War on Dads propaganda

[tod evans]

As a father who is currently involved in family court issues I find this article both slanted and misleading, the only truthful thing I came away with is that 82% of the time the woman is awarded custody and child support.

Every father I know wants one thing, 50/50 time with their kids and no money changing hands...





Deadbeat parents cost taxpayers $53 billion

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/05/news/economy/unpaid-child-support/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Over $100 billion is owed in unpaid child support -- nearly half of that to taxpayers supporting children on public assistance.
According to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, $108 billion in total back payments was owed to parents with custody of children in 2009.
If those payments aren't made and the children then need to go on public assistance, payments are supposed to be made to the government in the form of reimbursement. About 49% of that back money -- or roughly $53 billion -- is owed to the government, according to Joan Entmacher, vice president of family & economic security of the National Women's Law Center.
That's a raw deal for taxpayers. But for the mothers owed -- 82% of custodial parents are women -- it's the severing of an economic lifeline.
For poor mothers, child support payments represent 45% of their income, said Entmacher. Deadbeats are a big reason why 41% of households headed by single women are below the poverty level -- twice that for households headed by single men and nearly five times that for married couples.
"This represents eye glasses, dentist visits," said Entmacher. "For a mom trying to get it together, income stability is really important."
Related: Median income falls, but so does poverty
Figuring out how to get deadbeats to pay up is another matter.
It seems most of the problem is concentrated among a handful of bad actors. While only about 60% of the total money owed in child support each year gets paid, over 70% of families get at least something, according to Entmacher. It's at the bottom rung where most of the money is owed -- 11% of the debtors owe 54% of the money.
The government has several ways to make people pay up: it can garnish paychecks, intercept tax refunds or revoke state-granted privileges like driving or hunting licenses.
To get out of paying, deadbeats will often take work in the underground economy to shield their income. Family courts are rife with tales where men with off-the-books jobs cry poor mouth to the judge, only to drive away in a Mercedes.
Experts say more personnel at agencies enforcing child support payments, as well as a more active role played by the custodial parent in reporting people working off the books, may chip away at that $100 billion.


.....................It goes on longer..............

[phill4paul]

50/50 sounds fair to me and monies deposited into an child's account that can only be withdrawn for the child's needs ( dispersal backed by receipts). If a spouse is unable to provide for a stable home environment on their own then the child should have primary residence with the one that does.

[Philhelm]

I haven't personally encountered this problem (thank God!), but it's an issue that really irks me, especially when it's thrown in my face how men are stupid and evil and women are oppressed. Family courts are truly discriminatory against men.

I remember talking to a woman who claimed that her child's father was intentionally not working in order to get out of paying child support. I asked her what his profession would be if he were to get a job, and she replied that he worked minimum wage jobs. I told her that a minimum wage job isn't even enough to live on these days, and when she's taking half in order to supplement her lifestyle, there simply is no incentive to work and that I'd likely do the same in such a hopless, life-draining situation. She didn't like that.

Another woman I talked to was older. She was getting around $4,000 per month in alimony. I was so shocked that I asked why it was so high, especially since many Americans don't make that kind of money; therefore, raising a child doesn't cost that much. She said that she has to get a car to transport her child, etc.

I remember when I was doing online dating. Profile after profile had women demanding that the man be employed, have his own house and car, etc. My conclusion was that these women must have encountered many men who did not have these things if it were important enough to post. So, what we have is a situation in which women still expect men to be the providers, equality be damned, yet men are being drained of their livelihood in order to allow the woman to live a better life and bang other men.

War on men.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Family courts are rife with tales where men with off-the-books jobs cry poor mouth to the judge, only to drive away in a Mercedes.


Mercedes, really? With a black market job, really?

Since it's so rife, why didn't the journalist get a name to go with this bullshit claim.

[ninepointfive]

I'm in the same situation as the OP. Fortunately, the ex isn't fighting me tooth and nail anymore.

Don't forget about the lawyers who will drain all the retirement savings, charging 3 hours @ 300/hr to fill out a form you could end up researching yourself and spend an hour on. Not to mention all he does is change around the names on the form and a couple minor details from the last case.

And it is very disparaging - after working a week paying taxes, a week on the house payment, and a week for the ex - I then work half a week for student debt and half the week paying down the accumulated credit card debt on the lawyer.

no money left for me! credit card debt is great. ugh....

[Czolgosz]

If it weren't for the kids, much blood would be spilled.

[amy31416]

To get out of paying, deadbeats will often take work in the underground economy to shield their income. Family courts are rife with tales where men with off-the-books jobs cry poor mouth to the judge, only to drive away in a Mercedes.

What "underground" job affords people a Mercedes, aside from being a kingpin in a drug cartel? I would like to have that job, please.

[amy31416]

To get out of paying, deadbeats will often take work in the underground economy to shield their income. Family courts are rife with tales where men with off-the-books jobs cry poor mouth to the judge, only to drive away in a Mercedes.

What "underground" job affords people a Mercedes, aside from being a kingpin in a drug cartel? I would like to have that job, please.

[tod evans]

What "underground" job affords people a Mercedes, aside from being a kingpin in a drug cartel? I would like to have that job, please.

Read court records, every self-employed dad is out to screw his ex.

Bar-none.

[Acala]

So if a person says that the father of their children is not helping to support them, the government pays them. Anyone think that might ENCOURAGE fathers not to pay support? Or at least SAY they aren't?

[HOLLYWOOD]

No coverage of the woman crying poor, making "underground" money, and driving away in a Mercedes, eh?

50/50 is where it should be with no money exchanging hands, but there's a huge bias in the laws/courts.

BTW, amazing how Child Support is NOT TAX deductible if your the parent who doesn't have custody, yet paying huge amounts monthly. So, one half wants; Custody, wants the other party to pay, and also have all the tax credits, write-offs, welfare assistance, and aid from State/Federal .gov. Custody laws are so screwed up in some states.

There are many many ways to ripoff the other party in these custody cases... the laws don't address them or intentionally leave the loopholes.

[ninepointfive]

once again - it's the state who's the new daddy.

I just want to be a dad. Too bad I'm now $20,000 in the hole and a thousand a month for the privilege of being a daycare provider. still love every minute of the time I do have.

Shall we even begin to discuss Domestic Violence and how this factors in?

[Ben Bernanke]

Mercedes, really? With a black market job, really?

Since it's so rife, why didn't the journalist get a name to go with this bullshit claim.

Non-car people can be pretty daft about cars. You can pick up a 20 year old Benz for 2 grand if you wanted to, wash and polish it and you'll be amazed at the number of idiots who call it new.

I picked up a '94 Mitsubishi 3000GT for 6k a few years ago, a real clean bright red one. I can't tell you how many people asked me how I was able to afford a "brand new Ferrari" at such a young age...and of course all the dirty looks for driving "daddy's" car. Yeah

[ninepointfive]

Non-car people can be pretty daft about cars. You can pick up a 20 year old Benz for 2 grand if you wanted to, wash and polish it and you'll be amazed at the number of idiots who call it new.

I picked up a '94 Mitsubishi 3000GT for 6k a few years ago, a real clean bright red one. I can't tell you how many people asked me how I was able to afford a "brand new Ferrari" at such a young age...and of course all the dirty looks for driving "daddy's" car. Yeah


I think that was the car I played on the original gran turismo. had it maxed out. awesome ride

[jtap]

Mercedes, really? With a black market job, really?

Since it's so rife, why didn't the journalist get a name to go with this bullshit claim.

I saw a used mercedes with $3500 on the window yesterday. Maybe some context would tell us what age this car was...but I'm guessing it wouldn't be as effective at reinforcing the writer's point if they said early 90s model Mercedes.

[AGRP]

Isn't prostitution illegal?

[ninepointfive]

Isn't prostitution illegal?

there's a quote I hear often.

Prostitution may be illegal - but nonetheless, you're gonna pay.


say it ain't so =(

[amy31416]

I know this won't be popular on this mostly male forum, but I know of three divorce cases where children were involved:

1. Dad wanted nothing to do with daughter/ex-wife, left, re-married and started a new family. He did not pay any child support.
2. Mom was fighting like hell to retain custody because ex-husband was uninterested, ex fought for custody because his lawyer-rich family wanted him to. He won custody and mom paid child support, despite the fact that she made less money.
3. Mom lost custody because judge was allegedly biased against women. Mom paid child support for two years before finally getting another custody hearing and "winning" back custody.
4. Mom took off with son because father was a sociopath. He eventually tracked them down after one of his many scams failed. His lawyer father ponied for the best custody lawyer money could buy and lost full custody. Father was teaching son petty theft last I knew, and hasn't paid a dime of child support, as he's claiming mental disability (yet has partial custody? What?). His family is incredibly rich and rather powerful relative to the mother's family.

I don't know any women (not saying they don't exist) that got custody and "cleaned up" by milking the father for child support.

That said, I don't believe in child support. If a father won't help support a child after the parent's relationship goes South--he should be cut out of a child's life as much as possible--same goes for the mother. No courts, no mandates.

[amy31416]

Non-car people can be pretty daft about cars. You can pick up a 20 year old Benz for 2 grand if you wanted to, wash and polish it and you'll be amazed at the number of idiots who call it new.

I picked up a '94 Mitsubishi 3000GT for 6k a few years ago, a real clean bright red one. I can't tell you how many people asked me how I was able to afford a "brand new Ferrari" at such a young age...and of course all the dirty looks for driving "daddy's" car. Yeah

I'm not a "non-car" person, but I am able to tell what the article is implying. I've bought some pretty slick cars for around $1,000--but you have to know what you're doing.

[amy31416]

dupe

[Brian4Liberty]

once again - it's the state who's the new daddy.
...

That says it all. The State is daddy, and you are just a revenue stream.

[tod evans]

There are bad dads, bad moms too but at 82% there's obviously a little bias going on.

50/50 should be the starting point not a goal for the father to strive for, that's insane!

When "the state" attaches value to a child all that happens is dirty pool.

I would like to see no state aid and no child support for any reason, it would certainly weed out those who game the system.

And even if only half are gaming the system, that's still 41%, or according to the article 50 billion every year.

As a nation this is yet another expense we can't afford.

As a father this is a travesty!

[Icymudpuppy]

I bought a '98 Lincoln Towncar that looks new last year for $1850. Got it from a Limo company that had already put 400,000 miles on it. Still runs and drives and looks like a new car though. Limo companies take good care of their vehicles.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I know this won't be popular on this mostly male forum, but I know of three divorce cases where children were involved:

1. Dad wanted nothing to do with daughter/ex-wife, left, re-married and started a new family. He did not pay any child support.
2. Mom was fighting like hell to retain custody because ex-husband was uninterested, ex fought for custody because his lawyer-rich family wanted him to. He won custody and mom paid child support, despite the fact that she made less money.
3. Mom lost custody because judge was allegedly biased against women. Mom paid child support for two years before finally getting another custody hearing and "winning" back custody.
4. Mom took off with son because father was a sociopath. He eventually tracked them down after one of his many scams failed. His lawyer father ponied for the best custody lawyer money could buy and lost full custody. Father was teaching son petty theft last I knew, and hasn't paid a dime of child support, as he's claiming mental disability (yet has partial custody? What?). His family is incredibly rich and rather powerful relative to the mother's family.

I don't know any women (not saying they don't exist) that got custody and "cleaned up" by milking the father for child support.

That said, I don't believe in child support. If a father won't help support a child after the parent's relationship goes South--he should be cut out of a child's life as much as possible--same goes for the mother. No courts, no mandates.

I can name a dozen fathers that were ripped off and here's how it's done:

Ex-wifes filing false statements on their cost of living expenses.
Ex-wife filing false statements/expenses on cost of living for the child/children.
Ex-wife filing false statements on income, saving, wealth/assets.
Using parents, relatives, family member's residences and stating they pay huge sums of rent, utilities, etc etc etc again fraud.
Declaring "ZERO INCOME" so the father has to pay more.
Bankrupting fathers in court, by continuously locked-up in hearings, with court submittable after submittable requests, incurred costs, attorney fees, suit losses.
Falsely accuse the father of every possible heinous crime, Drugs, alcohol, violence, etc... for custody and cash purposes. (Even though nothing was previously ever documented)
Conducting every possible reason/action to limited/reduce/prevent increase in visitation with ones children. Higher the visitation, lower the support payments.
All the CPS/Child monitor costs, nonsense, and additional time/paperwork... the attorneys know exactly how to play the game.
I like this one: Ex-wife seeking more support money shows up in clothes a homeless person wouldn't wear.
I've seen ex-wives ruin the lives of the child's father as their attorneys use all the loopholes, fear, and ridiculous laws that incredibly biased.

I knew one guy that commited suicide, because he was bankrupt, couldn't afford an attorney for so-called 'family court', homeless(because of BK), the state took everything(what little he had left), bank account, 401K, savings, lien against car, etc and then were going to put him in jail for arrears in support. He had never been in jail, didn't want to be raped in prison... the result is just sad.

As usually, what laws and courts rule and pass to protect the 1% that may be the issue... the other 99% get fucked.

PS: You are now a prisoner in this country too. If you owe child support... you cannot travel out of the US.

[ninepointfive]

I know this won't be popular on this mostly male forum, but I know of three divorce cases where children were involved:

1. Dad wanted nothing to do with daughter/ex-wife, left, re-married and started a new family. He did not pay any child support.
2. Mom was fighting like hell to retain custody because ex-husband was uninterested, ex fought for custody because his lawyer-rich family wanted him to. He won custody and mom paid child support, despite the fact that she made less money.
3. Mom lost custody because judge was allegedly biased against women. Mom paid child support for two years before finally getting another custody hearing and "winning" back custody.
4. Mom took off with son because father was a sociopath. He eventually tracked them down after one of his many scams failed. His lawyer father ponied for the best custody lawyer money could buy and lost full custody. Father was teaching son petty theft last I knew, and hasn't paid a dime of child support, as he's claiming mental disability (yet has partial custody? What?). His family is incredibly rich and rather powerful relative to the mother's family.

I don't know any women (not saying they don't exist) that got custody and "cleaned up" by milking the father for child support.

That said, I don't believe in child support. If a father won't help support a child after the parent's relationship goes South--he should be cut out of a child's life as much as possible--same goes for the mother. No courts, no mandates.


Well, those are all valid, and each family is different - but I think we're talking about dads who are good fathers and would rather just be a good dad, share in esponsibilities, and not become impoverished because we decided to procreate.

There's a law in my state that says men and women aren't to be treated differently in custody cases because of sex, but then the judge rules in, "the best interests of the child". Which, can really mean anything at all at this point. Usually means mom can stay home until child is 30months legally, and rely upon father for all her living expenses.

Which is a shame, because this means dad eats walmart food while mom gets state assistance which isn't even figured into the calculation.

[PaulConventionWV]

I haven't personally encountered this problem (thank God!), but it's an issue that really irks me, especially when it's thrown in my face how men are stupid and evil and women are oppressed. Family courts are truly discriminatory against men.

I remember talking to a woman who claimed that her child's father was intentionally not working in order to get out of paying child support. I asked her what his profession would be if he were to get a job, and she replied that he worked minimum wage jobs. I told her that a minimum wage job isn't even enough to live on these days, and when she's taking half in order to supplement her lifestyle, there simply is no incentive to work and that I'd likely do the same in such a hopless, life-draining situation. She didn't like that.

Another woman I talked to was older. She was getting around $4,000 per month in alimony. I was so shocked that I asked why it was so high, especially since many Americans don't make that kind of money; therefore, raising a child doesn't cost that much. She said that she has to get a car to transport her child, etc.

I remember when I was doing online dating. Profile after profile had women demanding that the man be employed, have his own house and car, etc. My conclusion was that these women must have encountered many men who did not have these things if it were important enough to post. So, what we have is a situation in which women still expect men to be the providers, equality be damned, yet men are being drained of their livelihood in order to allow the woman to live a better life and bang other men.

War on men.

YES! +rep

War on men. Men are not always the bumbling, incompetent low-lifes they are portrayed as on sitcoms and in other forms of popular media. How many times do you hear stupid dad jokes in comparison to stupid mom jokes?

[Philhelm]

YES! +rep

War on men. Men are not always the bumbling, incompetent low-lifes they are portrayed as on sitcoms and in other forms of popular media. How many times do you hear stupid dad jokes in comparison to stupid mom jokes?

Well, stupid mom jokes would be sexist, so...

[Acala]

There is always a price to be paid for marrying the wrong person, just as there is always a price to be paid for doing business with the wrong person, and the courts cannot be relied upon to spare you the hard consequences. The court's primary job is not to protect you or your wife, but to protect the children. And the courts are fed a constant diet of lies from both sides in thousands of cases with very little time to sort them out. If you end up in court trying to sort out the dissolution of your family, that is just the last act in a play that began with bad choices that cannot be blamed on the court.

I married the wrong person and paid the price. Fair enough. The hard part was trying to keep the children from paying the price. They always do to some extent, and the parent - man or woman - that is most concerned about the welfare of the children often ends up paying for it. But you have to do it anyway and not bitch about it. That comes with being a parent.

[ninepointfive]

If you end up in court trying to sort out the dissolution of your family, that is just the last act in a play that began with bad choices that cannot be blamed on the court.

But you have to do it anyway and not bitch about it. That comes with being a parent.

wrong and wrong. This is extortion plain and simple, based upon the most natural instinct a person has.

This attitude is the reason the injustice continues to this day.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

On one hand the parents with kids cry foul when the system turns against them, but don't seem to mind enjoying the State-benefits from having a child in the first place. Tragedy on both ends of the spectrum. Also, I can't stand the social stigma that moms are somehow inherently a better parent than a father. What a load of horse shit.

[Acala]

wrong and wrong. This is extortion plain and simple, based upon the most natural instinct a person has.

This attitude is the reason the injustice continues to this day.

If you MARRIED someone who later uses the court system to try and extort money out of you, YOU MADE A BAD CHOICE ABOUT WHO TO MARRY. Admit it and don't expect that anyone, including the courts, can save you from bad consequences. That is no excuse for the courts to do a bad job, but it was the person YOU married that pulled you into court. That was YOUR choice.

[jtstellar]

why the fuk do you idiots even get married in the first place.. i make money from investments and just cruise high and play when i want to. do you need your kids to support you in the future or something? just make enough money to raise them on your own and have the woman you really like to agree to either signing the thing where it says no asset sharing when you divorce or just don't marry at all

don't hear what they say about women? rent, don't buy


I know this won't be popular on this mostly male forum

ya our fault for not tailoring the "save the country first" message appeasing enough for women.. can't imagine what rome must be like in its last days. talk about a gender that doesn't know wtf is going on 90% of the time

you feminists should just stick with LP

[2young2vote]

Yeah, too bad there is bias.

I have a cousin whose former significant other (the mother) is a drug addicted wackjob. My family fought her because they were honestly afraid that she would sell her daughter for drugs. Eventually she cleaned up a bit and was able to see her daughter.

I think the lesson that should be learned by this thread and every story we know about having kids is that you need to have enough money saved up to pay for all of the consequences of your actions. That means before you even "safely" play around with your significant other you should have quite a bit of money saved up to pay for anything that could happen as a result of your actions. In other words, remain abstinent until you can afford not to. There would be a massive reduction in government welfare, education, healthcare, and everything else that they do for the "poor" if people just kept their pants and thinking caps on.

[John F Kennedy III]

As a father who is currently involved in family court issues I find this article both slanted and misleading, the only truthful thing I came away with is that 82% of the time the woman is awarded custody and child support.

Every father I know wants one thing, 50/50 time with their kids and no money changing hands...





Deadbeat parents cost taxpayers $53 billion

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/05/news/economy/unpaid-child-support/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Over $100 billion is owed in unpaid child support -- nearly half of that to taxpayers supporting children on public assistance.
According to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, $108 billion in total back payments was owed to parents with custody of children in 2009.
If those payments aren't made and the children then need to go on public assistance, payments are supposed to be made to the government in the form of reimbursement. About 49% of that back money -- or roughly $53 billion -- is owed to the government, according to Joan Entmacher, vice president of family & economic security of the National Women's Law Center.
That's a raw deal for taxpayers. But for the mothers owed -- 82% of custodial parents are women -- it's the severing of an economic lifeline.
For poor mothers, child support payments represent 45% of their income, said Entmacher. Deadbeats are a big reason why 41% of households headed by single women are below the poverty level -- twice that for households headed by single men and nearly five times that for married couples.
"This represents eye glasses, dentist visits," said Entmacher. "For a mom trying to get it together, income stability is really important."
Related: Median income falls, but so does poverty
Figuring out how to get deadbeats to pay up is another matter.
It seems most of the problem is concentrated among a handful of bad actors. While only about 60% of the total money owed in child support each year gets paid, over 70% of families get at least something, according to Entmacher. It's at the bottom rung where most of the money is owed -- 11% of the debtors owe 54% of the money.
The government has several ways to make people pay up: it can garnish paychecks, intercept tax refunds or revoke state-granted privileges like driving or hunting licenses.
To get out of paying, deadbeats will often take work in the underground economy to shield their income. Family courts are rife with tales where men with off-the-books jobs cry poor mouth to the judge, only to drive away in a Mercedes.
Experts say more personnel at agencies enforcing child support payments, as well as a more active role played by the custodial parent in reporting people working off the books, may chip away at that $100 billion.


.....................It goes on longer..............

Screw child support. If you are awarded primary custody (the child lives with you) then you assume financial responsibility for said child.

Welcome to eugenics.

[ninepointfive]

If you MARRIED someone who later uses the court system to try and extort money out of you, YOU MADE A BAD CHOICE ABOUT WHO TO MARRY. Admit it and don't expect that anyone, including the courts, can save you from bad consequences. That is no excuse for the courts to do a bad job, but it was the person YOU married that pulled you into court. That was YOUR choice.

Personal choices aside, accepting the system which holds children for ransom at the threat of jail is quite the injustice. But I guess we're all too busy just accepting our fates here.

why so touchy?

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, stupid mom jokes would be sexist, so...

lol exactly...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah, too bad there is bias.

I have a cousin whose former significant other (the mother) is a drug addicted wackjob. My family fought her because they were honestly afraid that she would sell her daughter for drugs. Eventually she cleaned up a bit and was able to see her daughter.

I think the lesson that should be learned by this thread and every story we know about having kids is that you need to have enough money saved up to pay for all of the consequences of your actions. That means before you even "safely" play around with your significant other you should have quite a bit of money saved up to pay for anything that could happen as a result of your actions. In other words, remain abstinent until you can afford not to. There would be a massive reduction in government welfare, education, healthcare, and everything else that they do for the "poor" if people just kept their pants and thinking caps on.

I'd also imagine an increase in violent crimes, spousal abuse, etc. I'm sure the porn industry would love that though - windfall! Safe sex is much more practical with nary the downside. Whether it is an IUD, vasectomy, condom, pill, etc. I've been contemplating the vasectomy route myself...I don't want any kids, and in the rare event I change my mind it is reversible though obviously it has its risks.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I don't know any women (not saying they don't exist) that got custody and "cleaned up" by milking the father for child support.


I know of one. It took the judge 4 months to write the trial decision because of the mental gymnastics he had to do to give my ex custody. I was starting to think he wasn't even going to issue a decision. (You can't really force a judge to do shit.)

In his decision, he straight out said that I couldn't afford to pay the amount he was ordering me to pay. My trial was so one sided, someone on my legal team said they'd kill themselves if we lost. We lost. I didn't hold them to it.

[ninepointfive]

I know of one. It took the judge 4 months to write the trial decision because of the mental gymnastics he had to do to give my ex custody. I was starting to think he wasn't even going to issue a decision. (You can't really force a judge to do shit.)

In his decision, he straight out said that I couldn't afford to pay the amount he was ordering me to pay. My trial was so one sided, someone on my legal team said they'd kill themselves if we lost. We lost. I didn't hold them to it.

how are you holding out these days?

[Acala]

Personal choices aside, accepting the system which holds children for ransom at the threat of jail is quite the injustice. But I guess we're all too busy just accepting our fates here.

why so touchy?

Personal choices aside? Bad personal choices are why the system you are complaining about even exists. The court is only the tool being used against you. It is only involved because the person YOU chose to have a child with turned out to be a stinker.

Marry carefully, procreate even more carefully, and then be willing to support your kids.

It wasn't fate that you married the person you married. Nor was it fate that you fathered a child with them. There are consequences to those actions.

[ninepointfive]

Personal choices aside? Bad personal choices are why the system you are complaining about even exists. The court is only the tool being used against you. It is only involved because the person YOU chose to have a child with turned out to be a stinker. Or maybe YOU are the stinker.

Marry carefully, procreate even more carefully, and then be willing to support your kids.

It wasn't fate that you married the person you married. Nor was it fate that you fathered a child with them. There are consequences to those actions.

You are very wrong in your opinion on this matter.


Further, why are you on Ron Paul Forums? Would it be because there is something wrong in government, and it needs to be fixed? Maybe just give up on this quest for liberty, because you are probably a stinker who deserved it based upon your choices.

[Acala]

First off, who says anyone was married?

Second, you are very wrong in your opinion on this matter.


If someone were to use your logic, it's your fault for this terrible inequity merely for existing as a human being.

Say what?

All I am saying is that the people who are complaining about how the court is treating them in a custody/alimony/child support matter need to accept responsibility for the fact that they married or at least procreated with someone who is now behaving badly. The courts may be screwing up. They often do. But had the person who is complaining chosen a better mate in the first place, the court wouldn't be involved. People are asking the court to relieve them of the consequences of having made a bad choice in a mate. The real solution is to choose a better mate in the first place. Don't expect the government to fix it.

[ninepointfive]

Say what?

All I am saying is that the people who are complaining about how the court is treating them in a custody/alimony/child support matter need to accept responsibility for the fact that they married or at least procreated with someone who is now behaving badly. The courts may be screwing up. They often do. But had the person who is complaining chosen a better mate in the first place, the court wouldn't be involved. People are asking the court to relieve them of the consequences of having made a bad choice in a mate. The real solution is to choose a better mate in the first place. Don't expect the government to fix it.

fair enough - I think you said earlier you were in a similar situation.
But people change - often drastically. Which was really no fault of the dad in this case, or the mom in another. So I'd say you're placing blame where it isn't justified. Just because a person is in a relationship, and they have a child shouldn't mean they are at fault for a system.

Often, this system is the reason for the actions and the changes because the "out" simply exists in the first place.


So in that case, why even bother with Ron Paul? The government system must be my fault for choosing to be ruled under the agreement without consent, so it's all my fault? Or your fault?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

how are you holding out these days?


Me? I'm unstoppable. :) More importantly, little girl is doing good.

I took her to a concert last night... it was late, she was sleepy. I held a 45 pound little girl in my arms for the last 1.5 hours of the set while she slept, and then carried her over a mile to the car. And while the concert was great, I kept having to move because people kept walking in front of me to lean up against a rail. People are such wusses. lol. They'd even look at me first before doing it. These weren't giant fat people, either. We could have left early, or I could have sat her on the floor with a little blanket I brought, or I could have made her walk to the car, but it turns out it's real easy not to be a sissy and she was the most important thing there to me. All you have to do is say to yourself "It's real easy not to be a sissy." I find that goes for almost everything, even though most people say and do the opposite.

As for the divorce trial decision, same thing. I'll bitch or whine about it here and there, but the only real solution is to bust through whatever walls are in my way. Her mother is much more stable now and I really didn't want to be in a court fight, but the circumstances at the time meant that I had a duty to fight for custody. Now I just see her as much as I can, but she's reasonably safe.



People are asking the court to relieve them of the consequences of having made a bad choice in a mate. The real solution is to choose a better mate in the first place. Don't expect the government to fix it.


I only asked the court to make the best decision in the interest of my child. Further, courts are supposed to be a fair and non-violent means of conflict resolution. I could provide a bunch of examples for you, but I bet you can come up with them yourself. Being involved in a court proceeding is often a way to make a damaged party "whole." That is different from government fixing something for you. When courts are not acting fairly and responsibly, it is the court who is at fault, not the losing party.

[kathy88]

Read court records, every self-employed dad is out to screw his ex.

Bar-none.

I cared for my two oldest children for 9 years without support. Then my circumstances became such that I really needed help. He hardly ever saw the kids, so it's not like it was a 50/50 deal. I went to court and he showed the court administrator his taxes where he brought in about 900K the prior year, and looked her in the eye and said $50 bucks a week is all I can afford. SO, there ARE SOME self-employed dads out to screw their ex.

[tod evans]

I would like to see the government refuse to be involved in domestic issues, once courts started assigning "value" to children they opened the door to the mess we have now.

When the state started handing out free money to mothers who couldn't/wouldn't make their relationship work the taxpayer all of a sudden became a surrogate parent.

The old saying "it takes a village to raise a child" is true to an extent, only thing is your village shouldn't be raising my kid or vice versa.

Parents must be held accountable and NOT accountable for filling out free money government forms.

It'd be interesting to poll the 82% and the 18% to see if the noncustodial parent agreed with the court.....I'm willing to bet at least 1/2 of the noncustodial mothers agree whereas less than 10% of fathers would. (Based only on my own first hand knowledge)

New laws are never the answer but I could certainly see repealing legislation that has proven to be unequal and biased.


Say what?

All I am saying is that the people who are complaining about how the court is treating them in a custody/alimony/child support matter need to accept responsibility for the fact that they married or at least procreated with someone who is now behaving badly. The courts may be screwing up. They often do. But had the person who is complaining chosen a better mate in the first place, the court wouldn't be involved. People are asking the court to relieve them of the consequences of having made a bad choice in a mate. The real solution is to choose a better mate in the first place. Don't expect the government to fix it.

[amy31416]

wrong and wrong. This is extortion plain and simple, based upon the most natural instinct a person has.

This attitude is the reason the injustice continues to this day.

I agree 100% with Acala--marry the right person and you won't ever end up in court. Easier said than done, but that is the lesson that needs to be learned, and the mistake will not be repeated over and over and over again.

Far too many times, women (and men) make bad decisions because "big daddy" government will take care of it for them. That affects society drastically in so many ways, almost always badly.

[tod evans]

Far too many times, women (and men) make bad decisions because "big daddy" government will take care of it for them. That affects society drastically in so many ways, almost always badly.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[amy31416]

why the fuk do you idiots even get married in the first place.. i make money from investments and just cruise high and play when i want to. do you need your kids to support you in the future or something? just make enough money to raise them on your own and have the woman you really like to agree to either signing the thing where it says no asset sharing when you divorce or just don't marry at all

don't hear what they say about women? rent, don't buy



ya our fault for not tailoring the "save the country first" message appeasing enough for women.. can't imagine what rome must be like in its last days. talk about a gender that doesn't know wtf is going on 90% of the time

you feminists should just stick with LP

Perhaps you incoherent, angry folks should just stick with crack.

Relating my own observations does not mean that I am or am not a feminist. And please point out where I blamed males--I did not spell it out, but I actually put the majority of the blame on those who made the decision to marry an asshole, male or female. However, I believe that the only people who aren't guilty of making bad decisions in relationships are those who have never had one.

That said, piss off.

[Acala]

I agree 100% with Acala--marry the right person and you won't ever end up in court. Easier said than done, but that is the lesson that needs to be learned, and the mistake will not be repeated over and over and over again.

Far too many times, women (and men) make bad decisions because "big daddy" government will take care of it for them. That affects society drastically in so many ways, almost always badly.

Even if the marriage doesn't work out, mature partners will act reasonably and try to resolve the split as amicably as possible for all concerned. I have seen it done well.

[amy31416]

Even if the marriage doesn't work out, mature partners will act reasonably and try to resolve the split as amicably as possible for all concerned. I have seen it done well.

As have I--no lawyers involved except to get the papers drawn up.

[awake]

Traditionally the man was the security and joint provider of the family. Since security is the states "divine right" the father had to go. The wife and children are left bare before the welfare state and the man leaves as if his wife has found another provider. Why should he pay his wife to find another man under the pretext of "child support"? He can just as easily and simply support his children directly.

The woman seeks another man precisely to have her children supported by this new father. The "child support" is the state's gift to its newly bought wife.

[2young2vote]

I'd also imagine an increase in violent crimes, spousal abuse, etc. I'm sure the porn industry would love that though - windfall! Safe sex is much more practical with nary the downside. Whether it is an IUD, vasectomy, condom, pill, etc. I've been contemplating the vasectomy route myself...I don't want any kids, and in the rare event I change my mind it is reversible though obviously it has its risks.

No, there would be a decrease in violent crimes, spousal abuse, etc. As someone who understands the how the free market works, you know that the government rewards people for having children, which makes life harder for that person which intern creates dependency on the state. I think we would both agree that dependency on the state lower standard of living and it is obvious that people who live in neighborhoods with lower standards of living have higher crime rates. If people learned to control their completely pointless natural urges then there would be less crime.

As for spousal abuse, this would decrease as well because relationships themselves would be better. We need to recognize the reasons many people get into relationships in the first place. It is only rarely for logical reasons and is quite often because of infatuation. People often fool themselves into making poor decisions regarding their relationship with other people based off of their feelings rather than objective reasons. Those poor decisions at the beginning may not be bad, however they begin to show over the years and that leads to friction in a relationship which could result in spousal abuse. Spousal abuse would be much less common than it is already if the reasons for getting into a relationship with someone were based off of that persons morals and values rather than things that change over time like personality and looks. In other words, sex is completely pointless in a relationship that is formed for real reasons.

[heavenlyboy34]

Traditionally the man was the security and joint provider of the family. Since security is the states "divine right" the father had to go. The wife and children are left bare before the welfare state and the man leaves as if his wife has found another provider. Why should he pay his wife to find another man under the pretext of "child support"? He can just as easily and simply support his children directly.

The woman seeks another man precisely to have her children supported by this new father. The "child support" is the state's gift to its newly bought wife.+rep

[Danke]

http://nynerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/where-we-went-wrong.jpg

[awake]

Two good friends need no license or joint property arrangement. Separation is fairly straight forward. But State marriage is the abyss from which property rights are blurred if not disintegrated. From this purposeful abolishment of property rights all conflicts arise and the lawyers and judges rejoice.

Democracy birthed "child support" as a direct means of dividing the husband and wife and wining favor with the latter. The wife has a perverse incentive to loot her husband and leave him poor and destitute for it costs her nothing to seek a split. It is a tyrannical control the state issues the wife and many wives have used it to its full tyranny. It is the seed of the destruction in most marriages. I know personally of a couple whereby the wife uses "child support" as a form of terror to keep her husband "in check". It is this terrorizing that is ruining thier marrage.

Now with the two producer marriage this looks absurd. Men seeking "child support" is now a possibility. The injustice is perpetual.

[Czolgosz]

http://nynerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/where-we-went-wrong.jpg


http://smiliesftw.com/x/smiley-rofl.gif awesome

[juleswin]

Now here is a man who has it bad. Talk about an extreme case on the courts taking a man to the cleaners and then to jail. Enjoy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CYb5xSd4PRs

[ShaneEnochs]

During my custody hearing, the judge wouldn't even allow me to talk. She asked my wife's lawyer what they were asking for (every other weekend and every Wednesday after school), and it was granted plus $230 in child support a month. At that point, I had been unemployed for a year and I had just moved 500 miles to be closer like two weeks earlier so I would be able to get 50/50 custody.

Don't tell me the system isn't biased. I'll tell you to fuck off. All I want is to be with my daughter as much as possible.

[opal]

late 80's - divorced with 3 year old - court awards a whopping $200/month in child support. the X paid one time.. came to see his daughter once after the decree was final, then dissappeard. I have not seen or heard from him since.

[juleswin]

Here is another horror story from the family court system. TV Star Jon Cryer Must Pay Child Support ($8k /month) for son in his custody


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8JxlKP57Zw

[amy31416]

late 80's - divorced with 3 year old - court awards a whopping $200/month in child support. the X paid one time.. came to see his daughter once after the decree was final, then dissappeard. I have not seen or heard from him since.

You and your daughter are probably better off, sad to say. Has she ever tried to find him?

[opal]

Once while she was in college, he tried to contact her - she blew him off. She had my dad as a male role model for a few years when we stayed with the parents (did the cliche thing and went home to mom to get out of the bad marraige - because at the time mom lived in Germany - that wored out pretty well)
As I recall, when she was really young she was a bit miffed that he left without a word so I guess when he tried to contact her she decided it wasn't worth getting worked up over.

[jj-]

I believe that the only people who aren't guilty of making bad decisions in relationships are those who have never had one.

Some people seem to be pretty good. Ron Paul started his relationship with Carol I think in high school and they're together 60 years later.

[tod evans]

Bump for all the fathers who have not been treated fairly in family court.

It's articles like I posted that help taint public opinion which in turn affects hundreds of thousands of child/father relationships.

"Family Court" is every bit the evil scourge on society that the "War on Drugs" is.

[presence]

Government mandated child support and single mother benefits provide financial incentive for families to dissolve.

Where is this getting us? 40% children born out of wedlock. 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.

Welfare programs for entitled groups
with fucked up social issues
encourages bad societal behaviour.


end of story.


Lets talk Citizen's Dividends:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?367675-Lets-talk-CITIZENS-DIVIDENDS

There is an INCENTIVE to feign neediness in our culture

[jj-]

If you MARRIED someone who later uses the court system to try and extort money out of you, YOU MADE A BAD CHOICE ABOUT WHO TO MARRY. Admit it and don't expect that anyone, including the courts, can save you from bad consequences. That is no excuse for the courts to do a bad job, but it was the person YOU married that pulled you into court. That was YOUR choice.

If you made a friend, and your friend decided to steal from you and maybe shoot you, it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. YOU decided to become friends with them. If someone signs a contract and breaks it, it's your fault! YOU decided to sign a contract with that person.

Seriously, are you brain damaged?

[jj-]

But people change - often drastically.

Acala didn't discover yet that people have free will and their past doesn't bind their future choices.

[ShaneEnochs]

fair enough - I think you said earlier you were in a similar situation.
But people change - often drastically. Which was really no fault of the dad in this case, or the mom in another. So I'd say you're placing blame where it isn't justified. Just because a person is in a relationship, and they have a child shouldn't mean they are at fault for a system.


Exactly. People say "you're not the person I fell in love with." Well duh. Life experiences changes your personality and your decision making process. You're basically going to be a different person every year. Sometimes the change isn't that big, but sometimes it is. When I met my first wife, she was sweet, submissive, and had a very encouraging attitude. After three years of marriage she didn't take responsibility for her actions and spread blame to the first person in sight (usually me).

Sometimes you can live with the changes. Sometimes you can't. Either way it takes two people that want a marriage to work.

[Acala]

If you made a friend, and your friend decided to steal from you and maybe shoot you, it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. YOU decided to become friends with them. If someone signs a contract and breaks it, it's your fault! YOU decided to sign a contract with that person.

Seriously, are you brain damaged?

If you made a friend and they steal from you, you clearly made a mistake in your choice of friends. The friend is still a thief, but YOU made a mistake in trusting him. Admit it and take some responsibility. And learn to make better choices of friends.

If you make a contract with someone and they turn around and breach the contract, YOU made a mistake. That is not to say that the other guy didn't behave poorly, but YOU chose a bad business partner. Take responsibility! And learn to make better choices in business partners.

Entering into a contract or a marriage with someone and then expecting the court to sort it out after they turn out to be assholes is irresponsible. Take responsibility for your own relationships.

People who go through life always blaming everyone else for their difficulties never LEARN anything about how to avoid difficulties in the future. They end up leaving a long trail of disasters behind them, and curiously each one is somebody else's fault.

[ninepointfive]

If you made a friend and they steal from you, you clearly made a mistake in your choice of friends. The friend is still a thief, but YOU made a mistake in trusting him. Admit it and take some responsibility. And learn to make better choices of friends.

If you make a contract with someone and they turn around and breach the contract, YOU made a mistake. That is not to say that the other guy didn't behave poorly, but YOU chose a bad business partner. Take responsibility! And learn to make better choices in business partners.

Entering into a contract or a marriage with someone and then expecting the court to sort it out after they turn out to be assholes is irresponsible. Take responsibility for your own relationships.

People who go through life always blaming everyone else for their difficulties never LEARN anything about how to avoid difficulties in the future. They end up leaving a long trail of disasters behind them, and curiously each one is somebody else's fault.

Here we go again....

As a citizen of the United States, then it's all your fault for the system we have. YOU Acala, are personally responsible for the way the government behaves. YOU are responsible for the loss of Liberty, and YOU are responsible for Obama and Romney. And it's YOU who allowed Ron Paul to be marginalized.

It's all your fault for that relationship with government for which I thought we were all wanting to change - but come to find out it's all your fault.
You have a weird way of thinking about things.

[ShaneEnochs]

If you made a friend and they steal from you, you clearly made a mistake in your choice of friends. The friend is still a thief, but YOU made a mistake in trusting him. Admit it and take some responsibility. And learn to make better choices of friends.

If you make a contract with someone and they turn around and breach the contract, YOU made a mistake. That is not to say that the other guy didn't behave poorly, but YOU chose a bad business partner. Take responsibility! And learn to make better choices in business partners.

Entering into a contract or a marriage with someone and then expecting the court to sort it out after they turn out to be assholes is irresponsible. Take responsibility for your own relationships.

People who go through life always blaming everyone else for their difficulties never LEARN anything about how to avoid difficulties in the future. They end up leaving a long trail of disasters behind them, and curiously each one is somebody else's fault.

You haven't had any long-term friendships or relationships, have you? A person you know right now will be a totally different person in ten years. YOU will be a totally different person in ten years. Marriage is tricky because it's something that you have to constantly work at because the person that you're married to changes. He/she may develop a drug habit or may turn to gambling or simply become jaded and start hating you for whatever reason.

Just because a marriage fails down the line doesn't mean that you made a mistake when you first got married. Maybe the two people were more compatible then, and then simply couldn't reconcile the differences that manifested later.

[Acala]

Here we go again....

As a citizen of the United States, then it's all your fault for the system we have. YOU Acala, are personally responsible for the way the government behaves. YOU are responsible for the loss of Liberty, and YOU are responsible for Obama and Romney. And it's YOU who allowed Ron Paul to be marginalized.

It's all your fault for that relationship with government for which I thought we were all wanting to change - but come to find out it's all your fault.
You have a weird way of thinking about things.


When I got married, I alone chose my wife. Nobody else. For me to turn around and absolve myself of ANY responsibility for the choice I made is childish.

Your analogy is foolish. I did not choose the government.

[ninepointfive]

When I got married, I alone chose my wife. Nobody else. For me to turn around and absolve myself of ANY responsibility for the choice I made is childish.

Your analogy is foolish. I did not choose the government.

Unless you have something new to add, I'd like to respectfully ask that you but out of this conversation.

[Acala]

You haven't had any long-term friendships or relationships, have you? A person you know right now will be a totally different person in ten years. YOU will be a totally different person in ten years. Marriage is tricky because it's something that you have to constantly work at because the person that you're married to changes. He/she may develop a drug habit or may turn to gambling or simply become jaded and start hating you for whatever reason.

Just because a marriage fails down the line doesn't mean that you made a mistake when you first got married. Maybe the two people were more compatible then, and then simply couldn't reconcile the differences that manifested later.

People often change in their interests but rarely change their character. Honest people rarely become dishonest. Mature people rarely become petty. Kind people rarely become cruel. Generous people rarely become greedy and selfish. If you marry an honest, kind, generous, mature person, you might end up divorced for various reasons but you will likely not end up in court.

[Acala]

Unless you have something new to add, I'd like to respectfully ask that you but out of this conversation.

The truth hurts sometimes. Get used to it.

Request denied. Because you mis-spelled "butt".

[tod evans]

A failed relationship where kids are involved is both parents fault, it's not the kids fault, yet children are the prize, the paycheck, in family court.

The article I posted paints fathers as low-life scumbags who want no part in their childrens lives when the reality is quite different in lots of cases.

Painting all mothers as money grubbing sluts is just as bad as painting all fathers as irresponsible scofflaws.

The reality of family court is that most of the time the mother is "awarded" the children and the father is "permitted" to see them if he pays the allotted amount.

This is wrong on so many accounts and in my opinion is the most evil thing a court of equity could ever do to a child.

Once again "The Media" is forming public opinion with articles like the one I posted just as they do with "The War On Drugs" and like they did ignoring Ron Paul. Just listen to your neighbors, even the war propaganda against "Terrorists" has infested most homes.

The fathers I know all want the same thing, equality in regards to their children.

That's not an unreasonable request for a father to pose in a court of equity is it?

[Danke]

You have a weird way of thinking about things.

He does run around without any shoes on...

[ninepointfive]

That's not an unreasonable request for a father to pose in a court of equity is it?

I'm teetering on withdrawing consent, and dealing with the repercussions. They could put me in any category and call me all the names they want.

It's definitely an extortion on the lowest form, and enforced by gunpoint. I think most dad's just want to be a father, not pay to, "enjoy parenting time" which is practically free daycare with how it's been set up.

[Acala]

A failed relationship where kids are involved is both parents fault, it's not the kids fault, yet children are the prize, the paycheck, in family court.

The article I posted paints fathers as low-life scumbags who want no part in their childrens lives when the reality is quite different in lots of cases.

Painting all mothers as money grubbing sluts is just as bad as painting all fathers as irresponsible scofflaws.

The reality of family court is that most of the time the mother is "awarded" the children and the father is "permitted" to see them if he pays the allotted amount.

This is wrong on so many accounts and in my opinion is the most evil thing a court of equity could ever do to a child.

Once again "The Media" is forming public opinion with articles like the one I posted just as they do with "The War On Drugs" and like they did ignoring Ron Paul. Just listen to your neighbors, even the war propaganda against "Terrorists" has infested most homes.

The fathers I know all want the same thing, equality in regards to their children.

That's not an unreasonable request for a father to pose in a court of equity is it?

I agree with most of this.

The children are innocent and often used as pawns.

If courts are biased in favor of mothers, that is wrong.

But I know PLENTY of fathers who are mainly just pissed at their wives for leaving them (women file for divorce FAR more often than men) and use the divorce and custody process for revenge. There is an equal amount of bad behavior coming from both sides of the bed, by my observation.

[Acala]

He does run around without any shoes on...

Your fetish about my feet is kind of creepy, dude. Really.

[ShaneEnochs]

People often change in their interests but rarely change their character. Honest people rarely become dishonest. Mature people rarely become petty. Kind people rarely become cruel. Generous people rarely become greedy and selfish. If you marry an honest, kind, generous, mature person, you might end up divorced for various reasons but you will likely not end up in court.

Are you being serious?

Have you never run into an old friend that you haven't seen for years? 99.9% of the time I'd bet that your friend has changed dramatically. Any sociology major would tell you that life experiences will steer one's personality in different directions, and yes that includes interests.

[Danke]

Your fetish about my feet is kind of creepy, dude. Really.

I have never seen your feet. Really, dude. :p

[jllundqu]

Man.... I'm happy I have a happy marraige... I am sorry for all who have to deal with this process.

[tod evans]

I agree with you, the only way I can see to address an obvious problem is to either get the government completely out of it or declare both parents equal.

Any time money and time with your kid are "The Prize" the only ones who really win are the lawyers and the ones hurt the most are the kids.



I agree with most of this.

The children are innocent and often used as pawns.

If courts are biased in favor of mothers, that is wrong.

But I know PLENTY of fathers who are mainly just pissed at their wives for leaving them (women file for divorce FAR more often than men) and use the divorce and custody process for revenge. There is an equal amount of bad behavior coming from both sides of the bed, by my observation.

[ninepointfive]

Man.... I'm happy I have a happy marraige... I am sorry for all who have to deal with this process.

thanks. It definitely sucks.

[Acala]

Are you being serious?

Have you never run into an old friend that you haven't seen for years? 99.9% of the time I'd bet that your friend has changed dramatically. Any sociology major would tell you that life experiences will steer one's personality in different directions, and yes that includes interests.

Yes I am serious. If you want to produce some kind of research, I would be interested. Otherwise, I will stick to my own experience which has been that people's character does not change. Even people who WANT to change and TRY to change and hire professional help TO change rarely change much.

[ShaneEnochs]

Yes I am serious. If you want to produce some kind of research, I would be interested. Otherwise, I will stick to my own experience which has been that people's character does not change. Even people who WANT to change and TRY to change and hire professional help TO change rarely change much.

Research? It's logic. Is a 5 year old the same as he was when he was 2? Is a 10 year old the same as he was when he was 5? Is a 20 year old the same as he was when he was 10? Is a 50 year old the same as he was when he was 20?

If you know people who haven't changed at all through the years, be careful. They're robots.

[ninepointfive]

Research? It's logic. Is a 5 year old the same as he was when he was 2? Is a 10 year old the same as he was when he was 5? Is a 20 year old the same as he was when he was 10? Is a 50 year old the same as he was when he was 20?

If you know people who haven't changed at all through the years, be careful. They're robots.

There is probably no convincing Acala of the errors he's making - but what I will give him is an A for effort at derailing a thread about the war on dads, and the court system - and turning it into a psychological debate in regards to mate selection.

[opal]

snip

If you make a contract with someone and they turn around and breach the contract, YOU made a mistake. That is not to say that the other guy didn't behave poorly, but YOU chose a bad business partner. Take responsibility! And learn to make better choices in business partners.

snip

ok.. this is going to be a bit off topic but I'm going to say it anyway.

Lets think about all the wounded veterans who contracted with the government (and I'm not talking this decade only) to give the country a carreer (20 years) and we'll take care of your medical for life.
Know anyone who's trying to get care through the VA? Decent and comprehensive care? Better yet.. do you know anyone that actually does?
Are you saying that all the soldiers, sailors and airmen that enlisted voluntarily ALL made mistakes and it's they're fault for choosing that particular partner to do business with?

apologies for the threadjack

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes I am serious. If you want to produce some kind of research, I would be interested. Otherwise, I will stick to my own experience which has been that people's character does not change. Even people who WANT to change and TRY to change and hire professional help TO change rarely change much.

I have changed. I used to have anxiety and depression disorders, but I don't now. I did this without any medication, just cognitive therapy, done on my own. If you want to talk about professional psychologists, then yes, they can often be useless, but there is a big difference between someone who has the guts to try to change on their own and someone who relies on a shrink to tell them how to feel better. What's more, most contemporary theories on development contend that development continues throughout life, not just from ages 0-20 or whatever, as used to be the prevaling wisdom.

[Acala]

Research? It's logic. Is a 5 year old the same as he was when he was 2? Is a 10 year old the same as he was when he was 5? Is a 20 year old the same as he was when he was 10? Is a 50 year old the same as he was when he was 20?

If you know people who haven't changed at all through the years, be careful. They're robots.

No offense, but that isn't logic.

[Acala]

ok.. this is going to be a bit off topic but I'm going to say it anyway.

Lets think about all the wounded veterans who contracted with the government (and I'm not talking this decade only) to give the country a carreer (20 years) and we'll take care of your medical for life.
Know anyone who's trying to get care through the VA? Decent and comprehensive care? Better yet.. do you know anyone that actually does?
Are you saying that all the soldiers, sailors and airmen that enlisted voluntarily ALL made mistakes and it's they're fault for choosing that particular partner to do business with?

apologies for the threadjack

I actually DO know of people who get decent care through the VA. Here in Tucson the VA is purported to be excellent. I don't know why, I know it sucks in most place, and I am as surprised as you, but the Vets I have talked to think the VA here is awesome. Go figure.

But to answer your question, YES those folks made a mistake in their decision to trust the government. That does NOT mean I approve of what the government does - just as I am not approving of immature, greedy, petulent ex spouses - but people need to take responsibility for who they get involved with. You go to bed with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

And if you got screwed by government once, LEARN not to make the same mistake.

[ninepointfive]

but people need to take responsibility for who they get involved with. You go to bed with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

That's not the point here - what we're talking about is a lot of Dad's do take responsibility and would have more of it. A lot of Dads have been steamrolled in the court system and called deadbeats. Many of them are merely trying to live in a comfortable home, provide for their children, and not eat GMO food bought in a bag at Walmart on credit.

Another poster mentioned the courts even ruled a judgement for child support for which the judge even admitted the father wouldn't be able to pay.

[Acala]

That's not the point here - what we're talking about is a lot of Dad's do take responsibility and would have more of it. A lot of Dads have been steamrolled in the court system and called deadbeats. Many of them are merely trying to live in a comfortable home, provide for their children, and not eat GMO food bought in a bag at Walmart on credit.

Another poster mentioned the courts even ruled a judgement for child support for which the judge even admitted the father wouldn't be able to pay.

Okay. I have had my say. I'll leave y'all to do your thing.

[The Free Hornet]

If you MARRIED someone who later uses the court system to try and extort money out of you, YOU MADE A BAD CHOICE ABOUT WHO TO MARRY. Admit it and don't expect that anyone, including the courts, can save you from bad consequences. That is no excuse for the courts to do a bad job, but it was the person YOU married that pulled you into court. That was YOUR choice.

You are making plenty of excuses for the court system... an apology, in fact.


Say what?

All I am saying is that the people who are complaining about how the court is treating them in a custody/alimony/child support matter need to accept responsibility for the fact that they married or at least procreated with someone who is now behaving badly.

Are you suggesting they haven't? That is what a formal divorce proceeding is. You accept the bad decision and seek an equitable resolution to the problem.


People are asking the court to relieve them of the consequences of having made a bad choice in a mate.

Court is the consequence. The men are - generally (in this thread not necessarily as a rule of thumb) - seeking to resolve matters without court and equitably. Who are the "People" you reference? Nobody here is asking court to be relieved of bad mate consequences. Or perhaps you think it is acceptable for a bad mate choice to be 100% income confiscation and/or death.


The real solution is to choose a better mate in the first place. Don't expect the government to fix it.

The expectation is for the government to stay uninvolved. It is yourself and the people seeking to extract income from their mate that have an expectation from government.

[jj-]

The expectation is for the government to stay uninvolved. It is yourself and the people seeking to extract income from their mate that have an expectation from government.

The most charitable interpretation of Acala's point is that you shouldn't expect the government to not abuse you. You should take it and enjoy it, and blame YOURSELF.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

But I know PLENTY of fathers who are mainly just pissed at their wives for leaving them (women file for divorce FAR more often than men) and use the divorce and custody process for revenge.


In my case, I filed to divorce my ex-wife, but I never filed to divorce my daughter. In fact, I had a 4-3 split weekly until we were done with all the court nonsense. (It's 2/3 weekends now, which is much worse.)

[amy31416]

The most charitable interpretation of Acala's point is that you shouldn't expect the government to not abuse you. You should take it and enjoy it, and blame YOURSELF.

Actually, I'll disagree, I believe his point was to not have the government involved with your relationship, period.

But, I think this has struck a nerve for some folks. I honestly do, like Acala, blame myself first. I re-run every aspect of the past relationship through my head and realize that I ignored signs that I shouldn't have, and ignoring them allowed the relationship to continue, when I should have ended it.

[presence]

Divorce rates
US - 50%
India - 1.1%

[jj-]

I re-run every aspect of the past relationship through my head and realize that I ignored signs that I shouldn't have, and ignoring them allowed the relationship to continue, when I should have ended it.

Sure, that is good, but seems off topic to me. Most raped women probably ignored some thing. But if the government attacks her or protects the rapist and she complains about the actions of the government, she shouldn't be chastised for ignoring the signs at that moment, because there is a different issue at the moment. Acala sounds like he is just venting out his emotional baggage in a thread he is hijacking.

[AGRP]

Well, beings that the glass ceiling is now broken to the point that the workplace discriminates against men its only fair that women support the child and the custody should be awarded to the man. Times have changed.

[tod evans]

What in the world is wrong with 50/50 and no money changing hands?

There's no incentive for either parent to bicker and complain...

[Czolgosz]

What in the world is wrong with 50/50 and no money changing hands?

There's no incentive for either parent to bicker and complain...

Not sure. Seems simple as fuck.

[down_south]

Boys.....if you are discussing tying the knot, let her know that if she does not sign a prenuptial agreement then there will be no marriage. Period. If she insists on getting married without signing a prenup, then she is a gold digger. Simple as that. Remember these numbers:

-50% of marriages end in divorce.
-36 % of married women wish they had never married their husband.
(Those first two states combined show you that if you are w woman, there is only a 32% chance you will be happily married).
-70% of divorces are brought by women.
-82% of the time, the mom gets custody of the kids.
-96% of all alimony payments are made by men to women.

[amy31416]

Sure, that is good, but seems off topic to me. Most raped women probably ignored some thing. But if the government attacks her or protects the rapist and she complains about the actions of the government, she shouldn't be chastised for ignoring the signs at that moment, because there is a different issue at the moment. Acala sounds like he is just venting out his emotional baggage in a thread he is hijacking.

I think we're all venting emotional baggage in this thread--it's a very touchy subject for many people, brings up lots of bad memories/current or past events. And we've all had some different experiences that shaped the "conclusions" we've come to.

Not to mention, I'm always the type to analyze what I did wrong first, mostly because other people won't tell you the truth--and I feel that my actions and responses are all I can really know and control.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Boys.....if you are discussing tying the knot, let her know that if she does not sign a prenuptial agreement then there will be no marriage. Period. If she insists on getting married without signing a prenup, then she is a gold digger. Simple as that. Remember these numbers:

-50% of marriages end in divorce.
-36 % of married women wish they had never married their husband.
(Those first two states combined show you that if you are w woman, there is only a 32% chance you will be happily married).
-70% of divorces are brought by women.
-82% of the time, the mom gets custody of the kids.
-96% of all alimony payments are made by men to women.

Better yet, don't get State-married in the first place. I will never ever go to court to get 'marriage benefits' from the State. I'll get married, just not State-married. Might even write up our own contract.

[Danke]

Better yet, don't get State-married in the first place. I will never ever go to court to get 'marriage benefits' from the State. I'll get married, just not State-married. Might even write up our own contract.

Careful, WI is a common law state, no?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Careful, WI is a common law state, no?

Don't live there anymore. Would probably best to check that bit of information too. :p

[tod evans]

I think we're all venting emotional baggage in this thread--it's a very touchy subject for many people, brings up lots of bad memories/current or past events. And we've all had some different experiences that shaped the "conclusions" we've come to.


I've tried to keep my comments focused on equal parenting as a legal starting point, there are some, maybe many, fathers who don't want to be involved in their kids life but I don't know any.

Courts expound "The Best Interest of the Child" as their goal, are the statistics real? Are 82% of fathers so bad that they don't want or deserve 50/50 time with their child?

For the life of me I don't think this is the case, the media portrays "single mothers" as a disenfranchised group that not only needs but deserves financial support from government, then the same media holds the father accountable because the mother seeks governmental aid. I have never seen an article in the MSM about disenfranchised fathers, reality is that the majority of custody cases are decided where the mother is given sole legal custody no matter how loudly the father protests. How in the world can this cookie-cutter court system be providing for the child's best interest?

Even more important than pointing out the shortcomings of "Family-Court" is the question; "How can fathers, mothers and children have equal 1/3 representation in court"?

There are married couples who split, unmarried couples and even casual sex partners but once a child enters the "family" there are three parties involved two of whom show up in court to fight over the third and more often than not these fights are predicated by money, who wins the paycheck, and make no mistake, the paycheck is contingent on segregating the child from the other parent.

Legally speaking mothers nurture, fathers provide, that antiquated concept originated back when wives as well as children were the husbands "property"....Well the courts have acknowledged that wives and kids aren't "property" but statistically they haven't yet figured out that fathers nurture too and that mothers can provide, so we have this "system" that mandates fathers provide and awards mothers who don't, the same system that penalizes fathers who nurture and mothers who provide. All this at the expense of a child's relationship with one parent or the other.

I believe the laws would change very quickly if money was removed from the equation, lawyer money, state aid, child support......all of it!

Parents need to earn a living and take care of their family even if it's a single parent family, if they physically can't then local churches or charities would come into play.

There's got to be a way to cut the funding of social programs and stop the fighting in court without passing legislation....Repealing legislation could very well work and we all know if there's no money involved the lawyers stay away.

In this poor economy with way over budget social programs "The War on Dads" is ripe for a fight.

[newbitech]

In my experience.

Men - have kids with 2-3 women and let them fight each other for your support.

Women - have kids with 2-3 men and collect from each of them.


Seems fair to me.

[tod evans]

In my experience.

Men - have kids with 2-3 women and let them fight each other for your support.

Women - have kids with 2-3 men and collect from each of them.


Seems fair to me.

I hope you turn out to be a statistical anomaly, odds are though, if you're a male at some point you'll be subject to family court.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

why the fuk do you idiots even get married in the first place.. i make money from investments and just cruise high and play when i want to. do you need your kids to support you in the future or something?


I got married because my ex said she would be aborting the child if we didn't get married. Now I have a precious 5 year old I love, despite what it took to get here. I take care of my daughter, not the other way around. You're the one making yourself sound like an idiot. If you're so smart, you should be smart enough to realize that you don't have full knowledge of everyone's personal situations and for that reason alone, you certainly don't sound qualified to run around calling everyone idiots. I suppose you just magically appeared and have no parents.

[satchelmcqueen]

i hear ya man.

my ex has lied to the court and i have proof she is lying but yet the judge wont consider to even look at it. the kids (16and 17) decided to live with me and not her. this angered my ex so she has took me to court with lies. the kids even told the judge how she abuses them and they dont want anything to do with her until they are ready. it doesnt matter though. its been 9 months since this started and ive yet been able to say a word for myself. ive was threatened with contempt one time because i couldnt pay the counselor his $75 weekly fee to tell my kids they were wrong for having feelings. the kids agreed to see her again to see how things went, just to shut the judge up. that lasted for 4 months. halfway though that 4 months, my ex started yelling and screaming at them again in their 1 hour visits. they stopped going. so now we wait to see when the next hearing is. im sure ill be threatened with jail if i dont force these 16 and 17 year olds into seeing her. sad part is, i cant make them do anything at that age. they may decide to just move out to avoid being forced into visits if the judge orders it. they can move out at 17 and no one can stop them. the mom knows this but she wont stop with the court bs. she is ruining their lives and making me crazy and the system is allowing this proven liar to do so.

and for all those who say "you shouldnt have married the wrong person" i say this. when i married her she was a normal sweet person. only 12 years later did she decide to start cheating and being a whore. i wont be with someone like that. i cant help she turned out that way nor could i have seen it when i married her. you are at the mercy of the person you are with for them to do right. you are not in control of someone else. its just beyond me how i can prove shes lying on all 5 claims she listed against me and my kids were witness to 3 of her lies. and they told the judge their story, yet i cant speak and this is taking 9 months now with no end in sight....AND we live out of disjunction as well. i took a job 50 miles south as my other job was dying due to the slowed work flow.
During my custody hearing, the judge wouldn't even allow me to talk. She asked my wife's lawyer what they were asking for (every other weekend and every Wednesday after school), and it was granted plus $230 in child support a month. At that point, I had been unemployed for a year and I had just moved 500 miles to be closer like two weeks earlier so I would be able to get 50/50 custody.

Don't tell me the system isn't biased. I'll tell you to fuck off. All I want is to be with my daughter as much as possible.

[Czolgosz]

Better yet, don't get State-married in the first place. I will never ever go to court to get 'marriage benefits' from the State. I'll get married, just not State-married. Might even write up our own contract.

That is exactly what every person should do. Plus, it'll tell you straight away what kind of partner you're dealing with.

[Czolgosz]

i hear ya man.

my ex has lied to the court and i have proof she is lying but yet the judge wont consider to even look at it. the kids (16and 17) decided to live with me and not her. this angered my ex so she has took me to court with lies. the kids even told the judge how she abuses them and they dont want anything to do with her until they are ready. it doesnt matter though. its been 9 months since this started and ive yet been able to say a word for myself. ive was threatened with contempt one time because i couldnt pay the counselor his $75 weekly fee to tell my kids they were wrong for having feelings. the kids agreed to see her again to see how things went, just to shut the judge up. that lasted for 4 months. halfway though that 4 months, my ex started yelling and screaming at them again in their 1 hour visits. they stopped going. so now we wait to see when the next hearing is. im sure ill be threatened with jail if i dont force these 16 and 17 year olds into seeing her. sad part is, i cant make them do anything at that age. they may decide to just move out to avoid being forced into visits if the judge orders it. they can move out at 17 and no one can stop them. the mom knows this but she wont stop with the court bs. she is ruining their lives and making me crazy and the system is allowing this proven liar to do so.

and for all those who say "you shouldnt have married the wrong person" i say this. when i married her she was a normal sweet person. only 12 years later did she decide to start cheating and being a whore. i wont be with someone like that. i cant help she turned out that way nor could i have seen it when i married her. you are at the mercy of the person you are with for them to do right. you are not in control of someone else. its just beyond me how i can prove shes lying on all 5 claims she listed against me and my kids were witness to 3 of her lies. and they told the judge their story, yet i cant speak and this is taking 9 months now with no end in sight....AND we live out of disjunction as well. i took a job 50 miles south as my other job was dying due to the slowed work flow.

Hang in there, satchel. :D

[ninepointfive]

You don't need to be married at all for any of this to end up just the same way. you can be unmarried. at least alimony won't be considered.... but that's not even a for-sure