An estimate of the European and American children born for married parents is that approximately 20 % of the kids have a different father than the one being supposed. This was in some statistics a few years ago.
Another estimate.. 80 % of American men cheat, and 100 % of men in Europe cheat. Mostly with women, so someone's got to be the guilty one after all..
Call it the parent then, rather than father. In either case, I obviously wasn't referring to the biological father.
The child has no right over a "parent/man who is forced to pay who didn't father."
Again the state will go after the true father for the support so the child doesn't lose anything with regard to financial living standard.
If the "parent" still wants to be part of the life of the child. The court should be willing to grant some custody of some sort for time served as it were since he obviously isn't going to get him time or money back.
If the court won't recognize any custody or grant him any rights, (since he isn't the biological father) than the issue becomes again, why pay? Because someone put your name on a piece of paper? Because someone named in a default hearing that you weren't aware of and didn't attend?
If you'll have a kid, why don't you guys just require an immediate dna testing to be sure it's yours before you take it granted it is?
Yeah, I can imagine what a pleasant conversation that would turn out to be...
"We're having a baby? Terrific! Uhh, one thing. Can we get a paternity test?"
"What?! WTF is that supposed to mean???"
[$hitstorm ensues, followed by several weeks of sleeping on the couch for the man]
The premise of a great many of these mistaken fathering cases is that the man has absolutely no reason to doubt his paternity. He is utterly confident that he must be the father in the name of blessed monogamy. He is none the wiser. To ask for a paternity test would be admission of illusion crashing to the floor of reality that she might have been cheating all along and is now carrying another man's baby. How dark can this get? Now why would a man want to dwell on images like that for an otherwise blessed announcement? Well there's your answer as to how practical it is to request a test for every pregnancy. It's a pragmatic approach to be sure and maybe completely justified in today's times. However, it is a bitter, bitter pill to even consider dealing with.
...now if it was just a standard test that is automatically done along with the battery of other tests that are done on a newly pregnant mother, that might work...
Giving the man any rights is 100% unjust? Aren't you reversing your position from other threads?
You misunderstand. The current law forcing men to be responsible for children that are not their own is unjust. That was what I was referring to. I am not reversing any position.
You misunderstand. The current law forcing men to be responsible for children that are not their own is unjust. That was what I was referring to. I am not reversing any position.
Wait, taking support away from a child is 100% unjust? Are you reversing your position on the subject?
Wait, taking support away from a child is 100% unjust? Are you reversing your position on the subject?
Taking support from a child when it is being supplied by the wrong party is 100% unjust. You are doing your little "I'll ask the question over and over" routine again. I and others have already stated the the child doesn't lose the support. They seek and get it from the real father. If the child were to suffer any sort of poverty in the meantime, the mother applies for benefits from the county and the father is responsible for the repayment of those benefits.
I suppose you consider the death penalty 100% just since it is the law applied.
This happens a lot more than you might imagine. A friend of mine was married to a woman with whom he had one child and received about 80% of the custody.
This woman later remarried and had two more children with an other man. He nor she could seem to hold down a job (drug abuse does that ya know) so she went and applied to the county for the benefits for her children.
They came after him to repay the benefits FOR ALL THREE CHILDREN. They simply go after who has the cash.
Likewise as we have mentioned in numerous threads. The mother wants the best financial situation for her child. So she may falsely name someone just because they happen to earn a good living and she wants a part of it.
Likewise the third article mentions that California has no statewide mechanism of tracking support. My brother has experience with that one.
He is paying child support to a woman in Riverside County where she lives. He lives in San Bernadino County. So she goes to San Bernadino and applies for benefits claiming he hadn't paid his support. They start going after him trying to garnish hiw wages for the support he was already paying in another county!
Not being entitled to the fruits of your labor is slavery. The fact that it might benefit a child does not matter. I'm sure the plantation owners children's financial status and well being were harmed when the grand ol' South fell to the North. To bad for them and too bad for the children of these lying mothers. They have been placed in this position by the mother. Perhaps the family courts should order HER to find the money for a change and ruin her credit, take her license, and send her to jail for not producing support out of the air.
I and others have already stated the the child doesn't lose the support. They seek and get it from the real father. If the child were to suffer any sort of poverty in the meantime, the mother applies for benefits from the county and the father is responsible for the repayment of those benefits.
Don't you understand the fallacy of this paragraph? I'm not at all in favor of fraud, but someone that raises a kid for 10 years has raised a kid for 10 years. That's a sticky issue, not as cut and dried as people here are saying.
Is pulling the rug out from under a kid in this situation the 'just' thing to do? I'm hypothesizing on what rights that kid is entitled to in order to keep his life somewhat stable, and what responsibilities someone has for a child they've supported for 10 years.
You can pretend it's cut and dried but it's not. I asked a valid question, who has more rights, and no one here knows. You and others want to narrow this down to only what's 'right' for the father figure. There are other rights involved.
Don't you understand the fallacy of this paragraph? I'm not at all in favor of fraud, but someone that raises a kid for 10 years has raised a kid for 10 years. That's a sticky issue, not as cut and dried as people here are saying.
Is pulling the rug out from under a kid in this situation the 'just' thing to do? I'm hypothesizing on what rights that kid is entitled to in order to keep his life somewhat stable, and what responsibilities someone has for a child they've supported for 10 years.
You can pretend it's cut and dried but it's not. I asked a valid question, who has more rights, and no one here knows. You and others want to narrow this down to only what's 'right' for the father figure. There are other rights involved.
I'd rather see more government spending in that area than in a fantasy missile shield.
Don't you understand the fallacy of this paragraph? I'm not at all in favor of fraud, but someone that raises a kid for 10 years has raised a kid for 10 years. That's a sticky issue, not as cut and dried as people here are saying.
Is pulling the rug out from under a kid in this situation the 'just' thing to do? I'm hypothesizing on what rights that kid is entitled to in order to keep his life somewhat stable, and what responsibilities someone has for a child they've supported for 10 years.
You can pretend it's cut and dried but it's not. I asked a valid question, who has more rights, and no one here knows. You and others want to narrow this down to only what's 'right' for the father figure. There are other rights involved.
exactly. true, the man has been dealt an unjust hand, but do we make it right by screwing over the child as well. i'm not sure. very sticky this is. from a legal standpoint the man should not be obligated by the state to pay, but how can anyone ignore the moral obligation or responsibility to the child by the person that raised him for x number of years? that would be one cold son of a bitch in my book.
Don't you understand the fallacy of this paragraph? I'm not at all in favor of fraud, but someone that raises a kid for 10 years has raised a kid for 10 years. That's a sticky issue, not as cut and dried as people here are saying.
Is pulling the rug out from under a kid in this situation the 'just' thing to do? I'm hypothesizing on what rights that kid is entitled to in order to keep his life somewhat stable, and what responsibilities someone has for a child they've supported for 10 years.
You can pretend it's cut and dried but it's not. I asked a valid question, who has more rights, and no one here knows. You and others want to narrow this down to only what's 'right' for the father figure. There are other rights involved.
I have said straight up the answer to your question is they have EQUAL rights. However if you refuse to accept this then we can just say that the father wins because slavery has been outlawed via constitutional amendment. The constitution has made no guarantee of having two parents, a set financial level or anything else of that nature.
It's not about MORE rights. It is about equal rights. The child has the right to still see the man he has been calling "Dad" for the 10 years. However he isn't entitled to financial support from that man. Understand that doesn't mean the man won't help him or assist him. However what the man is asking is for the court not to FORCE him to pay a set amount of money per month to the mother who lied about paternity and cheated on him.
This is why in the other threads I have advocated joint default legal custody with both parents financially responsible for their own time. It would stop rackets like this.
If he is still to be a father to this child, why doesn't he deserve 50% custody and to just be financially responsible for that 50% of the time? That wouldn't disrupt the child's life in ANY regard and the mother wouldn't get a dime for being a lying cheating adulterer.
Likewise what is disrupted about the relationship if the mother has named a man who has never met the child? Absolutely nothing and so the man should be freed from that financial obligation. The state will cover in the meantime (gee isn't it nice to be a liar and a cheat, not lose custody and still get money, must be nice for the women) and when they find the true father he can pay.
However the real issue with this paternity fraud is much deeper. The mother may have lied about who was the father just to get a better provider. That is true outright fraud. What is going to happen when the man she named was a stock broker bring home $150,000 a year of which she was getting practically a full income of say $2500-$3000 in child support and instead she now has to go after Ralph, the security guard who is liable for about $400 of his $1200 a month take home pay.
Would that affect the child? Sure but you can't take money from a man just because a woman wants to lie and steal it to provide a certain lifestyle for herself. That is just fraud and theft straight out.
exactly. true, the man has been dealt an unjust hand, but do we make it right by screwing over the child as well. i'm not sure. very sticky this is. from a legal standpoint the man should not be obligated by the state to pay, but how can anyone ignore the moral obligation or responsibility to the child by the person that raised him for x number of years? that would be one cold son of a bitch in my book.
It isn't whether the man would continue to be a part of that child's life or even whether he would continue to help provide for that child. I have no doubt that most men, having been a part of a child's life for that long would continue to act as a father.
However almost all men would want some legal rights back. By that I mean they do not want the mother to deny them visitation and then stick their hand out with a state mandated child support order. The man having control of his own money gives him some leverage in this situation over a mother who has all the card.
How disruptive is it for the woman to be able to deny visitation, move the child away with out needing this man's ok, and then still demand hundreds of dollars a month from him?
Likewise if you and bunge are TRULY so worried about disruptions in children's lives. Why aren't you pressing to end no fault divorce, filed by women by over two to one ratio where they get clear majority custody over 80% of the time.
How "disruptive" is it to a child who formerly saw their father daily to now see him two weekends a month with the possibility of watching their dad arrested if he calls or sees him at the wrong time?
Yeah, I'm sure I'll see you speaking out against that running.
damn nick, no need to get testy. i'm really not that far from your position on this issue, if you bothered to read all my post, i just think that the children involved should be taken into consideration is all. as other have pointed out above, it's not a black and white issue here.
there is no doubt that women have the upper hand in this legal process when it comes to child custody, but it is getting better. case in point:
after my brother got divorced a few years back he was able to win custody of his 2 kids after his ex tried to move them out of state even though she had a great deal of "family" money propping her up. why did he win? because he showed the court that he could provide a much more stable environment for the kids to be raised in, and that is what it's all about even in a conservative backwards ass state like oklahoma.
i doubt this would have been possible 10 years ago. even though more needs to be done, sounds kind of like progress to me. so spare me your bs about not speaking out cause i've lived through this shit and have seen first hand how nasty it can be for everyone involved, especially the kids.
I know a family here in Canada where the woman had an affair with a black professional fooball player. The resulting baby was accepted into the family the same as the other four children. He was obviously half black, but, it didn't make a difference. If you raise a child it's yours. Its an emotional bond, not a physical one. As for men getting the shaft, that's a given. My ex married a guy that made the same income I did. So as disposible income, she had the same income she had before plus $700 a month. Meanwhile I had less income. The result. She lived in a four bedroom house. I lived in a one bedroom appartment. There are flaws in the current system for sure. But they are not based on genetics, they are based on the inherent assumptions of the system. The fact is that asking fathers to pay for children that don't live with them is a mistake. It's punitive. Parenting is a joy worth paying for. When that is taken away from a parent, that should end their financial committments. Divorce is often a completely selfish act. It should be seen as such, and shouldn't be rewarded. In my case I would have continued to help my children in any case. But having to pay child support when they were living with me or vacationing with me etc. that kind of institutionalized bullshit would have gone by the wayside. As it stands now, I payed for two extra rooms in my ex's house. She gets to keep those, I get nothing. It was my money.
damn nick, no need to get testy. i'm really not that far from your position on this issue, if you bothered to read all my post, i just think that the children involved should be taken into consideration is all. as other have pointed out above, it's not a black and white issue here.
there is no doubt that women have the upper hand in this legal process when it comes to child custody, but it is getting better. case in point:
after my brother got divorced a few years back he was able to win custody of his 2 kids after his ex tried to move them out of state even though she had a great deal of "family" money propping her up. why did he win? because he showed the court that he could provide a much more stable environment for the kids to be raised in, and that is what it's all about even in a conservative backwards ass state like oklahoma.
i doubt this would have been possible 10 years ago. even though more needs to be done, sounds kind of like progress to me. so spare me your bs about not speaking out cause i've lived through this shit and have seen first hand how nasty it can be for everyone involved, especially the kids.
Sorry if it seemed like I was a bit "testy" with you.
I just get short with folks who bring only one bit of reasoning to the discussions and that is, "yeah it's screws people, but it is for the kids!"
That may not have been the full intent of where you were coming from and if that was the case I apologize. Either way I apologize for the tone.
Comments
Another estimate.. 80 % of American men cheat, and 100 % of men in Europe cheat. Mostly with women, so someone's got to be the guilty one after all..
Originally posted by bunge
Call it the parent then, rather than father. In either case, I obviously wasn't referring to the biological father.
The child has no right over a "parent/man who is forced to pay who didn't father."
Again the state will go after the true father for the support so the child doesn't lose anything with regard to financial living standard.
If the "parent" still wants to be part of the life of the child. The court should be willing to grant some custody of some sort for time served as it were since he obviously isn't going to get him time or money back.
If the court won't recognize any custody or grant him any rights, (since he isn't the biological father) than the issue becomes again, why pay? Because someone put your name on a piece of paper? Because someone named in a default hearing that you weren't aware of and didn't attend?
Nick
Originally posted by Giaguara
If you'll have a kid, why don't you guys just require an immediate dna testing to be sure it's yours before you take it granted it is?
Yeah, I can imagine what a pleasant conversation that would turn out to be...
"We're having a baby? Terrific! Uhh, one thing. Can we get a paternity test?"
"What?! WTF is that supposed to mean???"
[$hitstorm ensues, followed by several weeks of sleeping on the couch for the man]
The premise of a great many of these mistaken fathering cases is that the man has absolutely no reason to doubt his paternity. He is utterly confident that he must be the father in the name of blessed monogamy. He is none the wiser. To ask for a paternity test would be admission of illusion crashing to the floor of reality that she might have been cheating all along and is now carrying another man's baby. How dark can this get? Now why would a man want to dwell on images like that for an otherwise blessed announcement? Well there's your answer as to how practical it is to request a test for every pregnancy. It's a pragmatic approach to be sure and maybe completely justified in today's times. However, it is a bitter, bitter pill to even consider dealing with.
...now if it was just a standard test that is automatically done along with the battery of other tests that are done on a newly pregnant mother, that might work...
Originally posted by trumptman
The child has no right over a "parent/man who is forced to pay who didn't father."
Evidently you're 100% wrong.
Originally posted by bunge
Evidently you're 100% wrong.
Correct. It's all 100% unjust.
Originally posted by BR
Correct. It's all 100% unjust.
Giving the man any rights is 100% unjust? Aren't you reversing your position from other threads?
Originally posted by bunge
Giving the man any rights is 100% unjust? Aren't you reversing your position from other threads?
You misunderstand. The current law forcing men to be responsible for children that are not their own is unjust. That was what I was referring to. I am not reversing any position.
Originally posted by BR
You misunderstand. The current law forcing men to be responsible for children that are not their own is unjust. That was what I was referring to. I am not reversing any position.
Wait, taking support away from a child is 100% unjust? Are you reversing your position on the subject?
Originally posted by bunge
Wait, taking support away from a child is 100% unjust? Are you reversing your position on the subject?
Taking support from a child when it is being supplied by the wrong party is 100% unjust. You are doing your little "I'll ask the question over and over" routine again. I and others have already stated the the child doesn't lose the support. They seek and get it from the real father. If the child were to suffer any sort of poverty in the meantime, the mother applies for benefits from the county and the father is responsible for the repayment of those benefits.
I suppose you consider the death penalty 100% just since it is the law applied.
This happens a lot more than you might imagine. A friend of mine was married to a woman with whom he had one child and received about 80% of the custody.
This woman later remarried and had two more children with an other man. He nor she could seem to hold down a job (drug abuse does that ya know) so she went and applied to the county for the benefits for her children.
They came after him to repay the benefits FOR ALL THREE CHILDREN. They simply go after who has the cash.
Likewise as we have mentioned in numerous threads. The mother wants the best financial situation for her child. So she may falsely name someone just because they happen to earn a good living and she wants a part of it.
Likewise the third article mentions that California has no statewide mechanism of tracking support. My brother has experience with that one.
He is paying child support to a woman in Riverside County where she lives. He lives in San Bernadino County. So she goes to San Bernadino and applies for benefits claiming he hadn't paid his support. They start going after him trying to garnish hiw wages for the support he was already paying in another county!
Paternity Fraud 1
Paternity Fraud 2
Paternity Fraud
Not being entitled to the fruits of your labor is slavery. The fact that it might benefit a child does not matter. I'm sure the plantation owners children's financial status and well being were harmed when the grand ol' South fell to the North. To bad for them and too bad for the children of these lying mothers. They have been placed in this position by the mother. Perhaps the family courts should order HER to find the money for a change and ruin her credit, take her license, and send her to jail for not producing support out of the air.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I and others have already stated the the child doesn't lose the support. They seek and get it from the real father. If the child were to suffer any sort of poverty in the meantime, the mother applies for benefits from the county and the father is responsible for the repayment of those benefits.
Don't you understand the fallacy of this paragraph? I'm not at all in favor of fraud, but someone that raises a kid for 10 years has raised a kid for 10 years. That's a sticky issue, not as cut and dried as people here are saying.
Is pulling the rug out from under a kid in this situation the 'just' thing to do? I'm hypothesizing on what rights that kid is entitled to in order to keep his life somewhat stable, and what responsibilities someone has for a child they've supported for 10 years.
You can pretend it's cut and dried but it's not. I asked a valid question, who has more rights, and no one here knows. You and others want to narrow this down to only what's 'right' for the father figure. There are other rights involved.
Originally posted by bunge
Don't you understand the fallacy of this paragraph? I'm not at all in favor of fraud, but someone that raises a kid for 10 years has raised a kid for 10 years. That's a sticky issue, not as cut and dried as people here are saying.
Is pulling the rug out from under a kid in this situation the 'just' thing to do? I'm hypothesizing on what rights that kid is entitled to in order to keep his life somewhat stable, and what responsibilities someone has for a child they've supported for 10 years.
You can pretend it's cut and dried but it's not. I asked a valid question, who has more rights, and no one here knows. You and others want to narrow this down to only what's 'right' for the father figure. There are other rights involved.
I'd rather see more government spending in that area than in a fantasy missile shield.
Originally posted by bunge
Don't you understand the fallacy of this paragraph? I'm not at all in favor of fraud, but someone that raises a kid for 10 years has raised a kid for 10 years. That's a sticky issue, not as cut and dried as people here are saying.
Is pulling the rug out from under a kid in this situation the 'just' thing to do? I'm hypothesizing on what rights that kid is entitled to in order to keep his life somewhat stable, and what responsibilities someone has for a child they've supported for 10 years.
You can pretend it's cut and dried but it's not. I asked a valid question, who has more rights, and no one here knows. You and others want to narrow this down to only what's 'right' for the father figure. There are other rights involved.
exactly. true, the man has been dealt an unjust hand, but do we make it right by screwing over the child as well. i'm not sure. very sticky this is. from a legal standpoint the man should not be obligated by the state to pay, but how can anyone ignore the moral obligation or responsibility to the child by the person that raised him for x number of years? that would be one cold son of a bitch in my book.
Originally posted by bunge
Don't you understand the fallacy of this paragraph? I'm not at all in favor of fraud, but someone that raises a kid for 10 years has raised a kid for 10 years. That's a sticky issue, not as cut and dried as people here are saying.
Is pulling the rug out from under a kid in this situation the 'just' thing to do? I'm hypothesizing on what rights that kid is entitled to in order to keep his life somewhat stable, and what responsibilities someone has for a child they've supported for 10 years.
You can pretend it's cut and dried but it's not. I asked a valid question, who has more rights, and no one here knows. You and others want to narrow this down to only what's 'right' for the father figure. There are other rights involved.
I have said straight up the answer to your question is they have EQUAL rights. However if you refuse to accept this then we can just say that the father wins because slavery has been outlawed via constitutional amendment. The constitution has made no guarantee of having two parents, a set financial level or anything else of that nature.
It's not about MORE rights. It is about equal rights. The child has the right to still see the man he has been calling "Dad" for the 10 years. However he isn't entitled to financial support from that man. Understand that doesn't mean the man won't help him or assist him. However what the man is asking is for the court not to FORCE him to pay a set amount of money per month to the mother who lied about paternity and cheated on him.
This is why in the other threads I have advocated joint default legal custody with both parents financially responsible for their own time. It would stop rackets like this.
If he is still to be a father to this child, why doesn't he deserve 50% custody and to just be financially responsible for that 50% of the time? That wouldn't disrupt the child's life in ANY regard and the mother wouldn't get a dime for being a lying cheating adulterer.
Likewise what is disrupted about the relationship if the mother has named a man who has never met the child? Absolutely nothing and so the man should be freed from that financial obligation. The state will cover in the meantime (gee isn't it nice to be a liar and a cheat, not lose custody and still get money, must be nice for the women) and when they find the true father he can pay.
However the real issue with this paternity fraud is much deeper. The mother may have lied about who was the father just to get a better provider. That is true outright fraud. What is going to happen when the man she named was a stock broker bring home $150,000 a year of which she was getting practically a full income of say $2500-$3000 in child support and instead she now has to go after Ralph, the security guard who is liable for about $400 of his $1200 a month take home pay.
Would that affect the child? Sure but you can't take money from a man just because a woman wants to lie and steal it to provide a certain lifestyle for herself. That is just fraud and theft straight out.
Nick
Originally posted by running with scissors
exactly. true, the man has been dealt an unjust hand, but do we make it right by screwing over the child as well. i'm not sure. very sticky this is. from a legal standpoint the man should not be obligated by the state to pay, but how can anyone ignore the moral obligation or responsibility to the child by the person that raised him for x number of years? that would be one cold son of a bitch in my book.
It isn't whether the man would continue to be a part of that child's life or even whether he would continue to help provide for that child. I have no doubt that most men, having been a part of a child's life for that long would continue to act as a father.
However almost all men would want some legal rights back. By that I mean they do not want the mother to deny them visitation and then stick their hand out with a state mandated child support order. The man having control of his own money gives him some leverage in this situation over a mother who has all the card.
How disruptive is it for the woman to be able to deny visitation, move the child away with out needing this man's ok, and then still demand hundreds of dollars a month from him?
Likewise if you and bunge are TRULY so worried about disruptions in children's lives. Why aren't you pressing to end no fault divorce, filed by women by over two to one ratio where they get clear majority custody over 80% of the time.
How "disruptive" is it to a child who formerly saw their father daily to now see him two weekends a month with the possibility of watching their dad arrested if he calls or sees him at the wrong time?
Yeah, I'm sure I'll see you speaking out against that running.
Nick
there is no doubt that women have the upper hand in this legal process when it comes to child custody, but it is getting better. case in point:
after my brother got divorced a few years back he was able to win custody of his 2 kids after his ex tried to move them out of state even though she had a great deal of "family" money propping her up. why did he win? because he showed the court that he could provide a much more stable environment for the kids to be raised in, and that is what it's all about even in a conservative backwards ass state like oklahoma.
i doubt this would have been possible 10 years ago. even though more needs to be done, sounds kind of like progress to me. so spare me your bs about not speaking out cause i've lived through this shit and have seen first hand how nasty it can be for everyone involved, especially the kids.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
trumpetman, you have to set up some uber-thread for all your men/women issues.
might i suggest therapy.
Originally posted by Panther
Another estimate.. 80 % of American men cheat, and 100 % of men in Europe cheat. Mostly with women, so someone's got to be the guilty one after all..
You're saying that every man in Europe will be unfaithful then?
I'm obviously the only man in Europe who can keep his willy in his underpants. Maybe I should move to America.
(Where do you find this, um, 'estimate'? And have you ever been to Europe? And have you reached puberty?)
Originally posted by running with scissors
damn nick, no need to get testy. i'm really not that far from your position on this issue, if you bothered to read all my post, i just think that the children involved should be taken into consideration is all. as other have pointed out above, it's not a black and white issue here.
there is no doubt that women have the upper hand in this legal process when it comes to child custody, but it is getting better. case in point:
after my brother got divorced a few years back he was able to win custody of his 2 kids after his ex tried to move them out of state even though she had a great deal of "family" money propping her up. why did he win? because he showed the court that he could provide a much more stable environment for the kids to be raised in, and that is what it's all about even in a conservative backwards ass state like oklahoma.
i doubt this would have been possible 10 years ago. even though more needs to be done, sounds kind of like progress to me. so spare me your bs about not speaking out cause i've lived through this shit and have seen first hand how nasty it can be for everyone involved, especially the kids.
Sorry if it seemed like I was a bit "testy" with you.
I just get short with folks who bring only one bit of reasoning to the discussions and that is, "yeah it's screws people, but it is for the kids!"
That may not have been the full intent of where you were coming from and if that was the case I apologize. Either way I apologize for the tone.
Nick