Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - News of the day
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

News of the day

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 171172173174175 446>
Author
Message
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 24 2011 at 16:32
Originally posted by KoS KoS wrote:

Oh Australia.



One way in which I am libertarian.  Family courts are evil and the system should be dismantled.  Matters of relationships and money passing and child care and visitation, etc. should be left strictly to the parties to work out themselves.  Except in cases of child abuse or neglect. 
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
angel123 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: November 16 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote angel123 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 07:02
wow..This site is wonderful..Because we get to know the news as well as the comment on it..It is something good know..I liked the site..
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ivan_Melgar_M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 09:56
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by KoS KoS wrote:

Oh Australia.



One way in which I am libertarian.  Family courts are evil and the system should be dismantled.  Matters of relationships and money passing and child care and visitation, etc. should be left strictly to the parties to work out themselves.  Except in cases of child abuse or neglect. 

Are you seriousˇ?

I had a lot of cases in Family Courts and seen HUNDREDS of fathers who are forced to pass a miserable alimony to their kids because they hide their money, or some fathers who marry again have new kids and don't want yo give a dime to their previous family that's are almost starving.

I seen parents who hide their money in other countries or even register their properties on the name of third persons  to avoid giving a cent to their kids.

In most of divorce cases, the parents don't want their kids to even see their former husband or wife.

You can't allow the decision of money and child care issues to persons that hate each other and will do anything to destroy the other person, even sacrifice the welfare of their kids.

Iván



Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 25 2011 at 10:06
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 10:02
^ I'm with Iván on this one.
What?
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slartibartfast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 10:05
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by KoS KoS wrote:

Oh Australia.



One way in which I am libertarian.  Family courts are evil and the system should be dismantled.  Matters of relationships and money passing and child care and visitation, etc. should be left strictly to the parties to work out themselves.  Except in cases of child abuse or neglect. 

Are you seriousˇ?

I had a lot of cases in Family Courts and seen HUNDREDS of fathers who are forced to pass a miserable alimony to their kids because they hide their money, or some fathers whop marry again and have new kids who don't want yo give a dime to their previous family who are almost starving.

I seen parents who hide their money in other countries or even register their properties on the name of third persons  to avoid giving a cent to their kids.

In most of divorce cases, the parents don't want their kids to even see their former husband or wife.

You can't allow people to decide money and child care issues to persons that hate each other and will do anything to destroy the other person, even sacrifice the welfare of their kids.

Iván


My parents divorced when I was in my early teens.  Seeing as how most divorces are ugly, I don't see how family courts can inherently make better or worse of a bad situation.


Edited by Slartibartfast - November 25 2011 at 10:05
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ivan_Melgar_M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 10:22
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

 
My parents divorced when I was in my early teens.  Seeing as how most divorces are ugly, I don't see how family courts can inherently make better or worse of a bad situation.

I taken the divorce of many friends (Usually avoid faily cases but they trust me), and there are good and bad divorces.

I once had to tell to my client "Please,m enough is enough", because her ex-husband, already had granted her 50% of his incomes plus rented her a house and paid their daughters school, because she wanted more just to destroy him, but I was tied by legal rules, even tried to resign but the judge didn't allowed me.

Luckily the Judge (An intelligent woman with great experience).adjusted the alimony so the guy wouldn't starve, because his lawyer was so dumb that allowed to give my client more than the law admits (He adored her daughter but also had another kid of a second relation that needed to be protected).

My client even wanted me to ask the judge to forbid him to introduce her daughter to her father's new wife and brother, I said i couldn't ask that.

On other cases I seen husband and wife fighting for a stupid microwave oven that had like 10 years and hardly worked (This is rue, both said it had sentimental value  Ouch ), and the one who suffers is the kid..

Luckily most of the divorces I take are by mutual agreement and we decide together what happens, but this is common only in middle class people (Middle class families have jobs with a salary and one or two properties they can't hide), but if the divorce involves extremely rich or poor families, they will fight for a stupid carpet both hate, because there's too much or little money involved.

Believe me, sometimes we talk to our clients to give representation to both lawyers to reach a fair agreement with the judge, because there's too much hate between a divorcing couple...And normally we reach the more equivalent arrangement if the are not near

Courts are necessary.

Iván
            
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 10:42
My problems stem from the inherent gender bias in family court.  I worked for a few years in family court and saw it almost on a daily basis.  Alimony (without children being involved) is a silly paternalistic concept that women are unable to take care of themselves and must have a man do it for them - it may have been the case 75 years ago, but it no longer is.  And I do not believe in the child support system as it currently exists.  Nor in the way that it is executed by both the family courts (men are always made to pay, women are often not if for some bizarre reason the father actually gets custody of the children - the women is a drug addict or abusive) and the enforcement agencies.  So, yes, I am serious. 

Your post above Ivan is a good reason why the family court system should be dismantled.  An ex-wife would be incapable of pushing her ex-husband to the point of starvation without the family court system.   The only reason the judge adjusted things was because he had a second child.  There was no interest in protecting the financial situation of the husband.  When it comes to family court, the man is the only person whom the court is uninterested in the welfare of.  The children must be well-cared for and the ex-wife has the right to live according to the standard to which she had become accustomed, but the man can starve and live out on the street or have to work 100 hours a week to provide for his ex-wife and children. 
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ivan_Melgar_M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 10:58
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

My problems stem from the inherent gender bias in family court.  I worked for a few years in family court and saw it almost on a daily basis.  Alimony (without children being involved) is a silly paternalistic concept that women are unable to take care of themselves and must have a man do it for them - it may have been the case 75 years ago, but it no longer is. 

That's a problem of THE LAW or THE CONGRESS, not the courts.

At least in my country w don't have alimony without children, except in cases of extreme poverty, and only the strictly necessary to survive.

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

 And I do not believe in the child support system as it currently exists.  Nor in the way that it is executed by both the family courts (men are always made to pay, women are often not if for some bizarre reason the father actually gets custody of the children - the women is a drug addict or abusive) and the enforcement agencies.  So, yes, I am serious.  

Maybe in your country, here we evaluate the possibilities of each part, if the woman has more incomes, she has to provide support for the children.

Maybe you have Neanderthal congressmen

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Your post above Ivan is a good reason why the family court system should be dismantled.  An ex-wife would be incapable of pushing her ex-husband to the point of starvation without the family court system.   The only reason the judge adjusted things was because he had a second child.  There was no interest in protecting the financial situation of the husband.  When it comes to family court, the man is the only person whom the court is uninterested in the welfare of.  The children must be well-cared for and the ex-wife has the right to live according to the standard to which she had become accustomed, but the man can starve and live out on the street or have to work 100 hours a week to provide for his ex-wife and children. 

That's only an example (very unusual, normally fathers or mothers give very little to the other part, in this case the guy's lawyer was a moron), in Perú a Husband or a Wife never are forced to provide more than 30% of their incomes, because if you have a kid, you have to provide him enough money to study, dress and eat.

If parents have shared custody and both have decent incomes, the judge doesn't order alimony, but calculated the kid's needs, and each parent pays 50%

The problem is that some people hide their incomes or lie, that's when the lawyers are required to find the real situation.

Iván
            
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 11:06
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

My problems stem from the inherent gender bias in family court.  I worked for a few years in family court and saw it almost on a daily basis.  Alimony (without children being involved) is a silly paternalistic concept that women are unable to take care of themselves and must have a man do it for them - it may have been the case 75 years ago, but it no longer is. 

That's a problem of THE LAW or THE CONGRESS, not the courts.

At least in my country w don't have alimony without children, except in cases of extreme poverty, and only the strictly necessary to survive.

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

 And I do not believe in the child support system as it currently exists.  Nor in the way that it is executed by both the family courts (men are always made to pay, women are often not if for some bizarre reason the father actually gets custody of the children - the women is a drug addict or abusive) and the enforcement agencies.  So, yes, I am serious.  

Maybe in your country, here we evaluate the possibilities of each part, if the woman has more incomes, she has to provide support for the children.

Maybe you have Neanderthal congressmen

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Your post above Ivan is a good reason why the family court system should be dismantled.  An ex-wife would be incapable of pushing her ex-husband to the point of starvation without the family court system.   The only reason the judge adjusted things was because he had a second child.  There was no interest in protecting the financial situation of the husband.  When it comes to family court, the man is the only person whom the court is uninterested in the welfare of.  The children must be well-cared for and the ex-wife has the right to live according to the standard to which she had become accustomed, but the man can starve and live out on the street or have to work 100 hours a week to provide for his ex-wife and children. 

That's only an example (very unusual, normally fathers or mothers give very little to the other part, in this case the guy's lawyer was a moron), in Perú a Husband or a Wife never are forced to provide more than 30% of their incomes, because if you have a kid, you have to provide him enough money to study, dress and eat.

If parents have shared custody and both have decent incomes, the judge doesn't order alimony, but calculated the kid's needs, and each parent pays 50%

The problem is that some people hide their incomes or lie, that's when the lawyers are required to find the real situation.

Iván


I will respond to the rest of your post later, but just wanted to touch on your first point now.  Alimony is generally left up to the discretion of the judge - so really, it is a problem with the courts.  We do have federal child support guidelines, which is an issue with congress, and technically, the judge is supposed to order child support to the custodial parent (whether that be the ex-husband or the ex-wife).  But, the judges still exercise discretion not to order child support against the ex-wife often.  I've seen it happen a few times (the ex-husband rarely gets custody and must show that the wife is basically fit to be institutionalized before the court will even consider granting him sole custody).
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slartibartfast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 12:18
Divorces are acrimonious by their very nature.  I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who is put in the position of getting in the middle of it.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ivan_Melgar_M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 14:22
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Divorces are acrimonious by their very nature.  I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who is put in the position of getting in the middle of it.

That reminds me of a case in which I risked my life for being in the middle.

A friend had a relation with a woman who had separated from her husband (A lazy and violent bump) a couple of years before, they had no kids. My friend wanted to marry her and hired me to take her divorce case.

Peruvian law admits automatic divorce after two years of "separation of bodies", but the girl and I went to see the guy to ask him to sign a mutual agreement to avoid a tedious and painful process.

The guy shouted "She doesn't have money to pay a lawyer, so she must be sleeping with you", and put a gun to my head......I was really scared but asked him to be calm and assured him I had nothing with her (Of course never mentioned my friend was paying, because that would be against attorney - Client secrecy) .

After some problems, he agreed to sign but asked her to pay him (Her parents had money abut stopped helping her when she married the bump), but I refused and took him to court.

It was terrible, after a year of trial the guy asked for the 50% of the house they bought together (To what he was entitled, so we agreed to sell it), and asked 50% of her clothes, because he said he had paid for them.

Luckily the judge (unusually intelligent) gave a shout and asked him if he was crazy or just a lowlife gigolo who wanted to exploit his ex-wife.

At the end the parents of the girl paid the guy his 50% of what he had paid for the house, agreed to pay the mortgage, and we never saw him again.

In this case without lawyer and judge, nothing would had been solved and my friend would had never been able to marry her and have  a happy life as they do now.

Iván


            
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 16:45
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Divorces are acrimonious by their very nature.  I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who is put in the position of getting in the middle of it.


I think the courts make divorce more acrimonious, not less.  Divorces are difficult enough without having to face losing everything you have.  They also give one party much more power over their ex than the party should have or would have without the court system.   Both parties often hate each other and would love to have revenge on the other person.  The court system allows one party (I'd say in about 99.5% of the cases, that party is the ex-wife) to have their revenge on the other party.  If they had to work out child support, custody and visitation all by themselves, it might force the parties to work together toward a fair solution, instead of allowing one party to destroy the other and forcing the other party to fight for his very existence.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 16:59
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

My problems stem from the inherent gender bias in family court.  I worked for a few years in family court and saw it almost on a daily basis.  Alimony (without children being involved) is a silly paternalistic concept that women are unable to take care of themselves and must have a man do it for them - it may have been the case 75 years ago, but it no longer is. 

That's a problem of THE LAW or THE CONGRESS, not the courts.

At least in my country w don't have alimony without children, except in cases of extreme poverty, and only the strictly necessary to survive.

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

 And I do not believe in the child support system as it currently exists.  Nor in the way that it is executed by both the family courts (men are always made to pay, women are often not if for some bizarre reason the father actually gets custody of the children - the women is a drug addict or abusive) and the enforcement agencies.  So, yes, I am serious.  

Maybe in your country, here we evaluate the possibilities of each part, if the woman has more incomes, she has to provide support for the children.

Maybe you have Neanderthal congressmen

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Your post above Ivan is a good reason why the family court system should be dismantled.  An ex-wife would be incapable of pushing her ex-husband to the point of starvation without the family court system.   The only reason the judge adjusted things was because he had a second child.  There was no interest in protecting the financial situation of the husband.  When it comes to family court, the man is the only person whom the court is uninterested in the welfare of.  The children must be well-cared for and the ex-wife has the right to live according to the standard to which she had become accustomed, but the man can starve and live out on the street or have to work 100 hours a week to provide for his ex-wife and children. 

That's only an example (very unusual, normally fathers or mothers give very little to the other part, in this case the guy's lawyer was a moron), in Perú a Husband or a Wife never are forced to provide more than 30% of their incomes, because if you have a kid, you have to provide him enough money to study, dress and eat.

If parents have shared custody and both have decent incomes, the judge doesn't order alimony, but calculated the kid's needs, and each parent pays 50%

The problem is that some people hide their incomes or lie, that's when the lawyers are required to find the real situation.

Iván


I would say that perhaps the family court system in Peru is a bit more fair and fair-minded than the court system in the US.  But the problem here is a mixture of Congress/state legislatures, overzealous family court lawyers who try to get as much money as possible out of the husband's side and family court judges who are much more sympathetic to the ex-wife (even when the ex-wife was at fault in the divorce) than the ex-husband.  We have a very paternalistic family law system here in the US which is solely about protecting the interests of the ex-wife (I would say even above the interests of the children from all that I've seen).
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slartibartfast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 17:08
There was certainly some female gender bias going on in court for my parent's divorce, but neither of them were angels.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 17:25
Usually when a relationship or a marriage ends, except in rare circumstances, both parties are at fault to some degree or another.  And I have seen divorce turn otherwise decent people into rabid animals.  And the court system makes it worse.  The wife takes an almost gleeful pleasure in attempting to destroy her ex-husband (and after all, she's only human and all the sudden because of the courts she has the power to lash out at and crush the one who has caused her pain).  The husband is equally filled with rage and hatred, but his is a more powerless rage, except in those extreme cases (you read about them every now and again) where the husband turns violent against the ex-wife, because he's being eaten alive by her and the family court judge.  While I blame the respective legislatures and family court judges for their respective gender bias, it is really, at least in this country made so acrimonious by inhuman family lawyers (not saying anything about you Ivan, but here, family court lawyers are vile - and I used to work as one for a time, before I got thoroughly disgusted with it and went into business law). 
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ivan_Melgar_M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 17:50
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

 

I would say that perhaps the family court system in Peru is a bit more fair and fair-minded than the court system in the US.  But the problem here is a mixture of Congress/state legislatures, overzealous family court lawyers who try to get as much money as possible out of the husband's side and family court judges who are much more sympathetic to the ex-wife (even when the ex-wife was at fault in the divorce) than the ex-husband.  We have a very paternalistic family law system here in the US which is solely about protecting the interests of the ex-wife (I would say even above the interests of the children from all that I've seen).

You made a point about the lawyers. In USA the lawyers charge a percentage of the money they get for the wife or husband, so they try to get more alimony.

Ethics rules forbids us to charge percentage in divorce cases, if we do that, we can loose our license.

We to arrange a salary before the trial begins, normally between 1.5 and 3 thousand bucks, no matter how much money is involved, so we are not interested in taking all the money from any part, we try to reach an agreement.

Of course we can go lower when a family is extremely poor and higher when the divorce is between extreme wealthy couples, but never a percentage from what any of the spouses gets.

Iván


            
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 18:01
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

 

I would say that perhaps the family court system in Peru is a bit more fair and fair-minded than the court system in the US.  But the problem here is a mixture of Congress/state legislatures, overzealous family court lawyers who try to get as much money as possible out of the husband's side and family court judges who are much more sympathetic to the ex-wife (even when the ex-wife was at fault in the divorce) than the ex-husband.  We have a very paternalistic family law system here in the US which is solely about protecting the interests of the ex-wife (I would say even above the interests of the children from all that I've seen).

You made a point about the lawyers. In USA the lawyers charge a percentage of the money they get for the wife or husband, so they try to get more alimony.

Ethics rules forbids us to charge percentage in divorce cases, if we do that, we can loose our license.

We to arrange a salary before the trial begins, normally between 1.5 and 3 thousand bucks, no matter how much money is involved, so we are not interested in taking all the money from any part, we try to reach an agreement.

Of course we can go lower when a family is extremely poor and higher when the divorce is between extreme wealthy couples, but never a percentage from what any of the spouses gets.

Iván




It's a bit worse than that.  They actually charge by the hour in divorce cases, so the more acrimonious both sides can make it, the more fighting they can cause, the more money they can charge their clients.  I think a flat fee system would definitely make more sense here in divorce situations.  But I think the best solution for this problem is to let people work out their own private arrangements.  I think it would lessen acrimony and be fairer for both parties.  Of course, it would cut out the lawyers and the entire family court system, so that will probably never happen.  Still, there are ways to make the system work better for all parties concerned and be fairer to all the parties.  I think a flat fee system for the lawyers would be one step in the right direction.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
KoS View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 17 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 16310
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KoS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 18:28
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-25/immunise-or-lose-benefits-parents-told/3694236
Originally posted by ABC.au ABC.au wrote:

Parents who do not have their children fully immunised will be stripped of family tax benefits under a scheme announced by the Federal Government.
Australia redeemed.Clap.



Edited by KoS - November 25 2011 at 18:29
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 19:03
Yes. Nothing like forced medical treatments. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
KoS View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 17 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 16310
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KoS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2011 at 19:06
Yes, because preventing illness is such an unethical thing to do.

Edited by KoS - November 25 2011 at 19:12
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 171172173174175 446>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.986 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.