From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: "As a taxpayer [Bob B. says] screw [Deadbeats]"
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:17:31 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:

> Bob Kirkpatrick writes
> >Now you have what you chose instead of release. You get to be a victim. 
> >But don't keep going with this "unwilling" stuff about rape. 
> >If anybody screwed EuStress, EuStress did. 
> 
>   I never had a judge`s signiture.
>   Give me the name and address of an NCP
>   who got a judge to sign a court order
>   to stop his child support obligation
>   WITHOUT THERE BEING AN ADOPTION.

>   As I have for many=many months 
>   -- I patiently await your answer.

You continually ask me for case information you know I can't give.
The only info I have like that are the ones I'm involved with, so
it makes it a safe question for you to ask. 

Read on, Jeff. I have a way to get you that name, I think.

>   Even =IF= one judge terminates the
>   parenthood of an NCP what about
>   the thousands of other judges who won't?

What about them? The vast majority of dads aren't asking out of the
relationship with the kids, just their wives. So your question is
irrelevant to your point.

>   I =AVOID= being victimized -- by not
>   using my SSN.  Unlike you, I do not 
>   sadomasochistically bash my head 
>   against court room walls.

You mistake my position, Jeff. I'm not bashing my head on anything
--unless it's on my desk reading some of this stuff. I have a good
relationship with my kids. My main objections with the system are
the methodologies of establishing support amounts, the bias that
prevents many dads from becomming the custodial parent, and the
lack of enforcement for visitation. There are other things, surely,
but those are the big ones.

However, I also believe that each case should be handled on it's
own merits, and that means that *some* dads should be out of the
picture --either by their own needs, or those of their kids. In
your case, I agreed that you should be gone. The essential reasons
for that were:

1) your refusal for contact
2) your adamance at indigence (proved over time)
3) an available and stable father-figure in the home
4) your ex's willingness to allow termination
5) your desire for termination

There were other things in there too. You should be let out. I'm
not going to pound my fist and demand that you pay and be involved.
Further, I don't demand it of others. What I do demand (if that's
the word, and I think it isn't) is that you pursue the legal ave-
nues for release. If you cannot be supportive in any way, then it's
the responsible thing for you to do to be legally terminated. I
disagree with the road you're taking here, though. It adds to the 
fire against the many, many dads who DO want involvement, even at
the current costs. It fans the fire against other dads like you
who should be terminated from the relationship for the good of all
parties, and especially the kids. This drawing of battle lines is
counter-productive for everybody.

I suspect that it's still possible for you to do the deal. I'll
make you a deal:

You go through with the elements we started in your case, and get
her lawyer to execute it. He said he would. Now here's the deal.
You go do that, and I'll show you a man who got a judge to sign
the order for termination.


--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3128 soc.men:16279 soc.women:16445 misc.kids:23056 alt.dads-rights:2236