http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0410/01/a01-290686.htm

Children need parent support! Its time for equality for fit parents to take responsibility for their children! Money does not replace a parent in a childs life.

www.parentswithoutrights.org

Indeed. The whole absentee child support system pays people to break up their families and badly hurts millions of children. It is a radical feminist social experiment that has destroyed our familes and enslaved our fathers. It is indentured servitude, a form of slavery, and absolutely violates Amendment XIII of the US Constitution. Debotr's prisons, long abhorent in the USA, now hold a hundreds of thousands of men.

It is high time to end this failed social experiment, stop the involuntary enslavement of millions of men, the destruction of familes, and the massive harm done to so many million children.
Bob

I have been on both sides of the fence with child support. My ex is ridiculously irresponsible and not very involved with our son, but I have not gone to the state on him. My husband pays through the nose (it is like paying somebody's salary). Even so I don't believe 2 wrongs make a right.

Anyway, I would say it is probably cause the states have budget cuts and need money. Remember, they get a cut of it.

Why publish "the worst case"? Is it to make all supports payers look bad?

The article states "why not just do the right thing?"

Let me relate something to you about doing the right thing.

When the court first judged my support payments, they included the amount of money I made with per diem and overtime. The child support amount was not based on a typical 40-hour week. I did civil service for the Northridge Earthquake. It is a natural disaster that cannot be expected to happen again in any frequency. The judges, however, wrote the support order as if my "ability to pay" was the same for that disaster assistance duty. As soon as the overtime was not needed anymore, my child support payments weren't made in full. I have had a "amount owed" balance ever since.

I tried to explain to the judges about the natural disaster. It didn't help much. My support payments were lowered, finally, after 8 years, but then they started with 10% interest retroactively and that increased the overall payment again.

Today, my boss received a letter to garnish 50% of my income. If you add roughly 20% for state and federal taxes, I'm left with only 30% of my income. Yet, I have to pay for health insurance, car insurance, rent, food, clothes, utilities, and the best fo all... a newborn.

The system doesn't automatically take in tto account that I have more kids with another mother besides the first. The mother of my newest child doesn't seek child support from me since I do get to be with her often. I, however, still have to pay for diapers, baby food, baby clothes, baby toys, baby furniture, baby stuff...

Another catch... the child support agency never did rate the first mother with an "ability to pay." They only expected me to pay. The law, however, states that both parents have equal responsibility. She used to work as a CNA. They should have account for that but choose not ignore it.

The child support agency compounds the interest on the amount due yearly. That amount is equal to what most make at in a year at a min wage. The added amount goes on top of the month child support payments that are being made. If you understand this, it is like having to pay more than double each month.

How did this start?

I came home one day and found my first wife in bed with another guy. She screamed domestic violence at the courts and won. She left state with that guy and my first two children.

I'm being punished for being cheated on.

I'm pretty tired of the term "deadbeat" parents. Lots of custodial parents could fall under that definition also. Kids need parents - both parents. No single parent should be able to hold all the aces when there is a divorce. The rights and responsibilities should be shared equally ......... if the aren't , the kids are the ones that are hurt the most. Why should one parent have to walk on eggshells so they don't "p!ss off" the other parent out of fear of not being able to see their children? It is just crazy. One parent shouldnt' have that kind of authority over the other parent without a d@mn good reason.

Daddies aren't dollars and dollars aren't daddies.

The judges even admit in the courtroom, "I don't see any deadbeat dads." They still make the child support judgements.

Interesting. So what term would better fit those Dads that fail to pay child support at all, though it is court ordered and they are aware of their obligation. We're not talking about missing a few months, we're talking about missing often times several years. If "deadbeat" isn't the term, what is??

Runaway Slaves.

That's a much more accurate description.

Bob

To even consider any dad as a failure not only speaks about that dad but also speaks about his family, his children. Do you want your children to be failures?

Instead of pointing out dads that are failures, why not find ways to help them support their family? Help them.. don't force them.

Dads who don't feel like failures are more successful. Support your kids by supporting dads!

I think that the two divorcing parents should be required to deposit the same amount of money into an account to be used exclusively for the benefit of the children involved. The custodial parent would pay (say with 2 children) 2/3 of the family's rent and utilities and all other direct expenses for the kids from this account. For other things, the CP would have to find other income. An accounting should be given to the NCP at decent intervals, as well as the court.

I've come to this opinion by watching someone go through the continual guilt trip about his kids. He pays $1,000 per month, every month, on time. He pays all medical expenses when they are incurred by credit card or a direct check to the CP within a few days. He pays for the kids' cell phones. He pays for extras like swimming lessons, computers, cheerleader outfits, extra cash at Christmas ($400 each kid last year). And he buys school supplies and clothes every year in Aug on shopping sprees while he has the kids for visitation.

He has just been notified that he has to attend a hearing in Jan 05, which has probably been instigated by the CP and is probably going to be a demand by her for an increase in support.

The CP has not had a regular job since 1998. Contract work once in a while is it, at about $600 a month. She has medical problems, has applied for state aid for these problems and had some kind of surgery last month. She's now living with her mother and the kids are staying with friends a lot of the time because the grandmother is not compatible with early teens. (the last apartment the CP rented had a rent of $1,100 per month....she's not what one would call fiscally responsible)
The NCP has another family, with a step-son and twins on the way. He is now employing an attorney to defend him in the hearing.

Where does it end?????? And exactly when does the CP have to be as responsible as the NCP?

I know this is not on topic. But here you have people mostly legally

married and divorced. Fathers (straight ) do not want to pay for their

kids, nor do they want to pay the fair share it really costs to raise children.

Yet in this election Gay Marriage and abortion was a lightning rod!

So if those 2 issues are made this great unjust albatross, why does an

article like this get buried. Why do "straight" men not take of their

kids?

I realize sometimes courts (like in NY/NJ) issue crazy amounts for

child support. One of my employees had the max in NY 65% of NET

income withheld from his pay. He worked another part-time off the books

job just to live. He appealed several times and lost.

But on the other hand my sister in GA got about $150 a month for her

two kids.

That is so not true.

Perhaps you ran into one father who didn't want to be with their kids and you judge all fathers the same. Even in your article you quote about a dad who wanted more time.

I want more time with my kids, so I know your statement is not true.

When I tried to go see my kids when I wanted to, the other party called the cops on me. She used the cops to keep me away from the kids, so she could be with her adulterer. Later, she left state with him and my two kids.

I have only seen a few mothers who actually try to make sure their kids see their fathers regularly when they all are seperated.

Why do mothers have to wait until the law forces them to share the kids?

Yes, it's off topic.




Fatherhood is NOT about paying. That view treats men as wallets, not as people or parents.

Children have a fundamental right to BOTH their parents, and men have as much right to their children as women. The current system is violently abusive to children and other living beings.

Bob

Thank you for the opportunity to answer that question.

The sinlge biggest obstacle that prevents good dads from spending more time with their kids is a court order, not a lack of desire. The most important thing a parent can be for their child is THERE!

Ok then if any of the fathers that replied here is the million dollar question

If the mother of your child would give you custody, gave it to you , would

you take it? Put the shoe on the other foot?

I am just asking and if so why can you not get that right. Is it your state

laws or judges?

I would only take it if she went into court and said she didn't want to be a meaningful part of my kid's life. But, that would go against my true desire that both she and I be a meaningful part of our child's life.

The answer is not with state laws or judges. The answer lies in upholding the laws of the U.S. Constitution. Correspondingly, a class action law suit has already been filed.

I'll take that million dollars in hundreds or fifties, which ever is more convenient for you!

If she wanted to be part of your childs life, but you would be the primary care giver?

My question about your state family court is, Do you feel it leans to the mother?
Are mother rights more important than fathers rights? What class action suit?

No, men treat themselves like wallets. If this was not so more men would fight to split the time with their children 50/50. Did you get that TIME 50/50. That would mean that the child would spend every other WEEK (not week-end) with their child. I am so sick of hearing men grip about child support. Yes I do agree that in some case (very few) they pay more than the child needs, but most men do not take everything into account when figuring what they should pay for. Most men do not realize that just one child causes the CP to need a bigger place to live that costs more and uses more electric, heat, cleaning, lawn care, etc...A child even effects what type of car you will need to buy. It boils down to a child costs more money than most realize.
Men grip because they have to pay child support and yet they do not take action to share the time with their child 50/50 and the ones that do automatically think that because the time is 50/50 that they should not have to pay the mother of their child anything. This really rattles my mind. When a man decides to take on the responsibility to have a child that means also taking into consideration the welfair of that child in case of a divorce. This means that he must also realize that most women do not have an equal chance of making the same amount of money as a man does and in the case of divorce, his child would not be as well provided for. Thus, he should make efforts to make the childs life just as comfortable with the mother as the child is with him.
I can tell you first off that if I made more money than my husband and we divorced I would not want my child sleeping in a dump with my husband and if he could not make ends meet as well as I could and it was not his fault, but rather the fault of unequilaty in the work force, I definately would give him support payments even if we shared time with the child 50/50. I realize that it is not all mens fault that women make less, but when you have a child you take on the responsibility of making sure that the child is well taken care of and is comfortable at all times whenever possible.
The other thing that really gets me is these men who keep having more children when they do not properly take care of the ones they already have. If men had their children 50/50 they would not even consider having more children. I realize that some women do not let the fathers see their children, but I have found that in many of those cases the men are violent, use drugs or alcohol, and are irresponsible and do not look after their children.
Many years ago I made the mistake of marring and having a child with one of these lossers. When we divorced I did not ask for support for one reason and one reason only...I did not want him near my child. I made a good decision as he wound up in jail for the past 15 years for a very violent crime. My child never missed having his biological father around because I later married a wonderful man who is very responsible and loving to my child from my previous marriage, as well as, to the child we had together. The point being; these are not qualities that many men have and most men do not want their children 50% of the time unless it means: 1) a chance to get back with the mother or 2) they wont have to pay child support anymore.

I was the primary caregiver for my son. His mother decided she was too young to be a parent. She still had very liberal visitation. We never went through family court to resolve any differences.

"What class action suit?" Exactly. Trying to get this topic into the media is worse than pulling teeth. They don't want to cover it for fear that others will want to join on to the suit. If no one knows about it, they can't join in.

See http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0410/31/a01-320553.htm

See http://www.ffvisual.com/ncpshared/examples.html for the actual suit.

This suit has been filed in over forty states presently. Seen it on national news? of course not.

I'm not sure what your definition of primary care giver is. Is it that I be labeled as a CP, but that we share the kid 50/50? Is it that I have my kid 60/40, 70/30, or 80/20? I'm not sure what it is that you want to know in that regard. But, I believe that we should both be able to spend as close to 50/50 time with our child as is practical. It shouldn't matter if it is 183/182, or 195/170. What ever is more practical should govern the situation. Since I don't see how giving particulars about my personal situation is beneficial to my child, nor is it pertinent to the discussion, I am withholding that information. Besides, it's never been about me, it's always been about what is best for kids.

As for my state's (FL) laws, it has presumptive shared parenting laws, which really mean very little. That just means that parenting decisions are joint decisions, so long as the non-residential parent agrees with the primary residential parent's decision. In about 85% of cases primary status is given to the mother, even though in only a very small percentage of cases is either parent shown to be unfit. In no other area of Americn Law does the routine final order of a court punish a party that is absent of wrong-doing found before the court. I hope that fully answers your questions about my state's laws. Teh vast majoirty of other states are similar.

As for the class action law suit, by my last count it has been filed in 46 different states on behalf of non-custodial parents. Here are links to most of the states:

Alphabetical List of Online Non Custodial Parents State Class Action
Lawsuit Websites

Alabama: Dr. Richard Weiss
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alabamacrc

Alaska: Kevin Francis Ramey
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlaskaClassAction

Arizona: Scott Leska
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arizonacivilrightscouncil

Arkansas: Kinley Hardin
http://www.stewart-house.com/arkansas.htm

California: Pete Clark
http://www.livebeatdads.us

Colorado: Troy Kramer
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coloradocivilrightscouncil

Connecticut: Chris Kennedy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/connecticutcivilrightscouncil

Delaware: Russell P. Smith, Sr.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/delawarecivilrightscouncil

District of Columbia: Maurice King
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NonCustodialParentsforChange

Florida: Miguel Martin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/floridacivilrightscouncil

Georgia: Richard Stewart
http://www.stewart-house.com/classaction.htm

Illinois: Robert G. Lasheff
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ILLINOISFAMILYADVOCACY

Indiana: Torm Howse
http://www.indianacrc.org

Iowa: Robert G. Lisk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Equal_Iowa_Parents

Kansas: Thomas Lessman & John Schmeidler
http://www.acfc-ks.org/KS_Class_Action.htm

Kentucky: Wes Collins
http://groups.msn.com/KentuckyFamilyOrganization

Louisiana: Clarence Edward "Ed" Ward, III
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/louisianacivilrightscouncil

Maine: Eric Ericson
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mainecivilrightscouncil

Maryland: Christopher Yavelow
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mdcrc

Massachusetts: Joe Schebel
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/massachusett...ilrightscouncil

Michigan: Michael T. Ross
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michparentsclassactionsuit

Minnesota: Dave Witte
http://www.legalactioncommittee.org

Mississippi: Angel Robinson
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCPrights

Missouri: Jon Klement
http://www.demandthefacts.net

Montana: Deanna Prouty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speakmt

Nebraska: Curt Morehouse
http://www.fathersrightsne.org

Nevada: Alan DiCicco
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cfcr1997

New Hampshire: Rachel Forrest
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhclassaction

New Jersey: Vincent Urbank
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newjerseycivilrightscouncil

New Mexico: Michael J. Pettit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newmexicocivilrightscouncil

New York: Randall L. Dickinson & Debby Fellows
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newyorkcivilrightscouncil

North Carolina: Lenny McAllister
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/northcarolin...ilrightscouncil

North Dakota: Roland Riemers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/northdakotacivilrightscouncil

Ohio: Scott Strohm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioClassAction

Oklahoma: Greg Chapman
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oklahomacivilrightscouncil

Oregon: Susan Detlefsen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OregonNonCustodialClass

Pennsylvania: Curtis Patton
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pancp

Rhode Island: Seth I. Donohue
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rhodeislandcivilrightscouncil

South Carolina: Nikki Fitzgerald
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCCRC

South Dakota: Randy Haack
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southdakotacivilrightscouncil

Tennessee: Tony Gottlieb
http://www.tndads.org

Texas: Mark Bitara
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USA-Noncustodials

Utah: Eric Clarke
http://www.UtahParentsUnderSiege.com

Vermont: David Donley
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vermontcivilrightscouncil

Virginia: Harold Leist
http://www.leist.us

Washington: Perry Manley
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/washingtoncivilrightscouncil

West Virginia: Tim Fittro
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvmad

Wisconsin: Dan Creed
http://www.wiparents.org

If your state is not listed and you would like it to be, go to:
http://www.indianacrc.org
If you would like to see the class action documents:
http://www.leist.us The Virginia version. The only differences are
the
individuals, individual states names. Everything else is the same
for
all states.

To me if I had child was still under 18 I would want to see them at least every
other day and spend weekends/holidays with them. I only know from my sisters
3 marriages (2 boys 1st, 1 girl 2nd, 0 3rd) and her live in now that divorce seems
to make it almost impossible to maintain a decent relationship. I do not blame divorce
itself but the attorneys make it boil down to money/assets.

When 2 people don't live together, across town or wherever it puts a pressure on
both parents. Timing, money 2 rents/mortgages, jsut everything is double.
Do men blame their wives for the divorce? Do women blame their husbands?
Is that why there is so much discourse usually between both parents?

I am trying to understand both sides issues and mind set. Just looking for
info and understand the problems

As for media coverage, they are more interested in covering another murder trial
they are all whores that cover the same stories. US media makes me sick
I hate having to spend an hour everyday reading world news on the internet
just to be informed and hope I am getting close to the truth.

I would love to have custody of all my children. I told the court I wanted more time. I demanded joint custody.

If any of my children's mother want to give up custody, I am ready and able to fully take all of my children. As a father, I am already prepared for such action.


It? My children are human and deserve more that to be called an IT!

It referred to custody not the child.

The laws, and those who made tha laws, contradict themselves when they say that both parents should share equal responsibility, but the laws also state it must determine a primary care giver. If it was truly equal from the start, there would be no "primary" care giver.



Given the percentage of mothers that are determined "primary care giver" even though she does not work and the father has paid for everything, it still leans to the mother.

Mother and fathers are both humans. Fathers need to be respected as humans just like mothers.

I believe dead beat dads ought to be punished. I also believe mothers that do not properly use child support ought to get theres though. I got a girl pregnant, married her(typical catholic wedding) stayed through 14 years of crap, lies, and indifference, only to finally leave. Upon leaving the implied, and forewarned threat of you'll pay for this was carried out. I lived for 14 years under the threat of court system and support being used unfairly against me. She did just that. After I left I gave her money everyother week until we could get the support stuff done in court, She then lied in court saying I gave her nothing!! I wound up paying thousands of extra dollars,(which Im sure she enjoyed). The following year my knee blew out, tendons ligaments and cartilidge, (bad timing) how ever I can't pay my child support, get health insurance, and live at the same time, So Im working still. I go up scaffolds, build stonewalls , work as much as I can between my knees often reinjuries, only to be told by my son that when his mothers mad, she won't let him eat for days at a time in her house!! Last year I went to work on a job reaquiring I climb ladder all day, just to make my child support, This was on a severely injured leg, and immediately after the Dr told me no more ladders. Between Dr. bills, support, and other expenses I can't live . Yet here I go working on one leg in an attempt to pay these people. Hey I break my tail to pay my support, But she lied in court, lied about money I gave her, lied about her income, pretty much lied about everything. I am being punished for leaving her, and I think its unfair. I never hear the people trashing deadbeat dads ever mention abuses of system by wemon, I think its unfair.

I would love to nit-pick your entire message, but it gets off topic quickly. You started with time share, so we talk about that.

To your comment "men treat themselves like wallets." I have heard many times like how a mother of my child has said "I need a rich man" as she threatens to let some other guy be the father of my children just because of mo' money. She is not the only woman who has said such.

My orginal court orders were rubber stamp with week-end visits. I never went to court before, and I was lied when I did. I was told that was the way it was done. When I fought about it, it didn't get changed.

Again, the law determine a "primary" care giver even if it is fully joint custody. There should be no "primary" care giver with joint custody. Both parents have equal responsibility.

Do you pay child support? Your message starts to say that you would, but do you?

He is right, they lie in court saying thats how its done, I however was told to be truthful!!Hey I got screwed, The courtstuff was held above me in her attenmpt to force me to stay for years, once we split, she carried out threats. She lied about money I gave her voluntarily after I left, Lied about her income, lied about anything she could. I wound up with a substantial ARREARS bill for money that I gave her on my own free will. She said I abandoned her and gave her no money, But I was giving her a full 1/2 of my income when i left.Now Im stuck working on a severely injured knee because I can't take off 8 weeks to recover from surgery, and I don't wanna go back to court and beg for the right to get surgery!! This deadbeat dad stuff has merit, But wemon abusing the syatem does exist. She abused me mentally in 14 years of marriage, now she still gets to abuse me through the court. I work as much as I can, pay the support, but often don't have anything left for me. I wind up buyoing my son things almost everytime I visit because she doesn't supply them. The court ought to watch how support is used and definitly ought to realize bitter wives are using lies and deceit to seekl revenge!!

I let there with my truck, my tools, and my clothes. She had brand new car, my truck was 15 years old, she kept home, appliances , furniture, paintings my grandmother made, pretty much everything you accumulate over 14 years, I spent that entire marriage with less then her, she always went out to dinner with freinds, lunch, lived a life, I basically worked and got yelled at and handed bills. When i finally sunk into depression she started to tell me to leave till i get better, pay her bills still, go live with my sister till I was better!! I did her one better, I left her for a person that treated me with kindness. I went out and found someone nice. I'm finally happy, but I still being punished by her. I didn't fight her over money possesions or anything, I even took lawyers advice and silently watched her lie in court, (funny thing is she got caught) still they gave her most everything she wanted. I was screwed!!

No I do not but, if I were a man and got a divorce I would pay support. I would also do what ever it took to see my child and be with that child 50% of his/her childhood life time. I have noticed that several of the comments on this forum mention that its the courts fault why they cannot share equal time with their child. I think this is a little white lie in MOST of the cases. I say this because I (being a woman) would never let a court ruling seperate my child from his/her father no matter how much I hated him for leaving or cheating. It has been my experience that if the mother allows the court to make such rulings and then adheres to them there is likely a reason. That reason being (in MOST cases) that the father has been absent from the childs life even before the divorce (most of the time), does not give good care to the child, or will expose the child to unhealthy situations (such as crime, drugs, alcohol, violence).
I have two children. The first by my ex and the second by the man I am still married to (we have been married for 16 years). I never asked for support from my first husband when we divorced (my son was three years old). I also never let him see his son. Now dont get your paints in a bunch let me explain. I am not a mean and awful person who would do that to my ex for revenge reasons nor would I do that to my son unless I had to. My ex turned out to be a very violent criminal and has spent most of his life in prison. I divorced him after he became a criminal. My son is 20 now and he has spoken to his biological father a few times and has thanked me many times for not letting him be around such an awful person. My son has also stated that he thinks that if he had of been around his biological father he may have turned out just like him. Let me add here that I never talked down about his father to him. I told him the truth ...that I loved him very much and that in some ways I still do, but he made bad choices and that I made a bad choice to be with someone I really did not know.
Do you pay support if so, how often do you see your child/children? Is there any reason that you can think of (other than your ex is a wicked witch) why she does not allow you to see your children more (assuming that you are the typical everyother weekend dad)?

Your situation sounds so sad. I do not think that your situation is the norm, but it oviously indicates that a problem in the system needs to be fixed. I do have a question. If you were in over your head with child support with the first mom, why would you have another baby with someone else (that I am assuming that you are not married to)?

I agree that women and the court system should support dads. I think that parents should both have equal time with the child. I think that women who threaten the fathers of their children by saying that they cant see their children is a selfish and childish thing to do unless they have a really good reason. Even if they do have a good reason I still think that it should envolve protective services and a judge to determine if the welfare of the child is at risk.
I feel that it is really hard to raise a child and if women were smart they would allow their ex's to take 50% of the responsibility. Not just financially, but time wise also. I would never let my personal feelings towards my ex cause my children not to see their father. I just do not understand how any woman could. It to me just seems like it is not in the female nature (or the male nature for that matter) to cause such pain and devistation in their children just to seek revenge.

I have to say that I sympathize with your friend, but I have to wonder after reading all these statements on the forum; maybe the CP are resentful that she/he is the primary care giver and has the children (in most cases) all the time except everyother weekend. If the CP feels resentful that he/she is the one who is there most of the time for the child, he/she may be demanding more money because she feels it is due to make-up for the lack of time that the NCP does not spend with the child. I wonder if more men would fight for their right to have the children 50% of the time and take good care of the child/children if this money/support thing would be an issue. I really do not think that it would be in most cases.

I bet if there was a provision the men could vote to have their shared custoday or not that the vote would be pretty high for shared custody. I envision that kind of vote to happen on seperation, like a simple question from the judge, "do you want to see your kids?" Unfortunately, that kind of question is never asked, and the kids are taken away from the men with the assumption that men don't want to be with their kids.

If a dad has never had a conviction, why deny him shared custody?

The system is real deadbeat. Anybody who uses the system to gain anything but shared custody in relation to a father that has not been proven guilty for anything is a deadbeat like the system and that father is not.

The system allows judgements based on accusations alone without any evidence; that is not constitutional. I've know more and more people today that agree the child support agency is criminal itself.

Setting someone up for a fall where they cannot even live on what is left of their hard earned money is by no means a indication of being a failure. Why not stop the male bashing and start being more fair about this? The only reason you read this crap about "men" is because men do not get their kids. Women who are considered "deadbeat" do not get this status or the public notoriety of being "deadbeats", society and our gender biased family court laws see to it. Some states even have posters hanging in Post offices and liquor stores showing pictures and description of men who are deadbeat parents and not one female on any of them. Is that because there are no non custodial mothers who do not pay support? You tell me,

And the slur about straight men not wanting to support their kids, who ever said it, get a life.

Okay, but there are a lot who do not want custody and are not responsible. I offered many times to have more of a shared custody thing with my ex, he did not want to do it. He has never been responsible.

If all NCP's were responsible and wanted to be involved, these laws would not have been necessary.

I would like to see some solid statistics on this because there seems to be a lot of irresponsible NCP's, the reason why states made the laws because they kept getting stuck with the bills.

[quote=gmanders777,Nov 11 2004, 07:38 AM]
I know this is not on topic. But here you have people mostly legally

married and divorced. Fathers (straight ) do not want to pay for their

kids, nor do they want to pay the fair share it really costs to raise children.

Yet in this election Gay Marriage and abortion was a lightning rod!

So if those 2 issues are made this great unjust albatross, why does an

article like this get buried. Why do "straight" men not take of their

kids?

HUH!!! Thats a darn heterophobic/sexist comment if i ever heard one. Straight men pay through the nose, try to visit kids as often as they can, and the majority of us don't run off on a beautiful family. Divorce is ugly, its rigged (for decent but outdated reasons) towards mothers, and guys get shafted. I go to NY from Massachussetts two to three times a month to visit my kid, I pay my support even though i can't do as much work due to an injury. I even went to work on roof the same week my Doctor told me to stay off ladders for a few months, just to make my support. All this divorce was preceded by a marriage filled with lies, disrespect and about 8 years of me sleeping on the couch by my own choice because I couldn't stand her lies. I stayed till my kid was 12, but could not stay anymore after I hit depression. I pay my support, walk around broke, and somehow find the 50 bucks or so for gas, a fifty or so to give my kid or go out with, and still hear this crap from my ex. The truth is mothers abuse the system. It was held opver my head for years before i left, an implicit threat, you leave and I'll screw you in court. WELL SHE DID! I left there with my clothes my truck and my tools. I left all money and possesions.I paid support immediately, gave her cash, she then lied about the thousands of dollars I gave her in court, and I wound up paying arrears for it! Gay men and females never understand this issue, they just like to say the divorced male is wrong, a dad who leaves is bad, well THATS BS!!!

Here we go again. Obviously, you haven't been following the thread or you would have not asked that type of question again.

1) If women are so much more responsible, then why do they kill children 31 TIMES, not 31% more often, but 31 TIMES MORE OFTEN THAN BIOLOGICAL FATHERS DO?

2) If you are not directing your slander towards fathers who do want to be involved with their kids, then you should have no problem with a presumptive joint legal and physical custody law like was just approved of by 85% of MA voters. The following is the exact wording of what voters approved of:

Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote for legislation to create a strong presumption in child custody cases in favor of joint physical and legal custody, so that the court will order that the children have equal access to both parents as much as possible, except where there is clear and convincing evidence that one parent is unfit, or that joint custody is not possible due to the fault of one of the parents?

Everytime there is one man that steps up and wants to be with his kids there seems to be a dozen women ready to prove him wrong.




I wonder what the exact laws were, but I don't have time right now to research that. I see a problem with that clause. It vaguely defines "fault." It seems like a catch-22 statement. It does not define who or what makes the "fault" determination. I like the "clear and convincing evidence" phrase. I can envision judges that shall follow the laws and grant joint custody at the lack of clear and convincing evidence with that clause, yet it has an that exit-door politics with that word "fault" put in there that harasses me. It is a step in a good direction, nonetheless.

Jolene, did it ever occur to you that the 'whatever it took' for men to fight for joint custody is jail? Men are jailed for fighting to see their kids more. What exactly would YOU do if the court gave you every other weekend, and the mother refused to budge? Kidnap your kids? Tell me, Jolene, how would you go about fighting for more? Go to court again? And again? And again? The court doesn't care.

You have this idealistic veiw that all dads have to do is wish for more and they get more. Unfortunately, those ruby slippers aren't real. Wishing does nothing.

So how would you fight for more? I am really interested in what you think you know that thousands of dads haven't already tried.

How about if YOU quantify your claim that "there are a lot who do not want custody and are not responsible." In the most recent boycott to Domino's WRT the Michigan attorney general it surfaced that 90% of the men in Michigan who were in arrears for child support, earned less than 10k/year.

Another study has shown a direct correlation to violations in parenting plans and nonpayment in child support. There is zero accountability for the money being spent on the kid- Just because it's paid doesn't mean it goes to the child. Real Life Example- kid goes home from dads with new clothes from Nordstrom, next week clothes are gone. Why? Nordstrom has a generous and often abused return policy, mom took the daughters clothes back to Nordstrom and exchanged them to buy clothes for herself.

Mother's get custody in 80% of divorce cases. Men have ZERO choice in out of wedlock births. To be responsible, one must be given choices.

Show me that data of men who were awarded 50% custody and zero support and DID NOT carry their half of the load. When is there going to be a crack down on mom's who violate parenting plans?

Well, not any time soon. That would alienate their voters. <_<

Talking with family over the holidays I found out a friend still is paying support for his son who is 18. The son now lives with his sister and has never really gotten along with his mom or dad ( he's lived with mom most of the time and he doesnt see his dad much). The kid had been in & out of trouble a lot but seemed to be getting things together. He just didnt have a close relationship with his dad and even his mom anymore. Anyway, when the son turned 18, the $300/month support checks went straight to him and not mommy. What did mommy do? Charged her son $250/month rent. Mum then calls Dad and says son was having a tough time and needed more money. Thats a real equal system there..