Governor Gray Davis: The California Weenie

1 view
Skip to first unread message

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 10:21:33 AM10/3/02
to
Governor Gray Davis: The California Weenie
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay100302.htm

It's the most obvious fault in the huge pork-barrel child support
enforcement system; men who are not fathers of the children they have
been ordered to support. The California legislature passed a bill that
would have allowed men to dispute paternity with a DNA test, but
Governor Gray Davis vetoed it.

complete article
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay100302.htm

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 11:43:47 AM10/3/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...

> Governor Gray Davis: The California Weenie
> http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay100302.htm
>
> It's the most obvious fault in the huge pork-barrel child support
> enforcement system; men who are not fathers of the children they have
> been ordered to support. The California legislature passed a bill that
> would have allowed men to dispute paternity with a DNA test, but
> Governor Gray Davis vetoed it.

It's a pity the child support system in the US and UK don't share the same basic
law.

Otherwise the USA would perhaps do what the UK does, and base child support
primarily on biological parentage, with paternity tests available both initially
and later, with refunds available.


--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/faq/

Freedom

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 1:15:07 PM10/3/02
to
Governor Gray, what photographs does NOW possess of him, doing what?


"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...

Dave

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 1:27:09 PM10/3/02
to
"Freedom" <fej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vW_m9.9128$814....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...

> Governor Gray, what photographs does NOW possess of him, doing what?
>

They know the mothers of his illegitimate children that he has not paid
child support to.

Bob Whiteside

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 1:36:58 PM10/3/02
to

"Freedom" <fej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vW_m9.9128$814....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> Governor Gray, what photographs does NOW possess of him, doing what?

When Gray Davis was chief of staff for Gov. Jerry Brown, it was widely
publicized he was gay. He got married, in a marriage of convenienced, to
look legitimate as a candidate for Lt. Gov. and Gov. of California.

Stan Mould

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 2:20:57 PM10/3/02
to

"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...

I do wish you'd stop spamming UK groups with your US stuff.


Stan Mould

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 2:22:05 PM10/3/02
to

"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:_e%m9.6753$OB5.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

>
> "Freedom" <fej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vW_m9.9128$814....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> > Governor Gray, what photographs does NOW possess of him, doing what?
>
> When Gray Davis was chief of staff for Gov. Jerry Brown, it was widely
> publicized he was gay. He got married, in a marriage of convenienced, to
> look legitimate as a candidate for Lt. Gov. and Gov. of California.


Which is nothing whatever to do with the UK groups. Please stop
cross-posting.


The Dave©

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 1:45:49 PM10/3/02
to
"Freedom" wrote

> Governor Gray, what photographs does NOW possess of
> him, doing what?

I live in California and can say that the photos NOW holds are the photos of
their cleared checks that were written to Davis' campaign. He is known as
the "coin-operated Governor". He also dislikes loud agendized groups being
vocal against him.

The Dave©

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 3:00:30 PM10/3/02
to
"Stan Mould" wrote

> I do wish you'd stop spamming UK groups with your US stuff.

It was clearly labeled in the subject header. Why did you read it?


Martin Davies

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 3:39:32 PM10/3/02
to
roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message news:<4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com>...

Taken from the article.
"paternity fraud in California who are now being forced to pay $667
million per year to support children that are not theirs. If it must
be about money lost, then the men win. They are losing more. "

Roger, or anyone else, what is the population of California (roughly)?

"I cannot confirm those figures but there does seem to be some reason
to believe that the problem is quite large. Dianna Thompson, Executive
Director of the American Coalition For Fathers and Children has
reported that almost 80% of the paternity judgments in Los Angeles
County in 2000 were assigned by default. Statewide that would amount
to a lot of default judgments. And the practice is not new. The
designated father rule has been in effect for years. "

And what exactly is meant by paternity judgements assigned by default?
Is that anything similar to the UK system (used to be just Scottish
law) of presuming the bloke the woman is married to at the time is the
father?
Or is it something totally different?

Sorry, I'm just trying to get my head round what the article means.
Many thanks for any answers.

Martin <><

John Jones

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 3:49:12 PM10/3/02
to

"Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7643214.02100...@posting.google.com...

> roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message
news:<4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> > Governor Gray Davis: The California Weenie
> > http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay100302.htm
> >
> > It's the most obvious fault in the huge pork-barrel child
support
> > enforcement system; men who are not fathers of the children
they have
> > been ordered to support. The California legislature passed a
bill that
> > would have allowed men to dispute paternity with a DNA test,
but
> > Governor Gray Davis vetoed it.
> >
> > complete article
> > http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay100302.htm
>
> Taken from the article.
> "paternity fraud in California who are now being forced to pay
$667
> million per year to support children that are not theirs. If it
must
> be about money lost, then the men win. They are losing more. "
>
> Roger, or anyone else, what is the population of California
(roughly)?

About 35 million

>
> "I cannot confirm those figures but there does seem to be some
reason
> to believe that the problem is quite large. Dianna Thompson,
Executive
> Director of the American Coalition For Fathers and Children has
> reported that almost 80% of the paternity judgments in Los
Angeles
> County in 2000 were assigned by default. Statewide that would
amount
> to a lot of default judgments. And the practice is not new. The
> designated father rule has been in effect for years. "
>
> And what exactly is meant by paternity judgements assigned by
default?
> Is that anything similar to the UK system (used to be just
Scottish
> law) of presuming the bloke the woman is married to at the time
is the
> father?
> Or is it something totally different?

In this case, it means that the court says the man in question is
the father, whether he is or not, regardless of his marital
status. California (especially LA county) is notorious for assig
ning paternity to men who have not had their day in court (in
many cases because the courts only made half-hearted attempts to
find him).

Stan Mould

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 4:08:33 PM10/3/02
to

"The DaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:3d9c916f$1...@news.teranews.com...

> "Stan Mould" wrote
> > I do wish you'd stop spamming UK groups with your US stuff.
>
> It was clearly labeled in the subject header. Why did you read it?

I had little choice when it's spammed to an inappropriate group. Why did
you fucking post it?


The Dave©

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 4:49:38 PM10/3/02
to
"Stan Mould" wrote
> "The DaveŠ" wrote

> > "Stan Mould" wrote
> > > I do wish you'd stop spamming UK groups with
> > > your US stuff.
> >
> > It was clearly labeled in the subject header. Why did
> > you read it?
>
> I had little choice when it's spammed to an inappropriate
> group. Why did you fucking post it?

I posted because I had something to add. In case your wondering, I didn't
even look at the list of groups it originally went to, nor did I care.

Are you saying you were forced against your will into reading it? You have
absolutely no control over such matters? I don't think so. You had the
ultimate choice.

The Dave©

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 4:54:04 PM10/3/02
to
"John Jones" wrote

> > And what exactly is meant by paternity judgements
> > assigned by default? Is that anything similar to the
> > UK system (used to be just Scottish law) of presuming
> > the bloke the woman is married to at the time is the
> > father? Or is it something totally different?
>
> In this case, it means that the court says the man in
> question is the father, whether he is or not, regardless
> of his marital status. California (especially LA county)
> is notorious for assigning paternity to men who have

> not had their day in court (in many cases because the
> courts only made half-hearted attempts to find him).

I have read about this. Gil Garcetti (?), the LA County DA, has made this a
priority for his department. He does not spend much effort into finding the
fathers. Even when the wrong person with the same or similar name is
implicated, he refuses to correct it.

John Jones

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 4:51:31 PM10/3/02
to

"The DaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:3d9cac96$1...@news.teranews.com...

Yep. Sometimes the first a guy hears about it is when chunks of
his oaycheck disappear. AFAIK, it's too late for an appeal.


>
>
>


The Dave©

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 5:49:43 PM10/3/02
to
"John Jones" wrote

> Yep. Sometimes the first a guy hears about it is
> when chunks of his oaycheck disappear. AFAIK,
> it's too late for an appeal.

IIRC, once the county has begun their "good faith effort" to contact the
father or file the motion, he only has 90 or 180 days (I forget which) to
respond. After that, he is assumed to be the father and has virtually no
legal recourse. Plainly put, that is wrong. Morally and ethically wrong.

Mark Sobolewski

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 5:51:18 PM10/3/02
to
In article <ZEZm9.207$VX3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>,
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

Child-support can never be based primarily on biological parentage.
Ever hear of sperm banks Barry?

This is an important distinction because it shows that
men can be excused from financial support even for biological
parentage and the mother held solely responsible for
extenuating circumstances as defined by law, not by nature
as some people defending certain elements of the status quo incorrectly
try to claim.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski

Daniel J. Dick

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 11:39:53 PM10/3/02
to
Nobody should be deprived of liberty or property without fault.
It should go back to what was agreed to, what was promised,
and what was delivered. If we promised til death do us part
through sickness, poverty, troubles, whatever, then the one who
chooses to wreck the marriage whether by abandonment, abuse,
adultery should be considered at fault and bear the consequences.

What gripes me is the idiots who serve as mediators and judges
will throw the children to the guilty party and drive the faithful
partner into the poorhouse. That's what gripes me.

If I were to marry a woman who has a child, I would take on the
responsiblity for her well being and that of the child. If I'm
unfaithful or abusive or decide to run off without any fault of
hers, then I should bear the consequences, and it's ok for the
government to expect the shared assets to go to her and to her
child and perhaps for child support payments to be made.

But, if she's unfaithful, kicks me out of the hosue with a restraining
order, shacks up with another man, beats our child, then cries to the
judge for child custody, house possession, and child support, that
judge is a blithering irresponsible idiot if he gives it to her. Sadly,
many judges and mediators do just that.

I'm sorry. I should not call them idiots. Idiots deserve more respect,
and it is not for lack of mental capacity that they do these things, but
out of an intelligent and wilful choice to be either lazy in determining
truth, or perhaps financially motivated to do so or perhaps politically
motivated to process more cases in a shorter amount of time than
anyone else. Perhaps, to them, it is better to spit out several wrong
judgements quickly so there will be a return to the courthouse, another
case to fling out the door in a second, and more money for colleagues.

I'm just tired of people getting beaten up by an unjust family court
system. I want to see it end now. I'm not going to listen to people
telling me it cannot be done. I'm willing to run into dead ends, try
to break them down, see what happens, then find out what dead
ends others have run into, and then if nothing like that works, I want
to get a few hundred, thousand, or million people together and get
this system changed.

The problem is we all feel alone. We feel like we're helpless. We feel
like if we speak up and try to do something, the judges will barbeque
us. We feel we're up against a mafia of divorce attornies, judges,
mediators, and evaluators all trying to deprive us of our life savings
and
quite capable of doing it. We feel we're up against someone who can
tell us we can do things the easy way or the hard way. And nothing
will change until we get together, organize, and learn how to kick butt
effectively.

We have to get to the place where our rights are honored or someone
will pay dearly. When a judge rules unjustly, he or she should be held
accountable. Every unjust restraining order used to obtain possession
of
property and custody should be accounted for, and redress should be
available. Judges up for election should be called to account for their
bad decisions at election time. Those appointing judges should be held
accountable. Deprivation of rights and property should never take place
without an impartial jury.

If every person gets two people involved within one week of reading
this, the army of voters will be enormous within a few short months.
Just two. In ten weeks, you'd have a thousand. In twenty, you'd have
a million. In thirty, you'd have a billion. Heck, in a few years,
you'd
have all the grains of sand in all the planets in the universe to boot
:-)

If we do that and start asking politicians where they stand publically,
and when we fill their offices with signed petitions for the Right to
Marry
and similar kinds of initiatives, then every politician will want to do
everything
to be associated with this movement for justice and integrity.

Dan
www.nodivorces.com

"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZEZm9.207$VX3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...

dani

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 3:22:31 AM10/4/02
to
Daniel J. Dick wrote:


Nice website. Good message. I'm in!

Stan Mould

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 10:32:21 AM10/4/02
to

"The DaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:3d9cac95$1...@news.teranews.com...

> "Stan Mould" wrote
> > "The DaveŠ" wrote
> > > "Stan Mould" wrote
> > > > I do wish you'd stop spamming UK groups with
> > > > your US stuff.
> > >
> > > It was clearly labeled in the subject header. Why did
> > > you read it?
> >
> > I had little choice when it's spammed to an inappropriate
> > group. Why did you fucking post it?
>
> I posted because I had something to add. In case your wondering, I didn't
> even look at the list of groups it originally went to, nor did I care.

Yes, I had noticed that you plainly only think of yourself and not others.

> Are you saying you were forced against your will into reading it? You
have
> absolutely no control over such matters? I don't think so. You had the
> ultimate choice.

It's not possible to know what is in a post until it's opened, clot. You
may have broken the habit of a lifetime by saying that you were sorry for
being such an inconsiderate and unthinking prick, as you just admitted above
you are.

>
>
>


The Dave©

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 11:45:40 AM10/4/02
to
"Stan Mould" wrote

> > Are you saying you were forced against your will
> > into reading it? You have absolutely no control
> > over such matters? I don't think so. You had the
> > ultimate choice.
>
> It's not possible to know what is in a post until it's
> opened, clot. You may have broken the habit of
> a lifetime by saying that you were sorry for being
> such an inconsiderate and unthinking prick, as you
> just admitted above you are.

The best you can do is childish and immature personal insults?!? I guess
it's all you had to fall back on since you had no relevant rebuttal.

The subject line clearly reads "Governor Gray Davis: The California Weenie".
What part of that did you not understand?

But, yet, you still open them and respond.

1American

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 6:18:33 PM10/4/02
to
This makes my blood boil! Bill O'Reilly talked about this on the O'Reilly
Factor the other night on FOX News. He said, and I agree whole-heartedly,
that this is unconstitutional and should be challenged in court! Men who are
in this situation need to hire an attorney and take these clowns to court.
Men in our society are being used as "wallets" for the state.

David

"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 6:19:18 AM10/5/02
to
"1American" <vet...@gci.net> wrote in message news:<ups4tf8...@corp.supernews.com>...

>
> This makes my blood boil! Bill O'Reilly talked about this on the O'Reilly
> Factor the other night on FOX News. He said, and I agree whole-heartedly,
> that this is unconstitutional and should be challenged in court! Men who are
> in this situation need to hire an attorney and take these clowns to court.
> Men in our society are being used as "wallets" for the state.
>
> David
>

For some reason, Bill O'Reilly just can't bring himself to get up to
speed on this issue. It's difficult I know, to come to grips with
American not working the way it's supposed to -- and it's not working
that way because people in power don't want it to. This has already
been to court. Believe it or not, the courts refused to uphold the
constitutional rights of men who are misnamed as fathers and forced to
support other people's children. It's reverse "legislating from the
bench" that they are upholding policies that are linked to vast
amounts of federal funding, some of which the courts themselves get,
some of which goes into judge's pension funds. That's the true root of
the now decades long evil of the federalized child support enforcement
system. If it wasn't for the money, a long list of problems in the
system would have (and certainly should have) been declared
unconstitutional long ago.

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 6:36:40 AM10/5/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
[snip]

> Believe it or not, the courts refused to uphold the
> constitutional rights of men who are misnamed as fathers
> and forced to support other people's children.
[snip]

This is an example of the advantage of handing child support via central law and
an administrative agency, as in the UK. When central law goes wrong, it goes
wrong everywhere. But the converse also applies where the central law gets it
right.

The UK made the law for biological parentage in 1991, implemented it in the CSA
in 1993, and that is how it has worked since then.

Similarly for the UK's cap at about £160 per week for 1 child (about $260).

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 9:34:49 AM10/5/02
to
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3mzn9.4706$975.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...

> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > Believe it or not, the courts refused to uphold the
> > constitutional rights of men who are misnamed as fathers
> > and forced to support other people's children.
> [snip]
>
> This is an example of the advantage of handing child support via central law and
> an administrative agency,


No it isn't.

sasman99

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 2:12:42 PM10/5/02
to

"The DaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:3d9dba14$1...@news.teranews.com...

> "Stan Mould" wrote
> > > Are you saying you were forced against your will
> > > into reading it? You have absolutely no control
> > > over such matters? I don't think so. You had the
> > > ultimate choice.
> >
> > It's not possible to know what is in a post until it's
> > opened, clot. You may have broken the habit of
> > a lifetime by saying that you were sorry for being
> > such an inconsiderate and unthinking prick, as you
> > just admitted above you are.
>
> The best you can do is childish and immature personal insults?!? I guess
> it's all you had to fall back on since you had no relevant rebuttal.

Only to people who deserve them.

> The subject line clearly reads "Governor Gray Davis: The California
Weenie".
> What part of that did you not understand?

The part that MAY have said (had you a brain) 'Gee, sorry guys, I made a
mistake spamming UK groups with my Yank shit'.


> But, yet, you still open them and respond.

Because I am hoping that one day you will get it through your thick skull
that you are inappropriately cross-posting all over the planet.


Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 5:42:25 PM10/5/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<3mzn9.4706$975.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > [snip]
> > > Believe it or not, the courts refused to uphold the
> > > constitutional rights of men who are misnamed as fathers
> > > and forced to support other people's children.
> > [snip]
> >
> > This is an example of the advantage of handing child support
> > via central law and an administrative agency, as in the UK.

> No it isn't.

Hardly a useful response! No analysis, no evidence, no critical thinking, just
an opinion.

I've reinstated the important material you snipped from my article when you
responded, see below. I'll expand on my statement that "This is an example of


the advantage of handing child support via central law and an administrative

agency, as in the UK".

> > When central law goes wrong, it goes wrong everywhere.
> > But the converse also applies where the central law gets it
> > right.
> >
> > The UK made the law for biological parentage in 1991,
> > implemented it in the CSA
> > in 1993, and that is how it has worked since then.

UK: the government accepts that biological parentage was an important factor.
They built it into the law. The CSA had to implement that law. As a result, for
nearly a decade, the UK has based its child support responsibilities on
biological parentage. Alleged fathers can request (more like demand!) a
paternity test. It is then decisive. If they pay instead, perhaps for years,
then LATER get a peternity test, they will get a refund of all the payments made
so far.

USA: not the above! I understand that "Smith versus Odum" has not been accepted
by the Supreme Court. This appears to mean that individual states are free to
come their own decisions. How long will it take for men in those states to get
to where men in the UK already are? Will they EVER get a refund? WHO is better
off?

> > Similarly for the UK's cap at about £160 per week for 1 child (about $260).

This is just one more example. The UK had a central law implemented by a
government agency. The USA appears to have let individual states set their own
limits, if any. WHO is better off?

Another example - the UK doesn't backdate child support to before the claim.
This appears to be a deliberate aim of the government when making the law. I
believe that isn't the case in the USA. Will it ever be? WHO is better off?

In the UK, we believe (in fact we know) that the CSA is a mess. BUT - when we
look at some of the articles posted elsewhere, it is obvious that the
administrative incompetence in the UK is a small matter compared with the
structural issues in the USA, where policy appears to have got out of control.
There may be decades of pain in the USA before it catches up with some key
elements that the UK has had for nearly a decade, and whereas the UK can force
through change (if we can get EDS to make the computers work!) it appears to be
a painful, state-by-state process in the USA.

As I said, WHO is better off? These ARE examples "of the advantage of handing
child support via central law and an administrative agency, as in the UK".

Bad Man

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 6:33:30 PM10/5/02
to

"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:76Jn9.9833$h43.90355@newsfep3-
<Snipped for Brevity>

> UK: the government accepts that biological parentage was an important
factor.
> They built it into the law. The CSA had to implement that law. As a
result, for
> nearly a decade, the UK has based its child support responsibilities on
> biological parentage. Alleged fathers can request (more like demand!) a
> paternity test. It is then decisive. If they pay instead, perhaps for
years,
> then LATER get a peternity test, they will get a refund of all the
payments made
> so far.
>
Barry - no government has fully and completely accepted bio parentage in
law. In the UK, once a husband accepts the child is his then subsequent
genetic testing which proves the child is not will not call off the CSA
dogs. Same in the US I believe. Hell, the government doesn't WANT fathers
to know the bio truth without the mother's consent - hardly likely to be
forthcoming now is it?

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 7:48:42 PM10/5/02
to
"Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:annpbq$o1i$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...

> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:76Jn9.9833$h43.90355@newsfep3-
> <Snipped for Brevity>
> > UK: the government accepts that biological parentage was an
> > important factor. They built it into the law. The CSA had to
> > implement that law. As a result, for nearly a decade, the
> > UK has based its child support responsibilities on biological
> > parentage. Alleged fathers can request (more like demand!) a
> > paternity test. It is then decisive. If they pay instead, perhaps for
> > years, then LATER get a peternity test, they will get a refund of
> > all the payments made so far.
> >
> Barry - no government has fully and completely accepted bio
> parentage in law. In the UK, once a husband accepts the child
> is his then subsequent genetic testing which proves the child is not
> will not call off the CSA dogs.

Most certainly not true! Who told you that rubbish?

Here is part of a paper I wrote on the topic, giving quotes from ministers. This
shows that it is clearly the intention of the government to do what they in fact
have done - implement a principle of biological parentage (except for obvious
exceptions):
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/papers/truth/app_b.htm

You could download and read:
CSA 2090 - Disputed parentage and DNA testing
Information about resolving parentage disputes and DNA testing
http://www.csa.gov.uk/publicat.htm

Here is just one newspaper article I have on the subject:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1996%2F08%2F31%2F
ncsa31.html
Electronic Telegraph
Saturday 31 August 1996

CSA refunds payments man hid from wife
By Carole Cadwalladr

A MARRIED man paid more than Ł4,500 towards the upkeep of a child that was not
his because he was too scared to admit to his wife that he had been accused of
having an affair.

Barry Jackson, 37, of Sale, Greater Manchester, started making the payments six
years ago when a colleague named him as the father of her child. Although he
insists that there had never been anything between them, he was frightened that
his wife, Jacqueline, would not believe him and decided to pay the cash rather
then fight his case and risk her finding out. This week, he was refunded
Ł4,552.60 after a DNA test proved the child could not be his.

"I thought Jacqueline would believe them and divorce me and chuck me out. I knew
I had a lot to lose, my house and three kids. I thought my wife would think
there's no smoke without fire," said Mr Jackson.

He claims that spiralling debts almost ruined his marriage and twice drove him
to attempt suicide. He sold his car and put his house up for sale. Finally, in
August of last year, Mrs Jackson, 35, found out about the Child Support Agency
payments. She said: "Barry had been taking Ł10 out of the bank every week and
paying the CSA money through the Post Office so I didn't have a clue.

Mr Jackson said it took eight weeks to establish he could not have fathered the
child because the mother initially refused for it to go ahead.

"But last year, the CSA really got its act together and started taking Ł134 a
week directly from his wages, because by then he was more than Ł7,000 in
arrears. I noticed the court order straight away in Barry's payslip. I just put
two and two together. He admitted that he was paying maintenance, but said the
kid wasn't his. I just went berserk. I didn't believe him, but I didn't know
what to do. The next six months were absolute hell. I just spent the whole time
crying. It was an emotional and financial nightmare."

Mr Jackson, a factory worker, believed he would have had to suffer an
embarrassing court case to establish his innocence and found out he could take a
DNA test only in February. Mr Jackson said it took eight weeks to establish he
could not have fathered the child because the mother initially refused for it to
go ahead.

"When the results finally arrived it was like winning the lottery. I faxed the
results through to the CSA and they stopped my payments straightaway but they
haven't apologised or compensated me for all the worry and stress I have been
through."

A spokesman for the CSA in Manchester said yesterday: "When a question of
paternity is resolved and the alleged absent parent is proven not to be the
father, any payments will be refunded in full."

> Same in the US I believe. Hell, the government doesn't WANT
> fathers to know the bio truth without the mother's consent -
> hardly likely to be forthcoming now is it?

The US is a sad case! In the UK, where government determines a policy such as
biological parentage, it can make it happen. In the US, there appears to be no
useful way of making such things happen, except bit by bit, state by state, year
by year.

But my guess is that in no more than 2 decades after the UK, the US will catch
up. Say by 2013.

Bad Man

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 3:08:48 AM10/6/02
to

"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wYKn9.10442$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
A direct quote from one of your sources contradicts this, as does legal and
CSA practice

"Presumptions of parentage
When parentage is disputed before a maintenance
assessment has been made, the CSA can
sometimes presume that the alleged non-resident
parent is one of the child's parents and assess
maintenance.
The circumstances where this can be done are set
out in detail in Section 26(2) of the Child Support
Act 1991. They can be summarised as follows:
. if the alleged non-resident parent was married to
the child's mother at any time between conception
and birth of the child and the child has not since
been adopted;
. if the alleged non-resident parent is named as
the child's father on the birth certificate and the
child has not since been adopted;........."


Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 7:12:18 AM10/6/02
to
"Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:anoni0$ld9$1...@venus.btinternet.com...

> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:wYKn9.10442$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > "Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
[snip]

> > > Barry - no government has fully and completely accepted bio
> > > parentage in law. In the UK, once a husband accepts the child
> > > is his then subsequent genetic testing which proves the child is not
> > > will not call off the CSA dogs.
> >
> > Most certainly not true! Who told you that rubbish?
[snip]

> A direct quote from one of your sources contradicts this, as does
> legal and CSA practice
[snip]

This does not contradict what I said. Here is what happens:

In the above case, the man will (initially) be presumed to be the father, and
will (initially) be responsible for paying child support. The reason for
presumption is to speed up the payment of money, not to set the decision in
concrete. It is possible to overturn this decision and get a refund.

I'll simply quote from the CSA's publication identified below, available as a
PDF file from the URL below:
CSL 110 - Disputed parentage and DNA testing
http://www.csa.gov.uk/publicat.htm

<quote>
[Page 7]. Challenging a presumption of parentage

The alleged non-resident parent can:

- dispute the decision to make a maintenance calculation; or

- dispute a maintenance calculation based on one of the presumptions listed on
pages 5 and 6. But they, not the CSA, will be responsible for proving that they
are not the child's parent.

They can also apply to the courts to determine parentage - as described in the
section 'Application to the courts under Family Law' on page 13.

An alleged non-resident parent who disputes parentage must continue to pay the
maintenance due. If the dispute is successful, the CSA can pay back any money
collected.
</quote>

<quote>
[Page 13]. Application to the courts under Family Law

At any time the alleged non-resident parent or the parent or person with care
can apply direct to a court for the courts to determine parentage.
[snip]
These decisions are binding on the CSA. They also apply to other issues
concerning parentage such as immigration rights and inheritance, etc.

When an application is made, the courts will usually request DNA tests. If the
alleged nonresident parent refuses to take a court-directed test, the court may
draw conclusions and consequently find them to be the child's parent.

What happens once the dispute is resolved?

If the alleged non-resident parent is proved to be a parent of the child any
unpaid arrears of maintenance will be due. The CSA will take enforcement action
if it is not paid.

If an alleged non-resident parent is proved not to be a parent of a child either
by a DNA test result, or a declaration made by a court, the CSA will revise its
decision. Any maintenance previously paid can be paid back.
</quote>

Note words such as "usually" and "can". I have no information on the probability
of these, or the probability that the court will refuse a DNA test in the
interests of the child. The trend is towards use of DNA tests and against
attempting to hide the facts.

See also:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/reform/paterni
ty.htm

Martin Davies

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 9:46:36 AM10/6/02
to
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<wYKn9.10442$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...

> "Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:annpbq$o1i$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:76Jn9.9833$h43.90355@newsfep3-
> > <Snipped for Brevity>
> > > UK: the government accepts that biological parentage was an
> > > important factor. They built it into the law. The CSA had to
> > > implement that law. As a result, for nearly a decade, the
> > > UK has based its child support responsibilities on biological
> > > parentage. Alleged fathers can request (more like demand!) a
> > > paternity test. It is then decisive. If they pay instead, perhaps for
> > > years, then LATER get a peternity test, they will get a refund of
> > > all the payments made so far.
> > >
> > Barry - no government has fully and completely accepted bio
> > parentage in law. In the UK, once a husband accepts the child
> > is his then subsequent genetic testing which proves the child is not
> > will not call off the CSA dogs.
>
> Most certainly not true! Who told you that rubbish?
>


On many occasions I have seen cases where a father denied paternity
after accepting it on the initial forms.
Often he was the husband of the woman making the claim.

In every single case where he was proven not to be the father, the CSA
had to close the case as far as he was concerned.
If benefit was involved, they'd keep a case open as far as the woman
was concerned and go back to her to name the father (but not allowed
to name the same guy who had paternity tests).

In one case, a guy had been paying for several years - the CSA
refunded every penny paid through them.


On new claims now, the husband is presumed to be the father of the
child and the CSA will carry on with the case UNTIL he goes to court
and gets DNA testing done.
Once proven not to be the father, either by DNA testing offered by the
CSA or offered by the courts, the CSA cannot legally chase him as the
father of the child in question.
Of course, he also loses any rights as a father for the kid in
question too, as its not his kid.

Martin <><

> Here is part of a paper I wrote on the topic, giving quotes from ministers. This
> shows that it is clearly the intention of the government to do what they in fact
> have done - implement a principle of biological parentage (except for obvious
> exceptions):
> http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/papers/truth/app_b.htm
>
> You could download and read:
> CSA 2090 - Disputed parentage and DNA testing
> Information about resolving parentage disputes and DNA testing
> http://www.csa.gov.uk/publicat.htm
>
> Here is just one newspaper article I have on the subject:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1996%2F08%2F31%2F
> ncsa31.html
> Electronic Telegraph
> Saturday 31 August 1996
>
> CSA refunds payments man hid from wife
> By Carole Cadwalladr
>

> A MARRIED man paid more than £4,500 towards the upkeep of a child that was not


> his because he was too scared to admit to his wife that he had been accused of
> having an affair.
>
> Barry Jackson, 37, of Sale, Greater Manchester, started making the payments six
> years ago when a colleague named him as the father of her child. Although he
> insists that there had never been anything between them, he was frightened that
> his wife, Jacqueline, would not believe him and decided to pay the cash rather
> then fight his case and risk her finding out. This week, he was refunded

> £4,552.60 after a DNA test proved the child could not be his.


>
> "I thought Jacqueline would believe them and divorce me and chuck me out. I knew
> I had a lot to lose, my house and three kids. I thought my wife would think
> there's no smoke without fire," said Mr Jackson.
>
> He claims that spiralling debts almost ruined his marriage and twice drove him
> to attempt suicide. He sold his car and put his house up for sale. Finally, in
> August of last year, Mrs Jackson, 35, found out about the Child Support Agency

> payments. She said: "Barry had been taking £10 out of the bank every week and


> paying the CSA money through the Post Office so I didn't have a clue.
>
> Mr Jackson said it took eight weeks to establish he could not have fathered the
> child because the mother initially refused for it to go ahead.
>

> "But last year, the CSA really got its act together and started taking £134 a
> week directly from his wages, because by then he was more than £7,000 in

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 11:49:35 AM10/6/02
to
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<76Jn9.9833$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...

> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<3mzn9.4706$975.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > > [snip]
> > > > Believe it or not, the courts refused to uphold the
> > > > constitutional rights of men who are misnamed as fathers
> > > > and forced to support other people's children.
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > This is an example of the advantage of handing child support
> > > via central law and an administrative agency, as in the UK.
>
> > No it isn't.
>
> Hardly a useful response! No analysis, no evidence, no critical thinking, just
> an opinion.
>
>

You made a ridiculous claim.

Bad Man

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 12:10:41 PM10/6/02
to

"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nZUn9.11261$h43.108203@newsfep3-
I'll stand corrected, at least as far as UK based, CSA victim fathers,
insofar as their CSA extorted contributions. What about damages for fre-CSA
contributions direct to mother - or compensation for the fraud she
perptrated?


Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 1:15:39 PM10/6/02
to
"Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:anpna1$e4k$1...@paris.btinternet.com...

> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:nZUn9.11261$h43.108203@newsfep3-
> >
[snip]

> I'll stand corrected, at least as far as UK based, CSA victim fathers,
> insofar as their CSA extorted contributions. What about damages
> for fre-CSA contributions direct to mother - or compensation for
> the fraud she perptrated?

The fraud is a private matter. I have seen suggestions that cases could be taken
to court, but I haven't seen one get there yet.

Note - here is actually a reason for using the CSA instead of trying to handle
things privately - you can get a refund! For interest, this is what the minister
said in Parliament in July 2002: Baroness Hollis of Heigham (minister of the
Department of Work and Pensions): "A non-resident parent can declare and reply
directly to the court at any time. Such a declaration is then binding on the
CSA. If the person in question is found not to be the parent of the child, any
child support maintenance that he may already have paid will be refunded in full
by the agency."

(That is one of the advantages of having central laws and an administrative
agency operating them - you get paternity fraud largely sorted out years or
decades before some other methods).

Any pre-CSA payments are indistinguishable from gifts - you don't get gifts
back. When in doubt, get a paternity test up-front - it clarifies things a lot.

Bad Man

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 1:33:59 PM10/6/02
to

> When in doubt, get a paternity test up-front - it clarifies things a lot.
>
>
> --
> Barry Pearson

Barry - isn't the government consulting on paternity testing? And isn't
it's preferred option to allow testing only where the mother consents?


Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 3:03:39 PM10/6/02
to
"Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:anps67$moj$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> Barry Pearson wrote ...

> > When in doubt, get a paternity test up-front - it clarifies things a lot.
[snip]

> Barry - isn't the government consulting on paternity testing?

Not in 2002. Perhaps later.

> And isn't it's preferred option to allow testing only where the mother
> consents?

No. Already the voluntary guidelines allow testing by anyone with parental
responsibility, which could be the father. But there is no basis yet for any
changes to this. And they ARE voluntary.

Don't be fooled by what you read in the press!

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 3:54:35 PM10/6/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<76Jn9.9833$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<3mzn9.4706$975.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > Believe it or not, the courts refused to uphold the
> > > > > constitutional rights of men who are misnamed as fathers
> > > > > and forced to support other people's children.
> > > > [snip]
> > > > This is an example of the advantage of handing child support
> > > > via central law and an administrative agency, as in the UK.
> >
> > > No it isn't.
> >
> > Hardly a useful response! No analysis, no evidence, no critical
> > thinking, just an opinion.
>
> You made a ridiculous claim.

I made a statement that you don't like. The fact that you haven't even attempted
to provide a counter-argument should speak volumes to people reading this
thread.

You claim to be an engineer. Trying applying your engineering disciplines to
this topic. You would not attempt to cross the Atlantic in an airplane based on
such ideologies & conspiracy theories. You would demand rigorous engineering
principles.

If someone on the design team for the airplane simply said "You made a
ridiculous claim", would you simply accept that? Of course not! You would want
evidence, and then you may want further research. This is a serious matter -
please don't treat it as something that can be casually dismissed with such
statements. I won't let it be dismissed like that.

Here are some examples where the approach of using central laws operated by an
administrative agency can reduce the pain, or make the pain go away, faster than
relying on the arbitrary and capricious nature of courts.

UK: the government accepts that biological parentage was an important factor.
They built it into the law. The CSA had to implement that law. As a result, for
nearly a decade, the UK has based its child support responsibilities on
biological parentage. Alleged fathers can request (more like demand!) a
paternity test. It is then decisive. If they pay instead, perhaps for years,

then LATER get a paternity test, they will get a refund of all the payments made

Bad Man

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 4:00:37 PM10/6/02
to

"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fT%n9.15193$h43.1...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
So it's not the case that the government bottled out after some very (and
surprisingly) negative press and radio news commentary. I'm surprised
because that's what it looked like. One some government cretin is on Radio
4 expounding the virtues of the proposals (some Baroness something - or -
other), the next day nothing which usually means the government will do it
anyhow, just wait for a heavy news day to release the news. I'll look it
up - see if I can find something else. However, that means that there IS no
real way a putative father can be sure - the code is as you say voluntary -
of have I missed something?


Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 6:07:16 PM10/6/02
to
"Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:anq4p5$8pq$1...@venus.btinternet.com...

> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fT%n9.15193$h43.1...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
[snip]

> > No. Already the voluntary guidelines allow testing by anyone
> > with parental responsibility, which could be the father. But
> > there is no basis yet for any changes to this. And they ARE
> > voluntary.
> >
> > Don't be fooled by what you read in the press!
> >
> So it's not the case that the government bottled out after some
> very (and surprisingly) negative press and radio news commentary.

As you say, it is not the case! Distinguish between the views of the chair of
the Human Genetics Commission, the report ("Inside Information") of the HGC
itself, and the response of the government. They are different from one-another.

For further reading, including identification of relevant material from the HGC
report, etc, see:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/papers/truth/index.htm

[snip]


> One some government cretin is on Radio 4 expounding the virtues
> of the proposals (some Baroness something - or - other), the
> next day nothing which usually means the government will do it
> anyhow, just wait for a heavy news day to release the news.

No! Baroness Kennedy (chair of the HGC) expressed her views. They do NOT
represent government thinking. Frankly, I don't believe they represent HGC
thinking - see my paper above. It is an expert advice agency - the government
doesn't have to take its advice. Think of it as a think-tank - does a report
from a think-tank automatically get acted upon? (I am a founder of a
think-tank - and its reports do not automatically get acted upon!)

> I'll look it up - see if I can find something else. However, that
> means that there IS no real way a putative father can be sure -
> the code is as you say voluntary - of have I missed something?

If you want an official test, you can get one. If you want an unofficial test,
you can get one. The voluntary code is a code for the service providers, not for
the service users.

If you want a motherless unofficial paternity test, this is what you do. Using
the Internet itself for this purpose is no harder than ordering groceries from
Tesco via the Internet, but there is obviously the extra task of collecting the
samples.

1. Decide what sort of samples to use. Most services accept one of hair samples
or buccal swabs. A few others accept chewed gum, cigarette butts, licked
envelopes, blood, etc. Some offer a choice.

2. Search for the service, for example "motherless test", or "home test",
perhaps including the sample type if this is unusual. There are some pages on
the Internet that themselves provide a list of such services. There are perhaps
60 or more no-fuss services available based in about 10 countries, mostly the
USA and some in the UK.

3. Depending on the service, get a free kit sent to a specified address, or pay
a deposit to obtain the kit, or pay everything up-front. Credit cards are
typical, but cheques, money orders, and wires, can sometimes be used, often made
out to an unremarkable name. There may rarely be a special offer for £150, but
£200 or more is normal.

4. Put the samples in the two envelopes provided, using the swabs provided if
buccal swabs are being used. (Often 2 swabs per person will be provided). Send
the samples away to an address that may be unremarkable.

5. The results may be mailed to a given address, or be provided on-line using a
password. It may take a few days, or 2 or 3 weeks, depending on the service and
cost.

For a set of links to suitable services, see:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviour
s/paternity_test_links.htm

For a set of links to infidelity testing services and products, see:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviour
s/infidelity.htm

Mr.T

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 10:25:21 PM10/6/02
to
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 20:03:39 +0100, "Barry Pearson"
<ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

>"Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:anps67$moj$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>> Barry Pearson wrote ...
>> > When in doubt, get a paternity test up-front - it clarifies things a lot.
>[snip]
>> Barry - isn't the government consulting on paternity testing?
>
>Not in 2002. Perhaps later.
>
>> And isn't it's preferred option to allow testing only where the mother
>> consents?
>
>No. Already the voluntary guidelines allow testing by anyone with parental
>responsibility, which could be the father. But there is no basis yet for any
>changes to this. And they ARE voluntary.
>
>Don't be fooled by what you read in the press!

But what about all the unmarried fathers that do not have
parental responsibility due to the blatant sexism in the
administration ?

Mr T

A fool and his money are soon parted.

But where did the fool get all his money ?

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 7, 2002, 9:28:26 AM10/7/02
to
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<iD0o9.968$MH5.98753@newsfep2-gui>...

> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<76Jn9.9833$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> > > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<3mzn9.4706$975.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > Believe it or not, the courts refused to uphold the
> > > > > > constitutional rights of men who are misnamed as fathers
> > > > > > and forced to support other people's children.
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > This is an example of the advantage of handing child support
> > > > > via central law and an administrative agency, as in the UK.
>
> > > > No it isn't.
> > >
> > > Hardly a useful response! No analysis, no evidence, no critical
> > > thinking, just an opinion.
> >
> > You made a ridiculous claim.
>
> I made a statement that you don't like. The fact that you haven't even attempted
> to provide a counter-argument should speak volumes to people reading this
> thread.
>
>

You made a truly ridiculous claim. If you want to further make a fool
of yourself by trying to prove you're right, go ahead. Attacking me
personally doesn't lend any credibility to your ridiculous claim. It
just proves that you can't prove your point.

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 7, 2002, 11:03:17 AM10/7/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<iD0o9.968$MH5.98753@newsfep2-gui>...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<76Jn9.9833$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<3mzn9.4706$975.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
[snip]
> > > > > > This is an example of the advantage of handing child support
> > > > > > via central law and an administrative agency, as in the UK.
> >
> > > > > No it isn't.
> > > >
> > > > Hardly a useful response! No analysis, no evidence, no critical
> > > > thinking, just an opinion.
> > >
> > > You made a ridiculous claim.
> >
> > I made a statement that you don't like. The fact that you haven't even
> > attempted to provide a counter-argument should speak volumes to
> > people reading this thread.
>
> You made a truly ridiculous claim. If you want to further make a fool
> of yourself by trying to prove you're right, go ahead. Attacking me
> personally doesn't lend any credibility to your ridiculous claim. It
> just proves that you can't prove your point.

Once again, you snipped my evidence, and repeated your own evidence-less
assertion. Have you EVER provided evidence for your assertions?

I'll repeat my evidence, in case you simply didn't get that far before you
responded. I've added another, number 4. I believe the contrast between the
problems posted here by people in the USA, with the problems by people posting
to uk.gov.agency.csa by people in the UK, is an on-going illustration not only
that the UK & USA operate very different child support systems, but also that
there are specific advantages with the UK's approach, which would benefit many
of those posting here. The UK's system suffers from administrative incompetence,
but not from some of the other major problems posted here.

Here are some examples where the approach of using central laws operated by an
administrative agency can reduce the pain, or make the pain go away, faster than
relying on the arbitrary and capricious nature of courts.

Example 1:

UK: the government accepts that biological parentage was an important factor.
They built it into the law. The CSA had to implement that law. As a result, for
nearly a decade, the UK has based its child support responsibilities on
biological parentage. Alleged fathers can request (more like demand!) a
paternity test. It is then decisive. If they pay instead, perhaps for years,
then LATER get a paternity test, they will get a refund of all the payments made
so far.

USA: not the above! I understand that "Smith versus Odum" has not been accepted
by the Supreme Court. This appears to mean that individual states are free to
come their own decisions. How long will it take for men in those states to get
to where men in the UK already are? Will they EVER get a refund? WHO is better
off?

Example 2:

Similarly for the UK's cap at about £160 per week for 1 child (about $260). The


UK had a central law implemented by a government agency.

The USA appears to have let individual states set their own limits, if any. WHO
is better off?

Example 3:

Another example - the UK doesn't backdate child support to before the claim.
This appears to be a deliberate aim of the government when making the law.

I believe that isn't the case in the USA. Will it ever be? WHO is better off?

Example 4 (new):

I have read that some of the private collection companies in the USA take some
of the money. This doesn't happen in tthe UK.

In the UK, we believe (in fact we know) that the CSA is a mess. BUT - when we
look at some of the articles posted elsewhere, it is obvious that the
administrative incompetence in the UK is a small matter compared with the
structural issues in the USA, where policy appears to have got out of control.
There may be decades of pain in the USA before it catches up with some key
elements that the UK has had for nearly a decade, and whereas the UK can force
through change (if we can get EDS to make the computers work!) it appears to be
a painful, state-by-state process in the USA.

The CSA did indeed impose a service charge (NOT a lot), on private cases (not on
benefits cases). But when the level of service dropped because the formula took
too many circumstances into account and couldn't be handled properly, the
government temporarily cancelled the service charge. It won't appear again until
the level of service is reasonable.

ba...@psyber.com

unread,
Oct 7, 2002, 4:12:38 PM10/7/02
to

Governor Gray is coming up for re-election and wants to pander to the
female block vote that ensures them alimony, child support, and all of those
other perks.

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 8, 2002, 7:27:09 AM10/8/02
to

"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:Urho9.19904$h43.1...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > This is an example of the advantage of handing child support
> > > > > > > via central law and an administrative agency, as in the UK.
> > >
> > > > > > No it isn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hardly a useful response! No analysis, no evidence, no critical
> > > > > thinking, just an opinion.
> > > >
> > > > You made a ridiculous claim.
> > >
> > > I made a statement that you don't like. The fact that you haven't even
> > > attempted to provide a counter-argument should speak volumes to
> > > people reading this thread.
> >
> > You made a truly ridiculous claim. If you want to further make a fool
> > of yourself by trying to prove you're right, go ahead. Attacking me
> > personally doesn't lend any credibility to your ridiculous claim. It
> > just proves that you can't prove your point.
>
> Once again, you snipped my evidence, and repeated your own evidence-less
> assertion. Have you EVER provided evidence for your assertions?
>
> I'll repeat my evidence, ...

Your initial claim was that

"This is an example of the advantage of handing child support via central
law and an administrative agency, as in the UK."

You've provided absolutely no evidence in support of that claim. Instead,
you've presented the alternative claim that the policies in the UK regarding
paternity and enforcement of child support are different. In the UK, you
said that a designated father can challenge paternity even after it's been
established and he's forced to pay child support. That's a difference in
policy. You've provided no evidence that the difference in policy is caused
by "handing child support via central law and an administrative agency, as
in the UK."

You're ridiculous and unsupportable claim is that paternity can only be
disestablished if child support is handled "via central law and an


administrative agency, as in the UK."

I know you want to administer law using the communist model, and of
necessity your arguments are continually more ridiculous.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages