Casey getting SS payments for Caylee?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I meant that it didn't really matter whether or not it was LE or JG/Anthonys who did the testing. Of COURSE it would have mattered to Caylee!

Oh thanks, I was still replying to Brini's post but drifted off into my own thoughts on the matter. I didn't misunderstand you.

o/t remember awhile back when some of us were prone to heated arguments? It was suggested that we just post our thoughts without quoting someone else. That gets confusing - just say'n. :confused:
 
I would venture to say that Caylee now knows who her father is and she is very happy.
 
Yeah, I was wondering whether she has a bank account, too.

Be great to know who, exactly, claimed Caylee.

But, on the other hand... LE said her last employment was the first quarter of '06. So, she wouldn't have filed since maybe for the year of '05.......

I agree, but it sure would go a long way in proving/disproving whether or not GA/CA "knew" she didn't have a job if THEY were listing KC and Caylee as a dependent-given that they likely met the criteria to claim her as such.
 
I would venture to say that Caylee now knows who her father is and she is very happy.

If CA had her way, she'd have us convinced that Caylee was the product of immaculate conception - ya that's the ticket! (a bad joke :rolleyes:)

I trust she is with her Heavenly Father too; I don't know if she likes the earthly one or not since we don't know who he is!
 
I would venture to say that Caylee now knows who her father is and she is very happy.

AnimatedMulticolorAMEN.gif
 
If CA had her way, she'd have us convinced that Caylee was the product of immaculate conception - ya that's the ticket! (a bad joke :rolleyes:)

I trust she is with her Heavenly Father too; I don't know if she likes the earthly one or not since we don't know who he is!

Well, in any case, she is with a Parent who will give nothing but love and care.
 
I had a friend who's brother was living with a woman for 12 years, who was separated from her husband - they just never made the divorce final. The brother and this woman had 2 children together, but because she was legally married at the time the girls were born, they were not permitted to list the brother on the birth certificates as the father. They had to list the legal husband (even though the brother insisted these were his kids.)

The legal husband died in a car accident, and the kids received SS checks...

Isn't it a crazy world we live in??

No offense but those checks didn't likely just start arriving like magic. Someone signed those children up for benefits.
 
SS benefits are not a current issue because there is no surviving child.

CA claims she had papers drawn up, not by "Paul" but by someone to whom they were referred by "Paul." I don't remember the discussion from that time well enough to recall if it was determined to whom she referred or how this was debunked at the time. See CA's discussion of this starting around 3:00 here.

CA also claims in this video that she was told the father was "Eric" or one other person. She states she never heard of the "Ortiz" family. I would guess that TANF or other welfare type benefits were not available because nowadays, one is required to name the other parent so that the state may try to recoup some of the costs through child support. I don't think KC would or that CA would allow her to claim "unknown" or how the welfare department would handle such a claim. I've read cases where the state paid for multiple DNA tests to determine a father for a child when the mother kept making wrong guesses when applying for benefits. I don't think either KC or especially CA wanted to admit they had no idea who fathered Caylee or to go through maybe a dozen guys without a match.

I think the JG debacle was enough of a lesson for them on this. Seemed like they were interested in getting some legitimacy and some child support enough at that time to deal with the "other" family. (I also suspect CA knew all along that JG was being scammed.) No one, especially CA, wanted to face the humiliation of another exclusion through DNA testing.

Discovering the identity of a viable father today may prevent some future profits if the father were to gain control of Caylee's "estate."
 
SS benefits are not a current issue because there is no surviving child.

CA claims she had papers drawn up, not by "Paul" but by someone to whom they were referred by "Paul." I don't remember the discussion from that time well enough to recall if it was determined to whom she referred or how this was debunked at the time. See CA's discussion of this starting around 3:00 here.

CA also claims in this video that she was told the father was "Eric" or one other person. She states she never heard of the "Ortiz" family. I would guess that TANF or other welfare type benefits were not available because nowadays, one is required to name the other parent so that the state may try to recoup some of the costs through child support. I don't think KC would or that CA would allow her to claim "unknown" or how the welfare department would handle such a claim. I've read cases where the state paid for multiple DNA tests to determine a father for a child when the mother kept making wrong guesses when applying for benefits. I don't think either KC or especially CA wanted to admit they had no idea who fathered Caylee or to go through maybe a dozen guys without a match.

I think the JG debacle was enough of a lesson for them on this. Seemed like they were interested in getting some legitimacy and some child support enough at that time to deal with the "other" family. (I also suspect CA knew all along that JG was being scammed.) No one, especially CA, wanted to face the humiliation of another exclusion through DNA testing.

Discovering the identity of a viable father today may prevent some future profits if the father were to gain control of Caylee's "estate."

But, discovering the identity of the bio father would then be the As issue, not LEs. Estate is a civil matter.

The lawyer whom the As named said that those papers they cited were never drawn up.

So, nobody is looking for the long-absent bio father. LE isn't, because there's no evidence of his having been involved in the crime. The As have never been, either. The bio father is still just a sperm donor, folks.

Again, no father, no SS in the past. No SS n the present because Caylee's dead.
 
Edited with respect...

Discovering the identity of a viable father today may prevent some future profits if the father were to gain control of Caylee's "estate."

I just want to say that is an excellent point, Lin!
 
But, discovering the identity of the bio father would then be the As issue, not LEs. Estate is a civil matter.

The lawyer whom the As named said that those papers they cited were never drawn up.

So, nobody is looking for the long-absent bio father. LE isn't, because there's no evidence of his having been involved in the crime. The As have never been, either. The bio father is still just a sperm donor, folks.

Again, no father, no SS in the past. No SS n the present because Caylee's dead.

ITA. My point was there may be many reasons why the A's aren't looking and don't want anyone found beyond the obvious reluctance to "share" Caylee.
 
ITA. My point was there may be many reasons why the A's aren't looking and don't want anyone found beyond the obvious reluctance to "share" Caylee.

I think control is likely the biggest issue. AEB CA's hostility to the Grunds.

The family may have other reasons, as do my three friends, referenced above, for preferring the bio parent gone and forgotten.

Many people have reasons for not wanting the bio parents involvement. Some don't even know who the bio parent is.

Most of the time, the reasons have nothing to do with rape, incest or any other serious or violent crime.

I think we also always have to come back to the issue that the father is not being sought by LE, because he didn't have a part in the crime.

If he's alive, he's not interested. The As are not interested. He was out of the picture long before Caylee was born. Happens all the time. That's pretty much it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
3,097
Total visitors
3,182

Forum statistics

Threads
592,548
Messages
17,970,796
Members
228,806
Latest member
Linnymac68$
Back
Top