I'm sure there is a better solution than withholding a birth certificate. How about an agency that investigates fraud? Maybe we should find the agency appropriately for them to do so? You willing to pay for that?
Single Women Should Not Get Birth Certificates for Their Babies
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
I'm sure there is a better solution than withholding a birth certificate. How about an agency that investigates fraud? Maybe we should find the agency appropriately for them to do so? You willing to pay for that?
No, he (they) likely believe it exceeds what they think the child is worth in their tax money.
Actually, you are making an assumption that I made an assumption...and you would be incorrect. The personnel from the state in question, Illinois, indicated to me that he was not identified as the father at birth and at some subsequent time the mother enrolled the kids in at least a state funded health insurance program and that then set off some sort of a process to identify and find the actual father. This played out over at least 1-1/2+ years, maybe longer, as I don't know when everything got started before I was brought into the loop. Once they did find him, he then misrepresented his employment status, his compensation, the benefits available to him, etc. And it was revealed that he had done the same at his previous employer, etc.
The mother was caused to reveal him though or face a denial/reduction/whatever it was in the benefits she was receiving on behalf of the children. It is true that I only found out once the state tracked him to his employer(me), in Iowa. The father was mad at the mother for revealing him, the state for obligating him and me for acknowledging that he worked here and had "X" amount of pay and "Y" amount of benefits available to him, etc.
Oh, something that I just remembered...once the dust settled and he was being garnished here, by my company...he approached me and wanted a raise to offset what he now was being garnished...TO PAY FOR HIS KIDS.Like I said, he no longer works for me.
He was the definition of a deadbeat dad...yet considered himself an excellent father and bragged as such. Shoot, I have even seen Facebook posts where others are complimenting him for being a great father. I assume that those people have no idea about the "behind the scenes" financial irresponsibility that was, maybe still is, present.
Again, I wrote only a fraction of what all went down with that scenario and my bottom line is that mothers AND fathers should be responsible for their children...not the state(read taxpayers). I support efforts to eliminate the ability of the fathers from shirking their responsibilities...as it is really not necessary to worry about how to identify the mothers.
Is the language in this proposal being discussed perfect? No, it doesn't look like it to me. But I do support the apparent intent behind it?...yes, very much and had this dude been identified as the father at birth...there would have been a FRACTION of the crap that went on. I am not sure what else I can say about this.
I'm a bit confused by this. Are you asserting that a person cannot be a good father while simultaneously refusing to pay for the child?
Does that then apply to all poor fathers! Disabled? Incarcerated?etc? That a fundamental pillar of fatherhood is simply financial payments?
Unknown rapist #12?
John Raper?
What if they simply don't know the person? Can we just make them wear a big red S for Susie Slutmonster? Can her kid get a birth certificate then?
Well I can only tell you what was said to me by the person with the state of Illinois, who I would believe would be in possession of the facts of the matter. I suppose you are right though...I was not present for the births, nor the conceptions and I did not drive to Illinois to first hand validate what was said to me, etc, so no, I cannot personally verify what was recorded on the certificates.
So I guess I didn't have any of the core info, I am left to conclude then that some sap from Illinois, actually multiples saps, spent many hours on this case and somehow decided to call little old me and tell me all about something that actually never happened. Are you happy?How is it a HIPPA violation for them to tell me that the employee that I am being asked to garnish wages on, etc, was not listed as the birth father?
The point is...the state had to spend serious resources and much time elapsed, years, while the father was being located, etc, so as to PAY FOR HIS OWN KIDS, when virtually all of that noise could have been avoided had the father been identified at the start. Whatever process the state had in place took years to work too AND only after the mother was essentially threatened with loss of benefits in some form.
WTH, do you think I would make all this up? Whatever, keep your head in the sand I guess.
I thought we needed freely-available abortion so rape victims can rid themselves of the product of the crime?
Simple answer...had the state known who the father truly was there would not have been a need to then spend time and actual resources to locate him later...while he in the meantime knew he was the father, spent time with the kids, etc, but chose not to provide for their healthcare.
The benefit, in this case, would not have been to the kids so much as I doubt they know the first thing about this. Had dad not been revealed though, what I understood was that the mother would lose the benefits, or have them reduced or something. (This all occurred about 4 years ago now, so I am not 100% on every detail.)
The state, and the taxpayers, would have definitely saved money though they were covering the health insurance costs of the children for some length of time prior to dad being corralled and they would have had the overhead cost of finding dad and tracking him down, etc. I will add also that the Illinois reps that I corresponded with were quite motivated and very insistent to get dad established as the responsible party. They were borderline rude with me and I was helping them. Who knows, maybe they were mean Republicans or something?
I really cannot believe that some are so bent out of shape over an effort, although it may be perfectly formed at this time, to hold parents accountable for their own kids.
Funny, I think that was my original question too when I first replied to this thread. (See post #29.)
He was, as far as I know, a very good dad in terms showing his boys a good time when he had them, and so as far as that goes, I am sure he was a good dad.
But, being a good dad is many faceted and when judged in whole, NO, he was not a good dad IMO. He consciously and deliberately avoided taking financial responsibility for HIS KIDS. Are you saying that your definition of a good dad would include someone that deliberately avoids financial accountability for this offspring?
This man had the means to support the kids, he chose not to primarily because he preferred to spend his money on other things, cars, etc. Your other examples are not germane to this conversation. If someone can, but chooses not to, support their kids...that is a bad dad to me. If someone truly cannot support their kids because of disability, etc, that is a separate conversation.
actually, I would prefer that if somebody aborts if they can't afford having a kid, or they don't/won't parent once the lottery ticket squirts out.
TBH you confuse the hell out of me here. Of some of the things that you consider a right.. to say that this isn't a right..
Just when I thought I understood you.. you go and do this.
You forgot a few things.
5. Republicans are happy because the slvt got what she deserved.
6. Republicans are happy because the deadbeat dad got what he deserves.
7. Republicans aren't bothered by the plight of the child because it isn't a fetus.
They had to spend resources because the guy AVOIDED paying, and hid in another state, not because of anything on the birth certificate.
And I seriously doubt they went into that amount of detail on a phone call; they likely only called to verify the identity of the individual, and then sent you formal paperwork to allow wage garnishment; unless you'll garnish someone's wages just on a random phone call alleging a paternity issue, or anything else.
I'm simply pointing out that the birth certificate had nothing to do w/ the issues you've raised - deadbeat dads will be deadbeat dads whether they are on a birth certificate or not. You really have no idea why he was left off of it in the first place.
The state can certainly ADVISE the single parent (mother) that she may be ineligible for certain benefits if she refuses to identify the father so that he can be forced to provide support for the child. But denying a birth certificate is ridiculous.
I simply don't know how to respond to something that irrational and hateful.
Man, you don't read very well. They first had to waste resources because they didn't originally know who the father was. It wasn't until they pressured the mother with the loss, or reduction, of benefits that she named him. If he was on the birth certificate, they wouldn't have had to devote time and resources to first identifying him and in the meantime, paying for the healthcare of two kids, who had a dad that was making good money and spending it on things other than his kids.
While he was a deadbeat dad, and would have likely tried to avoid paying in any circumstance, he was essentially given a reprieve for somewhere between 1 and 4 years because they didn't know who he was. I know what the lady from Illinois told me, you don't, and BTW, the employee(dad) never denied any of this, he thought he was smart. So I had no reason to doubt it.
Maybe Illinois began applying more pressure on these cases a few years back, I don't know, I only know about this one case. I do know that the state of Illinois has severe budget issues, it would be my impression that they may be looking to shift the fiduciary responsibility back to the parent(s) wherever they can. Why make it hard for them to do that?
FWIW, there were multiple phone calls, not just one, as I have said a couple of times, I am only giving the Cliff's Notes version here. You seem to not want to deal with this information, but it is what it is. If you don't believe me, fine.
Again, my first post in this thread was not to reveal all of these details, but to ask for thoughts and opinions as to how the state could get the father's name if they don't do it via the birth certificate. I am not, per se, advocating for the birth certificate route, but I do think the state is entitled to know who the parents of a child are...especially when they are being asked to pay for some/all of the costs of raising said child. What idea(s) do you have?
why is it hateful to say that having children (or squirting out more children) should not be a lottery ticket?
Why is personal responsibility a bad thing with some of you people? (yest i said "you people")
It's pretty easy to not get pregnant. Why should the taxpayers be on the hook because people can't figure out how to not get pregnant. Even if you can't keep your pants on, it is pretty easy to not get pregnant
sorry i didn't use a trigger word for your sensitivity
Thinking having a kid is like winning the lottery is irrational.
Thinking we should turn our backs on needy kids is hateful.
That you had to have this explained to you (and to The Tradition) just makes it worse.
It's pretty easy to not get a woman pregnant when none of them want to fvck you. Right?
you ignore the fact that people that continue to squirt out babies so they can keep that government money rolling in.
If there wasn't this flow of money and people actually had to be responsible for their actions/decisions there would not be as many needy kids (i know that is a concept that theIowaHawk and apparently yourself cannot fathom, as it appears that you guys believe these welfare queens aren't capable of much more than laying on their back and squirting out babies).
you have one kid and you need help...fine, crap happens....but to keep having kid after kid and/or not have to do anything to even better your own situation is absurd. you bleeding hearts don't do these people any favors.
Oh, one kid you're willing to help. The others can die I guess.
Well, you've certainly redeemed yourself.
Well, there shouldnt be others. If someone cant take care of themselves or the kid they already squirted out, maybe they will make better decisions if they know that uncle sam wont be there with his wallet open, maybe she will choose to swallow or take the load up the ol dumper.
As it sits now, these welfare slugs can lay on their back and squirt kid after kid after kid out and the government will be there to take care of them with no real strings attached (other than keep squirting out more kids to keep that government money rolling in) That seems to be alright with you as you dont think these people know, or can do any better.
Do you have children?
How much do you think each child costs a parent, realistically, per month?
A lot of words to seemingly answer yes, financial payments are a fundamental pillar of your idea of a parent, without which makes you a bad father.
Interesting position.
Oh, see now your stance makes sense. You don't understand how a birth certificate works not its purpose, but seem to believe it a magical document that enforces support from a father, at no expense to the state.
Honestly, and I'm sure you will take this the wrong way, but you simply misunderstand this entire process and the purpose and procedures for birth certificates, parentage and child support.
Even so, adopting your opinion Ik still amazed you don't see what a silly idea it is to actually withhold a borth certificate for this hardly-tangentially related purpose.
Take a step back and ask yourself what you've used your kids birth certificates for, and ask yourself why this reasoning of yours should (or even could) stop those instances of need taking place.
And he doesn't want it to be optional? Weird stance change from Trad.
Required abortions for rape. Tradition 2016!
Hey, the option is out there. Don't want to name the father, get an abortion. Easy-peasy.
