ; and that you must have some even if it isn't apparent to the naked eye ; and that there·fore you are a better 'target' to zero in on than some poor schlub who's standing there with his buddies , none of whom seem to able to get a date

One other thing about this 'Wing Woman' Concept =

Once the ice is broken with a chick , it's up to you to now convince her that you're the Alpha Male she's been looking for

My brothers and I frequently 'dress down' and even though I own a tuxedo and even wear it on formal occasions , my usual 'uniform' consists of Hawaiian shirts or long sleeved tees ; Jeans or khaki shorts ; and sandals or boat shoes [ or boots in the snow ] . So I don't look wealthy or power·ful , but I *must* be , or I wouldn't have this gorgeous blond chick [ my sister] hanging around , now would I ??

It doesn't take more than a few minutes of conversation for a chick to figure out that in fact we all are doing pretty well ; and then her attention turns to my sister Fellatia = usually some comment like : " Doesn't your friend there mind you talking to me ?? "

My answer : " Who , Fellatia ?? She's not my friend ; she's my sister "

That [i]always[/i] kicks my new companion in·to the next gear = she figures she better 'lock me in' before some·one else can

This Wing Woman Concept *really* works , Gentle·men , so I recommend you use it while you're still young enough to get away with it [ when you reach my age , the only ones it still works with are the Gold·Diggers , although they can be 'loads' of fun , too ]

Yes, I would be more likely to talk to a man who had women in his group - but it's nothing to do with power, money or trying to steal another chicks man. Noticing that he has girls in his group tells me, among other things, that:
a) He's probably not a sexist pig that only feels comfortable going out with 'the boys' and he obviously treats women well enough to have collected a few female mates,
b) He's probably not a pervert or sleaze, because other women feel safe around him, and
c) He's probably not violent and/or obnoxious when he gets drunk, again because other women feel safe around him.

And later on, if he asked me to leave the club with his group for a nightcap or whatever, I would be more likely to say yes if other women were going to be joining us.

I would say the 'Wing Woman' concept DOES work, for exactly the reason that Who Cares #2 gave in his recent post ...
"Women are much more apt to trust the opinion of another woman regarding a man than they would be to trust that man's male friend. Having a woman friend basically says to other woman that you've been vetted by another woman and been found to be somewhat worthy"
... although I would add SAFE to that, as well.

Thanks RN,

NOW that stupid wingwoman thing makes sense. I practically smacked myself in the forehead after reading your post. Once again, we see how valuable it is to have a female point of view expressed here.

I think the key concept is that being around other women makes you look good to other women. However, this doesn't work unless you quickly establish that you are still available (without looking too eager :D ).

Hmmmm, I guess I'm just a slow learner.

Rock

"I think the key concept is that being around other women makes you look good to other women".

Yep - I would agree with that. Another thing that came to mind after I posted last was the 'pack mentality' that often seems to occur among men, especially when alcohol is involved. When a group of men are out together on the hunt, filled with false bravado and egging each other on, they can appear quite intimidating to their female 'target'. When their group includes women, men tend to be a little better behaved - I guess because they know they will suffer the wrath of their female friends if they're disrespectful to another woman!

As for establishing that you're still available, I don't think that's a hard task. Most women can tell from a mile away whether or not the girl you're with is your girlfriend. It can be a little difficult with REALLY close friends, where there's a high level of comfort and/or intimacy between you, but as a general rule I think women are pretty darn good at reading body language and determining whether the girl by your side is a threat or an ally. Just make sure you don't go out with a girl who has a crush on you or that you have a romantic history with - she's likely to come off as jealous and protective and make it clear to every woman in the room that you're off-limits.

Come now, RN, would you not apply the same attributes to a pack of women on a girl´s night out? Certainly no suitor could get within touching distance without meeting the approval of at least the majority of the sisterhood.

I agree that any unescorted ladies are generally seen as fair game by men on the prowl, but for sheer scale of bravado, you ladies have it all over the men. Ever seen or heard about "hen nights" and male strippers?

Uptight, repressed women acting like randy 18 year olds.

Sounds like fun! ;)

Cheers,

Sporadic

Women can be shocking when they get together - especially when male strippers are involved! I think we're all a little better behaved when we're in a mixed group. Too much oestrogen in one place can be just as dangerous as too much testosterone!

Was listening in to a radio show based in San Diego and this woman was ragging about how her boyfriend gave her inexpensive jewelry as one of her main Christmas gifts and when she took it to her jeweler to get it appraised it wasnt worth as much as she thought and was outraged. Not because he boyfriend lied, but because she didnt score the bling bling! The female co host was totally saying crap about the guy too because she also believed that love = spending tons of money on her. Dang just put on sign saying 'Will put out for gems." and stand on the corner of the red light district. The guy callers and guy cohost said maybe the guy was down on his luck or thought it still looked pretty but wanted to do something for her but the women just talked about 'deserving high class gifts' and so forth. The 'no money-no honey', attitudes of so many american women is so irritating to me when they dont realize that they are just being escort service girls and not 'classy' or 'discriminating'. At least with a bargirl I know she'll stop being sweet when I stop buying her drinks and stuff but I dont want to ever think the girl that says she loves me forever no matter what would cut me off because maybe money got tight and I had to get something pretty from the local mall for once instead of Gucci or Cartier's.