Parents cannot settle support issues

According to USA law, a women has the unilateral right to opt out of parenthood by having an abortion at any time. A man has no such right, and can be forced into fatherhood. Furthermore, he can be forced into continuing involvement with the child, even if both parents agree to a financial settlement.

And when both parents agree to a settlement, both the judge and the press will blame the man.

The NY Post reports:

An Ivy League Lothario’s bid to get out of child support by giving his baby mama a one-time $150,000 payment was spanked by a Manhattan judge Thursday.

The 2013 Dartmouth grad offered the woman the pile of cash to “irrevocably terminate [his] parental rights” — because he was mad she refused to get an abortion and didn’t want to support the kid until he was 18.

The man, identified in court papers only as Avery G., 24, actually convinced the woman to take the lottery-style reduced-sum payout — which would be a lot of money up front but less than she would get from taking a monthly support check. ...

Avery G. will pay $832 a month for support, ...

Goldstein calls Avery’s bid both “unusual” and “extraordinary” and says there is no similar precedent for voluntarily signing away parental rights.

The mom, an $85,000-a-year marketing director, has sole legal and physical custody of the baby.

This anti-man, but it is also anti-woman, as the mom did not get the deal she wanted either.

I do not know how parents will ever get their rights back. Here both parents went to court with a settlement agreement, and the judge rejected the deal and insisted on supervising the child's upbringing for the next 18 years. And the newspaper agrees with the judge.

I don't know why the judge says that voluntarily signing away parental rights is so unusual. I have seen it in the local family court lots of times. Sometimes it happens just because a parent misses a couple of court appearances.

The same newspaper says Bernie Sanders is a communist.

In another attack on parental rights, the NY Times reports:

But anti-abortion groups argue that such cases should be decided according to the best interests of the embryos, the same legal standard used in child-custody disputes. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed last month in the Missouri dispute, they say an embryo’s most fundamental interest is to be born: “No other right is of any avail if a human being is not around to invoke it.”

The BIOTCh is called a legal standard, but it is not. Saying "best interests of the embryos" sounds like satire.

What would they do, appoint a court psychologist to evalate the embryo? That is not much more ridiculous than the family court does already.

Parents rejected for spanking beliefs

The Mass. supreme court is famous for being the first state court to mandate same-sex marriage, and even teaching it in schools, based on centuries-old constitutional language.

But what happens when a white Christian cis-gendered heteronormative traditional family wants to care for a foster child? They are ostracized for beliefs shared by 90% of the population a generation ago. Eugene Volokh reports:

The Massachusetts high court held today, in Magazu v. Dep‘t of Children & Families, that the state may refuse to place foster children with parents who occasionally spank their own children. This is so even if the parents promise to spank their children outside the foster children’s presence (because they already administer spankings only in private, without their other child watching).

I sometimes hear people say that we need more foster parents. It is all a lie. If you are a normal well-adjusted parent, the foster child agencies do not want you. They specialize in damaged kids, and keeping them damaged.

The research on spanking is that excessive spanking, such as several severe beatings a week, is correlated with worse outcomes later. No harm has been shown for moderate spanking, and no research has shown that any other method of discipline works better.

A lot of liberals today have the view that spanking is the choice of a low-class black family, and they are better than that.

I am just posting this to note the trend towards liberal agencies working to control families and deny personal freedoms. They will not stop until we are slaves to their collectivist ideology.

The black studs of Omaha

Omaha.com reports:

[Norman] Bennett became a reproductive citizen: At age 31, he has at least 13 kids by 11 women.

That’s a tentative tally, because various court records seem to indicate that the Omaha man may have 15 kids by 13 women. Or more. ...

Turns out, Bennett isn’t even Omaha’s most prolific procreator.

Attorney Meagan Spomer, who works in child-support enforcement, told Polk that she has heard of a deadbeat dad with 23 kids by 15 women. ...

Some judges have required deadbeat dads to name each child. Any slip-ups, and certain judges will send dads to jail on the spot.

By law, child-support cases are supposed to stop short of becoming a sort of punitive paternity court. High court rulings have essentially outlawed the concept of a debtor’s prison — where defendants go to jail simply because they can’t pay down their financial obligations such as child support.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that any jail time in child-support cases should be coercive — an attempt to force the dad to chip away at whatever he owes.

One important note: Whether Bennett pays up or not, the women he impregnated are receiving child support through the welfare program formerly known as Aid to Dependent Children.
In other words, state and federal taxpayers are partly footing the bill for Bennett’s brood.
In turn, the State of Nebraska seeks reimbursement from fathers, such as Bennett, who have impregnated the women now receiving welfare.

Do not expect the Obama-Clinton Democrats to do anything about this, because all those kids are likely to become Democrat voters.

To maintain their power, they have to destroy the family and keep a permanent underclass.

Happy New Year. Vote for Donald J. Trump.