Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the truth. I have a relative who was the office manager for a judge who was the first ever in his county to start to jail "deadbeats." A non-custodial parent had to be in financial arrears for more than a year and/or seriously inept in dealing with required courtroom procedures before the judge would issue an arrest warrant. And guess what would happen in what she claimed were at least 80% of the cases? When the bailiffs were ready to slap the handcuffs on, he (it was invariably a he) would get out his checkbook and write a check for the minimum amount required ... or his MOTHER or girlfriend would show up and do it. In fact, according to her, only a very small percentage of people are ever actually jailed for this crime.
That judge had to deal with endless complaining from non-custodial parents, including sustained, highly publicized, picketing of his office by an organization called Fathers United. But when it came time for reelection, he won by a landslide he didn't get in the first election. The take-away I observe from that is: the majority of deadbeats CAN pay something (or are connected someone who is willing) and the voting public supports the current set-up for dealing with this pervasive societal issue.
So what exactly does this racket like procedure solve? They hit men' relatives & friends for a few hundreds bucks, court lawyers rake in a few thousands of compensation, and the wheel keeps on rolling, everybody is busy, everybody makes a buck. Pervasive societal issue # 1 - single mothers and social institutions enabling them. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see who voted for the guy.
Children are not mistakes, but embryos are. Do you know how many of my friends, coworkers, relatives, acquaintances miscarriaged in the past 7 years? More than I can count. A lot of my friends didn't even announce until 2nd trimester because they expected a miscarriage. No different.
As far as the bolded, it is your fault, which is not to say that I don't sympathize with your situation. You chose to marry a man who was irresponsible because he was handsome, charming, whatever. There's tons of men who would never do that. It's very easy to tell them apart, character wise, IMO. If you take the high risk, glamorous job over the steady job, you risk getting burned.
But it gets to my point. If you, as a woman, cannot support those amount of children on your own (without child support), then don't have them.
Wow - it's still somehow the woman's fault if a man is irresponsible! Amazing! This is so far off topic, and I am so disgusted by this attitude, that all I can say is I'm floored that you could even type it. Must be nice to be perfect.
I haven't read this thread at length, but I'd be EXTREMELY weary about believing what this guy says. If I was in the situation of the OP I'd do my research to find out if it's possible to thrown in jail for missing payment. Maybe it varies depending on where someone lives. The courts also probably aren't very sympathetic to the men in the overwhelming majority of these cases. Be it child support or a single father (especially the latter). Not to say it's unfair outright, but there seems to be a is a bit of slant in favor of women in many cases. That's at least the impression I get from TV!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowbell76
I was just wondering what kind of $50K tech job fires someone for missing two days of work. While in jail, did he just not show up and not call in? The job sounds like a reasonably professional - perhaps even exempt - position, not some minimum wage job where people get fired for anything and replacements are a dime a dozen.
this as well. was it like his first week or something...because that's just...what about sick days? anything really...there are emergencies.....
So what exactly does this racket like procedure solve? They hit men' relatives & friends for a few hundreds bucks, court lawyers rake in a few thousands of compensation, and the wheel keeps on rolling, everybody is busy, everybody makes a buck. Pervasive societal issue # 1 - single mothers and social institutions enabling them. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see who voted for the guy.
How did those mothers GET to be single? The majority of them started out with a wedding and stars in their eyes. Just assuming that the man they loved and married would take proper care of the sons and/or daughters he fathered. But all too often that takes a court order, and another court order, and a bench warrant, and many months later — at last — a judge weasels a portion of the money he was ordered by the court to pay ... often out of some other woman in his life. And you blame that on the custodial parent? Courts in the United States, overwhelmed with felonious crimes, have far better things to do than chase after people who don't want to accept their civil responsibilities. But they do it because children are entitled BY LAW to their fathers' support.
Some important things to remember:
-Taxpayers are not paying for deadbeats to be sued. In almost every state the parent seeking a court-ordered payment must rely on their own resources to bring contempt action in cases of nonpayment, and they receive little help from the courts.
-In the vast majority of states, child support is gender-neutral. The court looks at the yearly income of a pair of parents and assigns child support proportional to each parent's income. If one parent, father OR mother, earns 60% of the income they are ordered to contribute 60% is what is deemed necessary to care for the child in relation to that total.
-A study done from 1993-2009 showed that fewer than half of parents with a child support agreement in place receive all the child support they are owed. The average order over that period was $300 per month. The average actually received was $147.
-More 2 million couples divorce in America each year. As LegalZoom explains, "Ultimately, the overall economic quality of a man's life, based on earnings and amount spent on living expenses, increases after his divorce. He continues to earn more but bears fewer family expenses. The overall economic quality of a woman's life, post-divorce, decreases. Of course, both parents are expected and legally required to contribute to the cost of raising their children, but the law still does not provide a mechanism to compensate a woman for the earning potential she has lost based on her decisions to marry and have children. Women often opt for careers that they feel will be more conducive to motherhood, working lower paying jobs because of the fewer hours they require."
-Child support is totally separate from alimony. Laws surrounding the payment of alimony have changed dramatically from coast to coast in recent years. A recent study showed that fewer than half a million Americans are currently receiving permanent alimony payments. In most states alimony is seen as a very temporary measure to stabilize the lower-earning partner immediately following a divorce. Those most likely to receive high alimony are those being divorced from wealthy spouses.
At least 40% + of the live births in the USA are given by unwed mothers (28% +/- for the white).
Quote:
The majority of them started out with a wedding and stars in their eyes.
I can see a person with questionable honesty and dependability miles away. 3 lies, 3 broken promises - to the jerk pile you go, simple. You just don't become a "jerk" overnight. Problem - women are sexually attracted to the men they later call jerks. So, please, girls take full responsibility for mothering a child with one of those. Women have ultimate control of their bodies and their fetuses, men have no say on any of that. With 100% control should come 100% responsibility. If state became a big daddy who shakes "deadbeats" for all they've got before pitching in, women will continue to do what they are doing - sleeping around with jerks, giving births outside of wedlock, divorcing at a whim, bankrupting/destroying decent guys and raising kids alone.
Quote:
Just assuming that the man they loved and married would take proper care of the sons and/or daughters he fathered.
Outrageously infantile excuses. You don't become an irresponsible person overnight, you don't become irresponsible after a wedding (birth). Girl take full responsibility for mothering a child with irresponsible guys you find irresistible. Feeling "love" burning in some places is NOT an excuse to mother a child with an irresponsible man.
Liberated "me first" attitude most of women suffer today is directly responsible for 75% of divorces being initiated by women (it's whopping 90%, think!, among college educated couples). Financial troubles is reason #1 for a divorce (of course women cite "abuse" as reason #1, penniless husband is a form of woman abuse, no doubt about that). A normal responsible man hits rough job spot, wife dumps him, this further mess up his finances, to top everything off his former "love" hits him with child support orders he can't possibly comply with, a few missed payments and state repressive machinery kicks in a gear and to the skid row man goes. There are countless thousands of child support horror out there.
Quote:
But all too often that takes a court order, and another court order, and a bench warrant, and many months later — at last — a judge weasels a portion of the money he was ordered by the court to pay ... often out of some other woman in his life. And you blame that on the custodial parent? Courts in the United States, overwhelmed with felonio
I don't know what state you live in, but it's simply not true. Child support procedure is very straightforward, fast and relatively simple, it takes a couple of months wait and one in person meeting with a child support officer (not a judge), a month later state gets its paws in man' payroll, it's automated.
Of course, if you mothered a child with a irresponsible man on the run, that complicates things (and women are 100% to blame for that), OR, you try to squeeze a buck from a broke, (un/under)employed man you divorced a few months earlier. That may make things complicated. OR, you try to get obscene amount of money from a well off (relatively) sperm donor, he'll fight back and it will get involved. Other than that, it's very simple and a "normal" working guy simply has no way out of paying it.
Last edited by RememberMee; 09-22-2013 at 12:47 PM..
At least 40% + of the live births in the USA are given by unwed mothers (28% +/- for the white) ...
So, please, girls take full responsibility for mothering a child with one of those. Women have ultimate control of their bodies and their fetuses, men have no say on any of that. With 100% control should come 100% responsibility. If state became a big daddy who shakes "deadbeats" for all they've got before pitching in, women will continue to do what they are doing - sleeping around with jerks, giving births outside of wedlock, divorcing at a whim, bankrupting/destroying decent guys and raising kids alone.
Outrageously infantile excuses. You don't become an irresponsible person overnight, you don't become irresponsible after a wedding (birth). Girl take full responsibility for mothering a child with irresponsible guys you find irresistible. Feeling "love" burning in some places is NOT an excuse to mother a child with an irresponsible man.
Liberated "me first" attitude most of women suffer today is directly responsible for 75% of divorces being initiated by women (it's whopping 90%, think!, among college educated couples) ...
I don't know what state you live in, but it's simply not true. Child support procedure is very straightforward, fast and relatively simple, it takes a couple of months wait and one in person meeting with a child support officer (not a judge), a month later state gets its paws in man' payroll, it's automated.
Of course, if you mothered a child with a irresponsible man on the run, that complicates things (and women are 100% to blame for that), OR, you try to squeeze a buck from a broke, (un/under)employed man you divorced a few months earlier. That may make things complicated. OR, you try to get obscene amount of money from a well off (relatively) sperm donor, he'll fight back and it will get involved. Other than that, it's very simple and a "normal" working guy simply has no way out of paying it.
Anything else women are 100% responsible for? War in the Middle East? The price of cable TV? The weather?
And why shouldn't the "state get its paws in the man's payroll"? If it's court-ordered child support, that's the law, set up for efficiency and compliance. The court would also put its "paws" on a woman's paycheck if she were the one ordered to pay support. As I noted before, statistical data gathered by COURTS show that custodial parents (of either sex) are unlikely to get all that they are entitled to, so the court needs to employ whatever means are necessary to try and remedy that for the children's sake. You know, the dependent children. The people who are absent from your discussion except as pawns in your war with women.
This is my last response to you. Your posts are based totally on anecdotal evidence (your angry life, one would assume), rather than statistics or studies or third-person observation. I'm also disturbed by the racist implications that are in there to punctuate the non-stop sexism. So, good luck, I hope your life improves.
I can see a person with questionable honesty and dependability miles away. 3 lies, 3 broken promises - to the jerk pile you go, simple. You just don't become a "jerk" overnight. Problem - women are sexually attracted to the men they later call jerks.
Anything else women are 100% responsible for? War in the Middle East? The price of cable TV? The weather?
If a mothers is not 100% responsible for mothering a child, who is? Men have no means to force motherhood upon women, none. A woman decides who she sleeps with (and "jerks" happen to be on the top of the list), once pregnant, a woman decides whether to have a baby or to have an abortion. Even husbands can't force their wives not to abort if she so desires (neither they can force a woman to abort). But once a woman makes a procreation decision, her decisions magically become man' and/or "society" responsibility, frequently against man' will. How come? Bringing up Middle East just show you grasping for some sort of a straw justifying this absurd.
Quote:
And why shouldn't the "state get its paws in the man's payroll"? If it's court-ordered child support, that's the law, set up for efficiency and compliance.
First, you say how everything is bad and inefficient forcing little ladies to suffer because court can't squeeze blood from the financial turnips little ladies slept with, then you praise efficiency and compliance. Majority of men would pay fair amount of child support without any court orders and/or state mediation. No court can force broke, disabled, jerks and deadbeats to support their kids but they definitely try. Liberated breed of women intentionally abuse family law that was set up in the 1950th, a totally different era (they despise to boot). If you care, there are tonnes of horror stories making one doubt sanity of our legal system, a system that can force a man to pay child support for kids his cheating wife mothered with another man, just an example.
Quote:
The court would also put its "paws" on a woman's paycheck if she were the one ordered to pay support.
So how many tearful stories about a poor man struggling to take care of his family and a deadbeat lowlife mother avoiding paying child support you've read recently? In deciding custody and child support issues courts favor women big time. Only really rich men can (sometimes) counteract this inherent bias. Amount of $ women are required to pay is less, enforcement frenzy is non existent. Have you ever read about a woman jailed for not paying child support?
The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts. Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media. Read more: Moms Can Be Deadbeats Too | Fox News
Quote:
As I noted before, statistical data gathered by COURTS show that custodial parents (of either sex) are unlikely to get all that they are entitled to, so the court needs to employ whatever means are necessary to try and remedy that for the children's sake.
"They are entitled to" needs to be elaborated upon. Amount of $ a custodial parent is "entitled" to is an arbitrary sum awarded by a judge. Frequently, this arbitrary "entitlement" doesn't match financial realities and future earning potential. It's nice to think that you are entitled to a slave making certain amount of $/month, rain or shine, while you don't subject yourself to the same rigorous income requirements.
Quote:
You know, the dependent children. The people who are absent from your discussion except as pawns in your war with women.
What war with women? Pointing to the obvious fact that women have 100% control of whom to sleep with and whom have children with doesn't constitute a "war". What about children? The state assuming a role of big daddy shaking men for $ did a lot of harm to children by enabling women to have children out of wedlock not speaking of women treating marriage as a disposable wipe facilitating their self-fulfillment and self-discovery. Why make marriage work, if the big daddy is standing by with a big stick and a SNAP card? Besides, giving a lump sum of $ to a woman (or a man) not necessarily correlates with well-being of children since there is no spending accountability whatsoever.
Quote:
This is my last response to you. Your posts are based totally on anecdotal evidence (your angry life, one would assume), rather than statistics or studies or third-person observation.
Do not let facts to get in the way of your ideological belief, and you'll live happily ever after. But let's refresh statistical basis of my previous post:
Birth rate for unmarried women: 46.0 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 years. Percent of all births to unmarried women: 40.7%.FASTSTATS - Unmarried Childbearing
In 2000, two law professors studied 46,000 divorce cases filed in four states---Connecticut, Virginia, Montana and Oregon---to find out why women file for divorce. The results of that study, published in "These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women," proved to be surprising. Women are 66 percent more likely to file for a divorce than a man, Brinig and Allen say. However, the reason why has proven unexpected. .... Why Do Women Initiate Divorce? | LIVESTRONG.COM
"Because I don't need him", "Because I've outgrown him, $$$ & career", "Because I will win in a court" are three major reasons why women divorce. What about poor children you might ask? Children are not on the list. In the light of these three main reasons for a divorce, it's no wonder that among college-educated couples, the percentage of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce.
Quote:
I'm also disturbed by the racist implications that are in there to punctuate the non-stop sexism. So, good luck, I hope your life improves.
Racism? You sound like a real NPRish type, but common where you've found racism and sexism? Blacks and latino have larger out of wedlock birth rate, it's statistics, it's not racism. Pointing at the way of the liberated women doesn't constitute sexism. If my life would "improve" to the point of me finding nothing wrong with typical liberated rhetoric (and behavior) - shoot me, I'll be a walking brainwashed veg at that point anyway.
Last edited by RememberMee; 09-23-2013 at 01:16 AM..
Racism? You sound like a real NPRish type, but common where you've found racism and sexism? Blacks and latino have larger out of wedlock birth rate, it's statistics, it's not racism.
Well, the GREAT thing about the Child Support Enforcement Agency is that they DON'T CARE what race the man is. If he owes money to kids that he refused to put on a condom for, then he WILL be paying for them.
It kills me how again, deadbeats are portrayed "victims" of the "man" for making him do what he's supposed to as a sperm donor.
Yeah, non-custodial parents are such victims of a child support system and single moms are rolling in the dough. All exceptions aside, children are expensive to raise, it's expensive to feed them and put a roof over their head.
New girlfriends and wives always complain about what trash the ex is, why date and marry men who apparently like sleeping with trash? Takes two to participate in such a farce, but there will always be the new girl who has to stand by her man! And then complains when he pulls the same thing on her
I love how women like you always turn it back around to the "new" wife or girlfriend. Like it's our fault that these women turned out to be trash, usually after announcing they were pregnant. It's really a shame there are far more women living on the entitlement system and teaching their kids to do the same, than those who use the system as a hand up not a hand out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
