all starts with a divorce by mutual consent, MUTUAL AGREEMENT? we started badly, a fallacy that is the beginning of a lot of legal action, you have to comply, some more than others, all depend on the side where the children stay, real bullets in the battle that seconds after the agreement engages.
One, five, ten ... years of living reduced to a few pages, called, divorce decree, in which outlines the rights and obligations of both spouses, and all aimed, they say, the protection and safeguarding of children, the fruit of that union and broken. These would be the rules of the game, the problem is that the game is not always the same but the rules remain unchanged, and the broken, is broken, only a few pieces can be rearranged to make a uniform whole, but there are many of them in the air that judges, lawyers, psychologists, occupational peripherals, caught on the fly to try to do something with them. Whoever is left with the children and formed a whole that the law will look with ease, is a set reliable, but, And that stands alone? He is one of those pieces that can move in different directions but never let you leave, let alone to regroup without him, the game does not make sense. Is isolated, without playing in turn extends beyond words, and by contrast, makes the satellite of this new set created, without giving a place on which to rest and settle, the legal terminology itself, is called, "the payer "and it is just this point where I will go on the issue that concerns me:
rules from here is that whoever has the children have the right to receive and which is only required to give, not so simple, but justice, tends to simplify what has to expand and extend that which should be reduced, so many that has to eat the bread.
And when the recipient does not want to receive And when the giver can not keep giving?, Rules of the game remain such, but the game has now changed, can a cop in the monkey eat the tab hand and count 20?
Joint custody would return to the original game, and meet the rules to suit him, but this is not admitted as a whole, and stating that I think this might be the only way to group many of these chunks in air.
In a divorce decree sets the right of custody, because it considered implicit in the action of trustee obligations, should be defined as, think justice, obligations and rights of non-custodial, the "payor" and this is where the economic issue is not the most extensive document happens to be yet (but scary word), the most decisive. I eat and count forty, the board changes, and the boxes are now part of a punishment implicit in the relentless pursuit of justice for a culprit for which the full weight of the law, family unity and still remains defensible a whole, is the amputated part, no longer of mobility, impaired in their rights, not having a body which upheld, on which this step will fall fault.
I've said before that joint custody, would be the way to resolve all issues of divorce becomes within the rules of the original game, equality between the divided parts, equal rights, equal obligations. In the same way that the law not to neglect their children and sought endless ways to prevent this from happening, however, has ignored the shortest path, one that requires, it is the obligation inherent in the term paternity not a choice, has to address and ensure the well being of children. This is not a prize, a right acquired, deference, is a duty to "state", and is the state who must enforce them.
I will not delve here into the issues whether they be cultural, economic or otherwise, that cause it to ignore this obligation by all state agencies, but is this in my view, the source of the problem .
decline
When a liability is also undermine all the rights that flow from it, and what makes the law to overcome this grief? Wanders and coined terms: custodial, non-custodial, maintenance, abandonment of family boxes that prevent us back to square one, and it is not now going to have to check directly mate. Because the recipient does not receive, is denied in most cases to accept joint custody, which would certainly exercise this right arises from the obligation, and he who gives, or will not give (it is somewhat contradictory, obligation to do what we do is a choice: to trust someone who has been separated), or can not continue to give. The non-custodial, the payer, to understand, it urges them to meet a blind, a duty declined in its origins. And the custodian, who is staying with the children, receives at once all the rights arising from that obligation severed. The law, justice, state, appears not to want to realize this simple fact, and involves the two parts of a whole children covered in a dirty game where anything goes.
No winners, although sometimes it may seem, because both parties receive the weight of a duty that is not being met.
seems a purely semantic, and maybe it is, the custodial parent has the option to decide what they want to receive, not what they should receive equal treatment is compared to the other, and there arises the conflict, each more the other, he wants the whole duty, not just part of it, and this is the beginning of a game, still eating the same rules, but today is not even board.
If before we talked about the pieces that remain in the air, after a marriage breakdown , es el momento de hablar de lo que la ley hace con ese deber no cumplido: mas trozos en el aire, reagruparlos en un todo denominado, sentencia de divorcio, un solo acuerdo, para un sinfín de desacuerdos.
El cónyuge no custodio, el progenitor al que liberan de parte de su deber, se convierte de pronto en lo fundamental el “Pagador”, y como el propio termino indica, a pagar toca.
Una pensión por manutención alimenticia, es la pistola con la que se dispararan los proyectiles de los que hablábamos al inicio de este articulo, no pagar es sinónimo de tocado y hundido. Una vez más el juego a cambiado y de nuevo las reglas siguen siendo las mismas. El pagador que adeuda, es decir aquel not paying child support, not only incurs a debt to be settled, also commits an offense under the penal code as abandonment of family, but how can abandon what has been taken away? From this moment his only defense is to keep paying, because although the treatment given is the same as any criminal and I do not mean that it is not, the resources that account for their defense are not same, no excuse you can not have extenuating circumstances. Each trial is a certain conviction, and every sentence a life sentence overlapping. From civil to criminal without passing through the outlet box, and without pay to 20,000 pesetas Was that the game start? The
Cesar feel comfortable providing all the duties and rights of the parties that all separated, and today is no accident, that party usually makes up the woman, the Cesar confuses us with its magnificence, making us believe we are benefiting, but it is a yoke over the many yokes, which still oppress us. Do not accept, I would say more, not to demand joint custody, it is far from being a victory for women, is rather a step behind, a reaffirmed in that role that had cost us so much abandon. It is ultimately a victory of Cesar. AMG
One, five, ten ... years of living reduced to a few pages, called, divorce decree, in which outlines the rights and obligations of both spouses, and all aimed, they say, the protection and safeguarding of children, the fruit of that union and broken. These would be the rules of the game, the problem is that the game is not always the same but the rules remain unchanged, and the broken, is broken, only a few pieces can be rearranged to make a uniform whole, but there are many of them in the air that judges, lawyers, psychologists, occupational peripherals, caught on the fly to try to do something with them. Whoever is left with the children and formed a whole that the law will look with ease, is a set reliable, but, And that stands alone? He is one of those pieces that can move in different directions but never let you leave, let alone to regroup without him, the game does not make sense. Is isolated, without playing in turn extends beyond words, and by contrast, makes the satellite of this new set created, without giving a place on which to rest and settle, the legal terminology itself, is called, "the payer "and it is just this point where I will go on the issue that concerns me:
rules from here is that whoever has the children have the right to receive and which is only required to give, not so simple, but justice, tends to simplify what has to expand and extend that which should be reduced, so many that has to eat the bread.
And when the recipient does not want to receive And when the giver can not keep giving?, Rules of the game remain such, but the game has now changed, can a cop in the monkey eat the tab hand and count 20?
Joint custody would return to the original game, and meet the rules to suit him, but this is not admitted as a whole, and stating that I think this might be the only way to group many of these chunks in air.
In a divorce decree sets the right of custody, because it considered implicit in the action of trustee obligations, should be defined as, think justice, obligations and rights of non-custodial, the "payor" and this is where the economic issue is not the most extensive document happens to be yet (but scary word), the most decisive. I eat and count forty, the board changes, and the boxes are now part of a punishment implicit in the relentless pursuit of justice for a culprit for which the full weight of the law, family unity and still remains defensible a whole, is the amputated part, no longer of mobility, impaired in their rights, not having a body which upheld, on which this step will fall fault.
I've said before that joint custody, would be the way to resolve all issues of divorce becomes within the rules of the original game, equality between the divided parts, equal rights, equal obligations. In the same way that the law not to neglect their children and sought endless ways to prevent this from happening, however, has ignored the shortest path, one that requires, it is the obligation inherent in the term paternity not a choice, has to address and ensure the well being of children. This is not a prize, a right acquired, deference, is a duty to "state", and is the state who must enforce them.
I will not delve here into the issues whether they be cultural, economic or otherwise, that cause it to ignore this obligation by all state agencies, but is this in my view, the source of the problem .
decline
When a liability is also undermine all the rights that flow from it, and what makes the law to overcome this grief? Wanders and coined terms: custodial, non-custodial, maintenance, abandonment of family boxes that prevent us back to square one, and it is not now going to have to check directly mate. Because the recipient does not receive, is denied in most cases to accept joint custody, which would certainly exercise this right arises from the obligation, and he who gives, or will not give (it is somewhat contradictory, obligation to do what we do is a choice: to trust someone who has been separated), or can not continue to give. The non-custodial, the payer, to understand, it urges them to meet a blind, a duty declined in its origins. And the custodian, who is staying with the children, receives at once all the rights arising from that obligation severed. The law, justice, state, appears not to want to realize this simple fact, and involves the two parts of a whole children covered in a dirty game where anything goes.
No winners, although sometimes it may seem, because both parties receive the weight of a duty that is not being met.
seems a purely semantic, and maybe it is, the custodial parent has the option to decide what they want to receive, not what they should receive equal treatment is compared to the other, and there arises the conflict, each more the other, he wants the whole duty, not just part of it, and this is the beginning of a game, still eating the same rules, but today is not even board.
If before we talked about the pieces that remain in the air, after a marriage breakdown , es el momento de hablar de lo que la ley hace con ese deber no cumplido: mas trozos en el aire, reagruparlos en un todo denominado, sentencia de divorcio, un solo acuerdo, para un sinfín de desacuerdos.
El cónyuge no custodio, el progenitor al que liberan de parte de su deber, se convierte de pronto en lo fundamental el “Pagador”, y como el propio termino indica, a pagar toca.
Una pensión por manutención alimenticia, es la pistola con la que se dispararan los proyectiles de los que hablábamos al inicio de este articulo, no pagar es sinónimo de tocado y hundido. Una vez más el juego a cambiado y de nuevo las reglas siguen siendo las mismas. El pagador que adeuda, es decir aquel not paying child support, not only incurs a debt to be settled, also commits an offense under the penal code as abandonment of family, but how can abandon what has been taken away? From this moment his only defense is to keep paying, because although the treatment given is the same as any criminal and I do not mean that it is not, the resources that account for their defense are not same, no excuse you can not have extenuating circumstances. Each trial is a certain conviction, and every sentence a life sentence overlapping. From civil to criminal without passing through the outlet box, and without pay to 20,000 pesetas Was that the game start? The
Cesar feel comfortable providing all the duties and rights of the parties that all separated, and today is no accident, that party usually makes up the woman, the Cesar confuses us with its magnificence, making us believe we are benefiting, but it is a yoke over the many yokes, which still oppress us. Do not accept, I would say more, not to demand joint custody, it is far from being a victory for women, is rather a step behind, a reaffirmed in that role that had cost us so much abandon. It is ultimately a victory of Cesar. AMG
