Hey Retchub, take a break man – you just went slightly off the deep end in defense of men and you keep talking about some skanky solo mum that spends all the child support on new shoes while ignoring the needs of her 4 different kids to 4 different dads, all of whom she only shagged to produce another brat so she could suck money from their wallets at a distance.

I’m sure the horrible cow exists; she’s probably just round the corner from me. And those four stupid men, they probably live within a 6 block radius, one lives with his mum and has no friends because he is always going on about his ex and the child support he pays, another is on his third partner and has 6 kids he pays 25 dollars for each a month and laughs as he collects his disability pension.

The other two are single having learnt their lesson and wear condoms and hate all women, they work hard and blow it all at the local club and don’t give a crap about their kids on account of their mother being a skank. One of them owns a few houses now but is hiding his under the table second job he makes a fortune at.

As for kids suffering and me being in fairy land. I could give lectures in child suffering that would make you weep cause when all those dad’s and that mum keep being who they are all their kids come and live with me for awhile.

“No self respecting father, who wanted a child, would consider cheating that child ever. If they do, then I agree, they are a looser.”

And in turn no child respecting mother would cheat her child and if they do they are also a looser.

Am I seriously the only woman here who had two kids, split up and then the useless tosser had to pay child support until he died?

That's a little odd.

PP, I hate to be a pest, but when you say;
And in turn no child respecting mother would cheat her child and if they do they are also a looser.

Please, let's both go back to the title.

These are mothers 'wholly and soley' of their own choice. The father wanted nothing to do with either them, or the child they decided to have. Full stop!

We are not talking about failed relationships, or fathers that have left the relationship and refuse to pay maintinance.

5 grand, to any looser, is a pretty huge carrot.

Now I am betting many of these mums decided to have the child and pocket the bucks, then, once the 5 grand was gone, and only then, they decided to chase the father. That's the ones who knew who the father was anyway.

Now there is substatial evidence to support this theory of 'uncertain fathers' when mothers refuse to allow a DNA test as they are not really sure who the father is, but anyone will do.

Now if these are not 'man trapper', then you explain to me what their motives are.

Why don't they allow DNA testing?

Why don't they insist on safe sex if they don't want children?

It's simply a case of chasing the bucks and when the bucks run out, then what!

Perhaps sigle mothers should have to sign a disclaimer and release the father when they decide to have the child and receive the hand outs.

Hey Retchub, I had, as usual, completely forgotten the start of the thread.

A female who chooses to keep the result gets the baby bonus over 13 payments of about 398.00 a fortnight. Plus…

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/filestores/co029_0907/$file/co029_0907en.pdf

I don’t get what you mean when you say “pocket the cash”, I don’t believe (talking in general) that they do, children eat, wear clothes, have toys and I think the mums pay for all that stuff.

But I do think if the mother is the one looking after the child and the father isn’t interested because he didn’t want it then unless you want all the taxpayers fitting the bill then he best contribute.

And if the taxpayer wants to do that then all power to them. I don’t see a problem if the taxpayer is asked to pay for DNA testing either if there is any doubt. No one should be labeled the parent of someone else’s child.

I think what we are doing is talking about a small percentage of bad females and also rather stupid if they think raising a child is cheap and they will get to pocket anything. But yes, both adults are to blame for unsafe sex.

But say me and Anti had a one night stand and oops, I decide to keep it and although we don’t want to stay together he wants to be part of his child’s life. We’re perfectly friendly and everything is amicable but he is fighting with CSA over the amount they want him to pay, he feels ripped off.

I’m trying to survive on the benefit and doing okay, child is having a normal life although pre-school says the child has a tendency to bully others while giggling a lot. From my point of view anything he is made to pay helps the kid so I appreciate who he is but I am not likely to request CSA reduces what they taking from his income.

It would have the feeling of ripping off my own child.

Piper

Wonderful analogy.

To which I add that there is no need for a paternity test:

<< I’m trying to survive on the benefit and doing okay, child is having a normal life although pre-school says the child has a tendency to bully others while giggling a lot. >>

LOL - Love your work.

Seriously now, when will you know the results of your meeting with the despots from DoC's?

A female who chooses to keep the result gets the baby bonus over 13 payments of about 398.00 a fortnight. Plus…

PP, my point exactly "A female who chooses to keep the result gets the baby bonus", so why then, if it was her choice, and her's alone, are they entitled to chase the father 'who did not want the child and chose not to be a father'.

Why then can the women, besides a few who don't beleive in abortion, make the descision on behalf of both, against the wishes of the father (to keep the result, as you say), then seek financial support for the result once she has allowed it to become a child.

I am sorry, but I stand by my opinion that many young women today have children as a result of being lured to the cash.

We’re perfectly friendly and everything is amicable but he is fighting with CSA over the amount they want him to pay, he feels ripped off.

Yes, we are deviating again but this is the major floor in the system. One which segrigates children into the 'haves' and the 'have nots', because it all depends on the non custodial parents income. Why?

Do you realise that it is almost impossible for a man to have a child, separate, then start over, all because the more her earns, the more he pays and it's wrong!

A set amount per week based on the age of the child is what is needed, then, it wouldn't matter how much a father earned he could still meet someone and start again. Meanwhile, all children would be treated equal.

By the way, the tax payer already contributes. The baby bonus, health care card etc.

Wouldn't be so bad if it went to the childs need, all the time.

Fractelle
"Seriously now, when will you know the results of your meeting with the despots from DoC's?"
Thank you Fractelle you are a good human.