John Taylor is spot on – see below. If Husbands could only realise that they ONLY are obliged to maintain their Wife and children IF THEY HAVE ABANDONED THEIR MARITAL DUTIES.
The primary duties of BOTH spouses are to work jointly with the other spouse for the benefit of the family as a whole – and not to act unilaterally by involving third parties – such as the State organs, a school, a doctor, the passport office etc etc – without first securing the informed consent of the other spouse AND to be open to the Reconciliation of any disagreements that might arise from time to time that threaten the integrity and continuance of the Family as a unit.
If a Husband has not abandoned his duties and remains open to Reconciliation and it is his wife who has abandoned her duties and is not open to Reconciliation then he can hold his head high and no-one – neither his wife or the State/Court can claim he is obliged to do anything.
Specifically with regard to “maintenance” if the Husband is maintaining the family home – ie paying the bills for the household necessaries as best he can according to his means – then he can not be found to have “failed’ to maintain his Family and no court can lawfully force him to pay.
The problem simply is that far too many men still trust the lawyer they think they need and he ensures the Husband is firmly stuck to the conveyor belt to hell. If the lawyer didn’t he would get paid, so men should ask themselves before they engage a lawyer, “Does this person have a vested interest in the Reconciliation of my Marriage or the dismantling of it.?” A simple test is to say to the lawyer, I don’t need to get separated or divorced because I don’t need the court to “grant” me the right to live without my Wife and kids. For a start I want to live with my kids and my Wife but I can’t force HER and secondly she has abandoned me already so what do I want from the Court that’s going to bring my kids back home” Answer – something the courts will never do – you want them to remind your Wife of her duties – that she is in desertion and that she is in unlawful possession of the children and therefore the court can’t give her any orders for the “goodies”.
If the lawyer tells you he can’t arrange for that just tell him you’ll sort it out yourself thank you very much!
God bless, Roger Eldridge
Chairman, National Mens Council of Ireland
Executive Director, Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland
National Office: Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
Begin forwarded message:
From: “John D. Taylor” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8 August 2009 15:25:33 IST
Subject: Re: [Fathers_are_Parents_too] Child Support Question…
There is a rule in logic
If the premise is false so is the conclusion
Parents have an obligation to care for their children. It is a false
premise they have an obligation to pay someone else to do it.
Why is it false?
Because it violates the definition of obligation, which comes from
ligament, meaning attached.
You can voluntarily pay someone to raise your child but the moment you are
forced, well it is like someone using your arm against your will. It is
going to take a lot of energy if it is still attached to your body, but if
they cut it off they can make it do what ever they want, but it is also no
longer attached and you do not have an obligation to it, and it does not
matter how much you want it back because it is not attached you cannot
They can trick you and say if you do everything they say, they will let
you see it from time to time, but the fact is, every second the arm is not
attached to the body it dies
Ok, kids are not arms, they can semi kind of live on their own, but
illustrating an extreme example does not change the definition of
obligation, or the falseness that one can separate children from their
parent(s) and still be attached. Either they are or they are not.
My point, you cannot begin with a false premise and get to a true
conclusion, and since reason is already absent, it is now unreasonable to
expect were will be any and they will do the right thing.
They may give you your money back, but it will not make it right their
separating you from your child in the first place.
If they do, they will be doing so to confuse the issue by giving the
appearance of doing right to cover the original error, but I doubt that
has more than a snowballs chance, since they know they have already fooled
the public into accepting another false premise, everything they do is
right just because they do it, with no bases in reality or reason.
In essence, many have made government their god. They have set up tyrants
to feed them false promises.
So here is the logic of the preceding
You: I over paid and would like my money back
Court: Thank you for accepting we have this power over your life, and
since you accept we have this power to act without bases in reality or
reason, it is well within our power to do all that is unreasonable, and if
we do anything that is reasonable it diminishes our power. After all,
that is a slippery slope, if we act reasonable now, then we will have to
correct the original reason your money was taken in the first place, and
that ain’t going to happen?
On 7 Aug 2009 at 20:15, company_builder wrote:
My ex is taking me to court of unpaid child support. I have missed 6 weekly payments while being laid off for 5 months. My son is 6 goign into the 1st grade. When we divorced he was 4 and I have child care cost factored into my child support. 75% of $90 week. Now, I have been paying that since 12/2007. I filed for my mod today (yes i know it should have been done immediately).
I read somewhere that a parent could be reimbursed for child care expenses paid out by a non custodial that are not actually incurred by the custodial. Under this assumption, she would owe me money. Is this true, just seems too good to be true!?