What about kid's rights?

[woodbuck27]

"Women loves money and they will do anything for it, even selling their body. " APB

Tank. Place the word 'some' at the front of that sentence and ask yourself if that isn't a more accurate fairer statement?

Just a thought.

Hope things are running smooth with your new Lass!

Oh Tank.Looks like Michael Huff is All around a decent fella. Dam he looks strong man.

[Deputy Nutz]

Now the only thing I know about this case with Urlacher is what I just read so bare with me, and this is no way a sterotypical take on women in general.

Shouldn't this thread be titled, "Fathers Rights"? It seems that Urlacher has had nothing but legal battles to see his son. This women seems to be holding out to get more cash, or a better opportunity. You know the last thing she wants is to have to give up custody, and have good bye to her child support check each month, which has to be in the tens of thousands.

What is this bull at the end where she requested a limo to pick up her kid because of the dangerous car ride? I think she is just pimpin him.

It all sounds like a big joke on her end, and it seems that Urlacher is genuine about wanting his son to be a part of his life. Since when do have to pay a fee to see your kids?

I thought that there were laws that stipulated what kind of visitation rights fathers could have. I know that child support is dependent upon the child having the father's last name, but I had thought I'd heard of cases years ago in which they made the child support contingent on his ability to see the kids. I think that a percentage of child support payments should go directly into a college or trust fund to help these kids get either an education or a decent start to their adult lives.

Remember, alot of the child support laws are governed by the state, not the federal government. It is different in every state. Like in Texas, if your name is on the birth certificate, and you prove that you are not the biological father, guess what, you pay the child support. Fair aint it?

Child Support in most states has nothing to do with visitation rights. You could have molested that child, and because of that, you have no visitation rights, but you better believe that you are paying child support. Just because you are scum, doesn't mean you get off the responsibility hook.

[MJZiggy]

I thought that there were laws that stipulated what kind of visitation rights fathers could have. I know that child support is dependent upon the child having the father's last name, but I had thought I'd heard of cases years ago in which they made the child support contingent on his ability to see the kids. I think that a percentage of child support payments should go directly into a college or trust fund to help these kids get either an education or a decent start to their adult lives.

Remember, alot of the child support laws are governed by the state, not the federal government. It is different in every state. Like in Texas, if your name is on the birth certificate, and you prove that you are not the biological father, guess what, you pay the child support. Fair aint it?

Child Support in most states has nothing to do with visitation rights. You could have molested that child, and because of that, you have no visitation rights, but you better believe that you are paying child support. Just because you are scum, doesn't mean you get off the responsibility hook.

I stated that badly, I meant to add that there are also complications because of the fact that some parents (abusers and molesters) should not be with the children and yet retain the responsibility for providing for them. And I wholeheartedly agree that the Texas law is idiotic.

Perhap I should write to my senator about that trust fund idea. It would make it tougher on moms who struggle to provide for their kids, though.

What do you guys think? Should part of a child support payment be set aside to provide for the child's education and growing up and moving out expenses? Imagine how much money that would be if it were mandated to begin at birth or babyhood!

[Deputy Nutz]

I think Child Support is bullshit.

If parents are not together, then they both should be equals in taking care of that child. As we can see money alone does not solve the situation. Parents are finding ways to screw over reciepents of the child support, or the reciepent is not using the money in ways to provide for the child. It is just to bad that men in general would rather send 17%(in Wisconsin) of their check each month to their children's other parent, so they can slack on the other parential responsibilities.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Here's what I learned in Philosophy 101:

Infant are soulless. They lack soul because they depend wholly on others for survival.

Children are animals. Though they have soul, they survive only through instincts.

[Tony Oday]

Here's what I learned in Philosophy 101:

Infant are soulless. They lack soul because they depend wholly on others for survival.

Children are animals. Though they have soul, they survive only through instincts.

you are a moron. HAve a kid and look at said kid and retry this statement.

do not talk about your little books that have no grasp of reality you little punk.

[Zool]

Here's what I learned in Philosophy 101:

Infant are soulless. They lack soul because they depend wholly on others for survival.

Children are animals. Though they have soul, they survive only through instincts.

Moron. Thats not even funny for the sake of being stupid. That just you being you. Dont reproduce please.

You pretty much just insulted every person here with a kid.

[GrnBay007]

Looks like this article from The Herald News Online was writen about a month ago -- of course you can only believe about half of what you read and/or hear, but if half is true of Brian's ex lover, I wouldn't want my child growing up with her either.


Urlacher baby custody trial set for July 17

By Stewart Warren
STAFF WRITER

JOLIET — Chicago Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher will go to trial July 17 to seek custody of his 1-year-old son.

The contentious case has been pending for the past year.

The boy's mother is Tyna M. Robertson, a former Joliet resident who sells real estate and now lives in Naperville. She is the same woman who filed a $35 million lawsuit in March 2003 against Michael Flatley, the Irish dancer known for the "Lord of the Dance" and "Riverdance" productions. Robertson accused Flatley of raping her while they were in a Las Vegas hotel. In September 2003, a judge dismissed the lawsuit.

During the same year, Robertson told Naperville police that a doctor touched her inappropriately at Edward Hospital. Police said she later recanted her story, and no criminal charges were filed.

In June 2005, Urlacher filed the paternity suit in Will County to establish that he is the 1-year-old's father. Genetic testing confirmed the fact, according to court documents.
Robertson asked for financial support and a judge ordered Urlacher to pay her $2,000 a month.

Represented by Donald Schiller of Chicago-based Schiller, Du Canto and Fleck, Urlacher has accused Robertson of having "uncontrollable rages," according to court documents.

At one point, he said she switched the child from formula to breast milk as an excuse to keep the boy away from his father. He has also said that when they are scheduled to meet so he can spend time with the boy, she sometimes arrives late.

Additionally, his lawyers recently filed subpoenas with the managers of several Chicago-area strip clubs seeking financial records that would list how much Robertson had been paid while employed there.

On Friday afternoon, a hearing in the case was scheduled for Will County Judge Ludwig Kuhar's courtroom. Dressed in a conservative dark pantsuit, Robertson carried her son in her arms. Shawn Bersson appeared in court to represent her. Urlacher was not there.

The judge told Bersson and Deborah Carder, also of Schiller, Du Canto and Fleck, that he wanted a doctor to evaluate the boy's relationship with his parents and then detail his findings in a report. There was some discussion about the time frame and the likelihood that the project could be completed before July 17.

Kuhar then scheduled both sides to return to court at 1:30 p.m. June 23.

Accompanied by several women, Robertson left the courtroom without commenting on the case.