Topics

Many of you know me and things I have gone thru.

Many know I had a miscarriage in 2004.

Well we have good NEWS................After 3yrs of trying after the miscarraige we are now expecting.

I am so excited, (tired and sick) but excited.

Thought I would share.

Things have been going great w/ the stepkids and my son and dh since we moved to MT. Love it life is sooo good.

Hugs to all of you, miss chatting w/ the old gang.


**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

Does your DH like to hunt, fish, camp etc.  We have good hunting, fishing year round (haha I even enjoy Ice Fishing).

It is cool in the winter the kids will skate on the lake.

If you DH like those things he would be happy here, (slow paced too).

Pay isn't as good as WA, BUT the cost of living is lower and no sales tax (except in Whitefish, so we shop down the road as whitefish just has mainly tourist stores.

Send me and email I would love to send you some pictures. [email protected].


Wendl


**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

Many of you know dh and I have been together for 4yrs married for 2.

When we got married we got married as a family, dh, myself, his kids and my child. We had a family honeymoon, spent our last anniversary as a family and this anniversary as a family, we are planning on going to the races, the kids are so excited, we were able to get pit passes.I think family anniversaries are great, I get a family annivesary and a hmmmm dh and I alone anniversary.

Summer is going great with the kids, however I am not to sure how the kids will like when they find out bm is moving them into yet another home again. But hey that is her problem not mine. I prefer not to move my childs residence so frequently, I prefer stability in my life instead of chaos.
:):)

**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

Still praying for your  family.

:)

**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

Check out this website:

http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.home

I just found out my ex has 10 traffic tickets.
The site shows the following stuff
Child Support
Criminal Records
Collections
Dissolution (Divorce)
Guardianships
Judgment
Juvenile Offender
Landlord Tenant
Name Change
Tax Warrants
Traffic Tickets
Wills
 

I was suprised on the information I found out for a friend of mine.

Man her ex had 18 traffic violations, judgements, and much more OMG.



**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

A male CO-Worker of mine just got physical custody of his son, they had a trial date set but bm realised (I think) that she would loose at trial (has many many reports from hospitals and social services etc against her)

My friend is sooooo excited.

In talking with people in my new state/town many men/woman have JOINT physical/legal custody. This state truely believe FAMILY/BOTH PARENTS are important for the growth of kids.  Unlike many states.

**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

Have him and his son in your prayers.

He is going thru the custody trial, trial was posponed for
1) his EX's attorney is on a month suspension for Unethical practices
2) the judge in the case wants to see the Psych wards records (from the hospital)along with finishing reading on the records social services has placed in teh court records on bm
3) all he wants is more time with his son, he would like custody of his son BUT is all for 50/50 as they do live close enough for this.

He is a great dad, a great person and I hope you will all pray for him and his son so this gets to court quickly, he is so tired of playing the waiting game.

On a good note, he has an excellent attorney, hmmm his attorney was  judge too.

**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

Title: Artist: CLEDUS T. JUDD Song: PAYCHECK WOMAN Album: BIPOLAR AND PROUD

PAYCHECK WOMAN


Well the last thing I need, is a lazy housewife
If your gonna lay around and sleep all day
You better work third shift a night
In a carpet mill or a truck stop
Even if it's for minimum wage
Oh you can get yourself some pasties
And get up there on that stage
Now the Baptist look down on you
But don't listen to their lip
Cause you can dance neked on a big brass poll
As long as you're making tips

Cause I want a paycheck woman don't want no welfare broad
All the chicks I date are lazy I say hey y-all a job
You better bring home the bacon and fry it up when you get home
You can't sit and watch soap operas while I work hard all day long
So here's to all my brothers out there pulling down O.T.
Ah let me get a big hell yah, from the working men like me Hell yah (Hell yah)

Employee discounts, well their real nice
I hear the head cashier at Wal-Mart can get fishing lures half price
Ain't that sexy really sexy when a woman saves money
And what really turns me on is a two income family
So even if it's part time bagging groceries at the store
You better get out there and punch that clock
Cause I'm sick of being poor

Cause I want a paycheck woman don't want no welfare broad
All the chicks I date are lazy I say hey y-all a job
You better bring home the bacon and fry it up when you get home
You can't lay there eating Bon Bons while I work hard all week long
So here's to all the woman who think money grows on trees
Ah let me get a big hell no, from the working mens like me Hell no (Hell no)

I want a paycheck woman don't want no welfare broad
All the chicks I date are lazy I say hey y-all a job
You better bring home the bacon and fry it up when you get home
You can't sit and watch soap operas while I work hard all day long
So here's to all my brothers out there putting in forty
Ah let me get a big hell yah, from the working men like me Hell yah (Hell yah)
Hell yah (Hell yah) (Hell yah)





I can name a woman like this hahahaha

**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

I just love this song.....


Billy Dean - "Let Them Be Little"
(Billy Dean/Richie McDonald)
 
I can remember when you fit in the palm of my hand
You felt so good in it, no bigger than a minute
How it amazes me you're changin' with every blink
Faster than a flower blooms, they grow up all too soon

Let them be little
'Cause they're only that way for a while
Give them hope, give them praise
Give them love every day
Let them cry, let them giggle
Let them sleep in the middle
Oh, but let them be little

I never felt so much in one little tender touch
I live for those kisses, your prayers and your wishes
And now you're teachin' me how only a child can see
Tonight while we're on our knees all I ask is

(Repeat Chorus)

So innocent, precious soul
You turn around and it's time to let them go

(Repeat Chorus)

Let them be little
:)

**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

http://slate.msn.com/id/2063086/

When Parents Kill
Why fathers do it. Why mothers do it.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 3:00 PM PT


 
Andrea Yates
 
Women do not, by and large, make terrific criminals. In the United States, women commit only two crimes as frequently as men. The first is shoplifting. The second is the murder of their own children. Andrea Yates, the Houston mother whose trial for the murders of three of her children ends today, and Marilyn Lemak, the Chicago nurse recently convicted of killing her three children, are not at all statistical anomalies. Somehow, women—who commit less than 13 percent of all violent crimes in the United States—commit about 50 percent of all parental murders. Why do so many women direct their most violent impulses toward their own children? While it may once have been true that women were the sole—and often frustrated—caregivers of small children, mothers now work, yet they don't kill their colleagues; they kill their babies. Why? Feminists and legal researchers tend to claim that such women must be extremely ill. Judges and juries mostly agree, with the result being that women who kill their children in this country are disproportionately hospitalized or treated, while men who do so are disproportionately jailed, even executed.

According to a recent book entitled Mothers Who Kill Their Children, by Michelle Oberman—a professor of law at DePaul University—juries are loath to hand down murder convictions for mothers accused of killing their own children. Such juries are even more reluctant to impose draconian penalties. A 1969 study by Dr. Phillip Resnick, the "father" of maternal filicide (the murder of a child by a parent), found that while mothers convicted of murdering their children were hospitalized 68 percent of the time and imprisoned 27 percent of the time, fathers convicted of killing their children were sentenced to prison or executed 72 percent of the time and hospitalized only 14 percent of the time. More recent British studies by P.T. D'Orban support these findings. And although the United States does not have any formal equivalent to England's Infanticide Act—which codifies a sort of postpartum depression defense—American juries and judges have taken it upon themselves to excuse and treat most of these mothers for mental illness while condemning the fathers as violent criminals.


Continue Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The scholars, the media, and most of the studies do their best to persuade us that these murderous moms really are ill. Perhaps it comforts us to believe that anyone who violates the sacred mother-child bond is simply crazy; it would be unimaginable if these mothers were making rational criminal choices. And since women are not violent in other contexts, most scholars, including Oberman, argue that the majority of maternal murderers suffer from depression, postpartum psychoses, and other mental afflictions. But no one has put forth an analogous medical theory to explain whether fathers who kill their offspring are also depressed, isolated, or psychotic.

The problem with the "illness" theory is that it only goes partway toward explaining why women kill their babies. Illness may explain how some women eventually snap and behave violently. But it doesn't begin to explain why they direct this madness so disproportionately toward their own offspring. Even taking into account that some small fraction of the mental illnesses associated with maternal filicide—most notably postpartum depression—are triggered by the births themselves, the illness theory doesn't explain why mothers suffering from other mental illnesses, or who aren't ill at all, act out with their own children rather than strangers. The illness theory doesn't explain why we don't consider fathers who kill their children to be sick. Pulling murderous mothers out of the field of ordinary criminology and viewing them as fundamentally different raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps murderous mothers are no crazier than fathers. Perhaps murderous fathers are even crazier than mothers. Either way, the failure to view these crimes as morally or legally equivalent reflects a more central legal truth: We still view children as the mother's property. Since destroying one's own property is considered crazy while destroying someone else's property is criminal, women who murder their own children are sent to hospitals, whereas their husbands are criminals, who go to jail or the electric chair.

Why does the legal system treat a mother who kills someone else's child as though she were a sociopathic killer while showing mercy toward a mom who drowns her own? For the same reason the law treats individuals who burn down other people's houses as criminals and institutionalizes those who burn down their own. Men are disproportionately jailed for filicide not because they are more evil than women but because we believe they have harmed a woman's property—as opposed to their own.

The Numbers
Children under the age of 5 in the United States are more likely to be killed by their parents than anyone else. Contrary to popular mythology, they are rarely killed by a sex-crazed stranger. FBI crime statistics show that in 1999 parents were responsible for 57 percent of these murders, with family friends and acquaintances accounting for another 30 percent and other family members accounting for 8 percent. Crime statistics further reveal that of the children under 5 killed from 1976 to 1999, 30 percent were murdered by their mothers while 31 percent were killed by their fathers. And while the strangers, acquaintances, and other family members who kill children skew heavily toward males (as does the entire class of murderers), children are as likely to be murdered by their fathers as by their mothers.

The Newspapers
Doug Saunders observed recently in the Toronto newspaper the Globe and Mail that the media is complicit in treating maternal killers as newsworthy and paternal killers as ordinary criminals. Newspapers currently following every motion in the Andrea Yates trial completely ignored last month's Los Angeles filicide, in which Adair Garcia killed five of his six children by asphyxiating them with a barbeque he'd lit in the living room. He did it to punish his estranged wife, who had moved out a week earlier. Coverage of Ukranian immigrant Nikolay Soltys, who killed his pregnant wife and 3-year-old son last August, was less focused on his mental state than his dramatic flight and capture. Why is Yates a front-page story while Garcia is disregarded? To paraphrase Michelle Oberman: Murdering mothers are just different.

The Motives
The same studies that have been used to prove that murderous mothers are "sick" can as readily be used to support the theory that both mothers and fathers consider children to be a woman's property. Social science research and FBI crime statistics show that men and women differ in the reasons they kill their children, in the methods they employ, and in the ways they behave following such murders. None of this data proves that fathers are crazier than mothers. Much of it suggests that we all simply believe children "belong" to their moms.

Researchers, building on the work of Phillip Resnick, have shown that women tend to kill their own offspring for one of several reasons: because the child is unwanted; out of mercy; as a result of some mental illness in the mother; in retaliation against a spouse; as a result of abuse. Frequent themes are that they themselves deserved to be punished, that killing the children would be an altruistic or loving act, or that children need to be "erased" in order to save or preserve a relationship. Contrast this with the reasons men kill their children: Most frequently—like Garcia or Soltys—they kill because they feel they have lost control over their finances, or their families, or the relationship, or out of revenge for a perceived slight or infidelity. The consistent idea is that women usually kill their children either because they are angry at themselves or because they want to destroy that which they created, whereas more often than not, men kill their children to get back at a woman—to take away what she most cherishes.

According to a recent article by Elizabeth Fernandez in the San Francisco Chronicle, studies further reveal that fathers are far more likely to commit suicide after killing their children. Mothers attempt post-filicide suicide but rarely succeed. Some scholars suggest this is because mothers tend to view their children as mere extensions of themselves and that these homicides are in fact suicidal.

The Murders
Perhaps more revealing than the differences in why they kill their offspring are the differences between how fathers and mothers do so. For one thing, parental murderers tend to be highly physical. According to a 1988 survey done by the U.S. Justice Department, while 61 percent of all murder defendants used a gun in 1988, only 20 percent of the parents who killed their children used one. Children were drowned and shaken, beaten, poisoned, stabbed, and suffocated. These methods betray a certain "craziness" in both genders—they betray an intense passion and a lack of planning. But a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children shows that fathers are far more violent. And mothers frequently dispose of the corpses in what researchers call a "womblike" fashion. Bodies are swaddled, submerged in water, or wrapped in plastic. Moreover, the NCMEC study showed that while the victims of maternal killings are almost always found either in or close to the home, fathers will, on average, dispose of the bodies hundreds of miles away. All these behaviors suggest that women associate these murders with themselves, their homes, and their bodies

None of the arguments here assumes that there is no such thing as postpartum depression or, in rarer cases, postpartum psychosis—a deep break from reality that affects less than one in 500 new mothers. Andrea Yates is actually a good example of someone who was overdetermined to experience some kind of psychotic break that would end tragically. But Yates is only one of hundreds of mothers who kill every year, and while complete psychotic breaks explain why some of this homicidal rage and violence is turned upon one's own children, it doesn't account for either the staggering numbers of maternal homicides or for society's leniency toward women in these cases. The property theory does provide these answers. Women still believe that they have sole dominion over so little property that arson and armed robbery and rape make no intuitive sense to them. But the destruction and control of something deemed to be a woman's sole property sends a powerful message about who's really in charge, and this message hasn't changed since the time of Jason and Medea.

It would, of course, help if we could stop thinking of children as anyone's property. It does nothing to advance the feminist cause to simply assume that all mothers who kill their children must necessarily be crazy. It will do a good deal to advance the cause of children's rights if we begin to consider them as legal entities in and of themselves.


Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor


**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

I know some of us will not have our children on xmas, my son will be going to visit his grandparents and his dad for a week, dh is unable to see his children this year so we will spend it together.

I want to wish everyone a great holiday and even if we cannot or choose not to be with our children this year for the holiday, have peace in knowing that our children love us and we love them.

I made the choice to not have my son this year, I suggested to his dad that he take him for a week, he usually only spends a few hours with him so hopefully it will go well.

HUGS TO ALL AND MERRY CHRISTMAS

**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

Many of you here know me and know my ex doesn't pay cs or rarely does and rarely seen our son (all by his choice) He works but under the table, he doesn't pay rent or for food as he lives with his family.

Background. My ex is order to pay cs for our son who is 12 ,$160 a month, he has another daughter whos mother lives off the state (her daughter is almost 12 and dad has never seen child) next child is 5, the mom just now after 5yrs is going after my ex for cs (she got divorced now wants $)

OK so 3 open cs cases, arrears to my son over 19K, arrears to welfare mom over 10k, arrears to useless divorcee mom 5k.

The state prosecutor took my ex to court over MY case for contempt. I received the contempt papers, in the orders it only has MY case # on it, it says that he is to pay $600 by 12/15.

I have a feeling if he does pay that the cs office will divide this $600 over all three kids (after current support is paid) I don't think the cs should be able to do this as it states for MY CASE ONLY so I feel that $600 should ALL go to my son. I am not getting my hopes up on him paying, last cs payment I received was Sept for $29 then he paid 1/2 prior to his Nov hearing ONLY because he had court, if he didn't have court he wouldn't have paid.

I do understand that the other kids need to be support too, but I do feel it is not right as one mom is with her b/f of 12yrs who supports her while she lives off the state, and the 2nd mom after 5yrs of no contact wants money from him and she is being supported by her family.

I have worked dam hard for 12yrs to support our son, my tax money went to support the welfare mom and I feel my son is entitled to the full amount ordered in the contempt orders.

SO
1) should I contact the cs office and ask them how they will dispurse (sp) these monies
2) contact the cs admin office as this is a contempt order that states he must pay xx amount to not be held in contempt for my case only.

I am thinking of going to the cs admin, due to on my dh's case I caught his caseworker garnishing for monies that they were NOT entitled to by law when the cs worker said they could, the admin office of CS said no way and removed it.

SO any ideas would be great.

NO I am not one of those CP's that only care about money, I have gone without his money for so long, I would use this money to pay the hosp bill from when my son was admitted overnight to the hosp for his appendix, after insd paid I still owe the hosp over $500.


On & up note, his dad is actually taking his son for a week at xmas, well 1/2 the time son will be with his grandparents (who are great) but at least he will be able to spend a few days with his dad which is funny, when we lived 4 miles from eachother he never saw son, now we moved a little farther away and he wants to see son all of a sudden. Well better late than never right.
Thanks,


**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

Get the Kleenex out first, then continue. j
 
> A Dads Poem
>
> Her hair was up in a pony tail,
> her favorite dress tied with a bow.
> Today was Daddy's Day at school,
> and she couldn't wait to go.
>
> But her mommy tried to tell her,
> that she probably should stay home.
> Why the kids might not understand,
> if she went to school alone.
>
> But she was not afraid;
> she knew just what to say.
> What to tell her classmates
> of why he wasn't there today.
>
> But still her mother worried,
> for her to face this day alone.
> And that was why once again,
> she tried to keep her daughter home.
>
> But the little girl went to school
> eager to tell them all.
> About a dad she never sees
> a dad who never calls.
>
> There were daddies along the wall in back,
> for everyone to meet.
> Children squirming impatiently,
> anxious in their seats
>
> One by one the teacher called
> a student from the class.
> To introduce their daddy,
> as seconds slowly passed.
>
> At last the teacher called her name,
> every child turned to stare.
> Each of them was searching,
> a man who wasn't there.
>
> "Where's her daddy at?"
> she heard a boy call out.
> "She probably doesn't have one,"
> another student dared to shout.
>
> And from somewhere near the back,
> she heard a daddy say,
> "Looks like another deadbeat dad,
> too busy to waste his day."
>
> The words did not offend her,
> as she smiled up at her Mom.
> And looked back at her teacher,
> who told her to go on.
> And with hands behind her back,
> slowly she began to speak.
> And out from the mouth of a child,
> came words incredibly unique
>
> "My Daddy couldn't be here,
> because he lives so far away.
> But I know he wishes he could be,
> since this is such a special day.
> And though you cannot meet him,
> I wanted you to know.
> All about my daddy,
> and how much he loves me so.
>
> He loved to tell me stories
> he taught me to ride my bike.
> He surprised me with pink roses,
> and taught me to fly a kite.
>
> We used to share fudge sundaes,
> and ice cream in a cone.
> And though you cannot see him.
> I'm not standing here alone.
>
> "Cause my daddy's always with me,
> even though we are apart
> I know because he told me,
> he'll forever be in my heart"
>
> With that, her little hand reached up,
> and lay across her chest.
> Feeling her own heartbeat,
> beneath her favorite dress.
>
> And from somewhere here in the crowd of dads,
> her mother stood in tears.
> Proudly watching her daughter,
> who was wise beyond her years.
>
> For she stood up for the love
> of a man not in her life.
> Doing what was best for her,
> doing what was right.
>
> And when she dropped her hand back down,
> staring straight into the crowd.
> She finished with a voice so soft,
> but its message clear and loud.
>
> "I love my daddy very much,
> he's my shining star.
> And if he could, he'd be here,
> but heaven's just too far
> You see he was a policeman
> and died just this past year
> When airplanes hit the towers
> and taught Americans to fear.
>
> But sometimes when I close my eyes,
> it's like he never went away."
> And then she closed her eyes,
> and saw him there that day.
> And to her mothers amazement,
> she witnessed with surprise.
> A room full of daddies and children,
> all starting to close their eyes.
>
> Who knows what they saw before them,
> who knows what they felt inside.
> Perhaps for merely a second,
> they saw him at her side.
> "I know you're with me Daddy,"
> to the silence she called out.
> And what happened next made believers,
> of those once filled with doubt.
>
> Not one in that room could explain it,
> for each of their eyes had been closed.
> But there on the desk beside her,
> was a fragrant long-stemmed pink rose.
>
> And a child was blessed, if only for a moment,
> by the love of her shining star.
> And given the gift of believing,
> that heaven is never too far.
>
> They say it takes a minute to find a special
> person, an hour to appreciate them,
> a day to love them, but then an entire
> life to forget them.
>
> Send this to the people you'll never forget and
> remember to send it also to the person that sent
> it to you. It's a short message to let them know
> that you'll never forget them.
>
> If you don't send it to anyone, it means you're
> in a hurry and that you've forgotten your
> friends.
>
> Take the time...to live and ! love.
> Until eternity. God bless

Check your cs case and/or court orders to see if they are garnishing possible attorney fees if the cp was ever awarded them.

If so contact me privately have good info for you that could save you some money.


**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

:)

I lost your # again was gonna call you.


**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

For those non custodial parents that reside in WA State that are required to carry medical insurance on their children. I just found out the following information:

Custodial parents insurance is primary (UNLESS otherwise stated in the divorce decree, or custodial parent is on welfare etc then the ncps would be primary)

I suggest anyone that is required to carry medical insurance on their children  to re-read their divorce decree and contact their insurance carrier and ask questions.

I found this information thru a friend and also was informed this by my medical carrier as well when I called my carrier to ask questions regarding an EOB we received.

**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**