Posted on 07/07/2006 9:59:07 AM PDT by jasoncann
Enforcers of the state's deadbeat parent laws are failing to use often enough one of most powerful tools in their box of incentives -- the threat of a loss of a driver's license, according to an audit released Thursday.
Under state law, any parent who is at least 56 days delinquent in his child support payments -- or who owes more than $500 in back child support -- can have his driver's license suspended.
But during a single two-month period, the state's Child Support Enforcement Division sent out warning letters to only 3 percent of the nearly 27,000 parents who were eligible to have their licenses suspended, according to the report from state Auditor Joseph DeNucci's office.
Delinquent parents in Massachusetts owe about $1.5 billion total in unpaid child support.
"License suspension should only be used as a last resort, because it could deprive a parent of the means of getting to work," DeNucci said in a statement. "However, there are many cases in which a warning can get the attention of a delinquent parent."
The Child Support Enforcement Division falls under the state Department of Revenue.
Department of Revenue spokesman Tim Connolly said that the threat of license suspension is "probably one of the most effective tools that the child support enforcement division has in collecting money." He said the division recently passed the $70 million mark for collections.
"We've doing more suspensions all the time," he said. "We do agree that we can improve it and make it better."
Connolly said a recent change in the system will automatically send out initial warning letters to delinquent parents once they pass a threshold.
Pesky debtors prison... always works so well.
Mostly these types of laws have been promulgated by man-hating bitter divorcees, lesbians and straight-hating gays. All of which are the majority in many parts of Mass.
>>>Mostly these types of laws have been promulgated by man-hating bitter divorcees, lesbians and straight-hating gays. All of which are the majority in many parts of Mass.>>>
Yeah, they had nothing to do with piece of crap 'fathers' who have children randomly, walk away and then choose to spend their money on new pieces of hiney (the new woman) while not supporting their children.
9 times out of 10, I believe this is the case.
Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person obtains money, behaviour, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to his person, reputation, or property.
don't forget about the professional moms -the ones that don't want to work so they get knocked up, have a kid and live off the child support.
There is a percentage of men who do exactly that. There are also a larger percentage of women who use support and the rates thereof as a weapon against the man that....I don't know....take your pick of lame a$$ excuses that SHE used to file for divorce. Women are not blameless here and the loss of drivers lisence is a profoundly dumb way to extort money as a transfer payment to a former spouse.
The result of this incredibly rigid law is to impose a punishment that makes it impossible for any but the very rich to get out from under a Bradley debt. Thousands of fathers are sentenced to debtors' prison (a medieval practice we thought abolished in the United States centuries ago), and thousands more have their drivers license confiscated (making it extraordinarily difficult to get a job).
There is no requirement that, if and when the Bradley debt is paid, the money be spent on the children, or that the debt be based on an estimate of the child's needs, or even that the so-called children actually be children (some states require the father to pay for college tuition). The Bradley debt is misnamed "child support"; it is a court-imposed judgment to punish men and extract money from them to support some mothers and a $3 billion federal and state bureaucracy.
Phyllis Schlafly
Monday, February 27, 2006
Is there a similar provision for custodial parents who withhold visitation?
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
Unfortunately not; there should be. Additionally, there should be a presumption of innocence when men are accused of child abuse in the context of support, custody and divorce proceedings. Or at least a penalty against the accusing party if the accusation proves false.
Any convicted drunk driver can tell you that you don't need a license to drive a car. Just like RAT politicians can tell you that you don't need to be a US citizen to vote.
However if you get caught driving without a license you will get doubly whacked. It's the same logic of having drug dealers pay taxes on the items they sell. Or requiring Prostitutes to pay taxes for the "work" they perform.
Among my friends one's wife got sucked into the lesbian honey pit. She, in short order, got the house, moved her carpet munching "partner" in, got so much "family support" ordered payments that my friend was reduced to renting a room in a university house (at $85,000 a year) all to support two kids, the ex, her lesbo girlfriend and other assorted hangers on.
Another friend knocked up a girl he was dating who swore she was on the pill, refused his offer of marraige, and sued him for support before the baby was born. Fair? I don't see how. Woman's unilateral choice, man's responsibility. This is the classic baby trap and happens all the time.
A third found out his wife was having an affair. When she confronted her she immediately claimed 'abuse' (falsely, I believe) and sued for divorce to get w/ her new man. Of course even though she and the new man were living together (in the house he bought) that had no bearing on his support payments. He too was reduced to near poverty (I'm talking here about 85% of take home pay sent to ex/ family).
He finally rebelled and quit his $100 K a year job, got a new job at a hardware store for mimimum wage and petitioned for an adjustment. The judge tried to 'force' him to get a better job, so he hired a shrink to say that he had suffered a breakdown that made him no longer able to do the type of detailed, stressful work that had made him a $100K a year income. Eventually the judge folded and his support was reduced to $50 a month.
These are first hand cases I know of with people I liked who were solid people and in most cases (maybe not the last one after a while) still loved the women who were wronging them.
Oh, c'mon, Jack. Don't you know we men are all scum? After all, that's what the MSM tells us 100 times a day.
ask any 'undocumented visitor' and they'll tell you don't need a license OR insurance...
The sarcastic legal resonse is:
If women were REALLY serious about choice and "equality" then a man would be able to CHOOSE to pay 1/2 the cost of an abortion and forgo ALL parental rights AND obligations "just because".
Imagine the sea change of social behavior if women really did have to face the very real legal potential of raising an unwanted pregnancy all alone. Would these professional mothers be so quick to have recreational sex if they knew a man LEGALLY could walk away forever?
then again I am being sarcastic........
>>>Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person obtains money, behaviour, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to his person, reputation, or property.>>>
So you believe that child support enforcement is 'exhortion'?
Ok, so let's just put all the women who can't collect child support on welfare. That ought to make you happy, right?
>>>There is a percentage of men who do exactly that. There are also a larger percentage of women who use support and the rates thereof as a weapon against the man that....I don't know....take your pick of lame a$$ excuses that SHE used to file for divorce. Women are not blameless here and the loss of drivers lisence is a profoundly dumb way to extort money as a transfer payment to a former spouse.>>>
The same exact rules that apply to WOMEN too.
Don't give me that crap about how the system is slanted to the women. If MEN would step up to the freaking plate and fight for joint custody, there would be no child support.
>>>>There is no requirement that, if and when the Bradley debt is paid, the money be spent on the children, or that the debt be based on an estimate of the child's needs, or even that the so-called children actually be children (some states require the father to pay for college tuition). The Bradley debt is misnamed "child support"; it is a court-imposed judgment to punish men and extract money from them to support some mothers and a $3 billion federal and state bureaucracy. >>>>
Riiiiggghhhtttt. Because we know that there are laws on the books in this country right now that state that ONLY MEN ARE REQUIRED to pay child support. Women are excluded from this practice, right?
Women are rarely prosecuted for failure to pay child support. Though the jails are full of men that have.
>>>These are first hand cases I know of with people I liked who were solid people and in most cases (maybe not the last one after a while) still loved the women who were wronging them.>>>
I can give just as many, if not more, of men who decided they wanted a new model wifey, traded their current in for the childless (ie:nonhassle) new bimbo and walked out without a second glance leaving the mother struggling to survive with THEIR children.
So we can give horror stories all day, doesn't change anything. And if your friends had any sense, they would have fought for joint custody. Or would that have been too inconvenient? I don't know many judges who won't give joint custody to both parents if they are petitioned to do so.
BS, men do not have the same rights in the courts as women do.
>>>I believe the tactics that are used are Extortion. As a conservative I would think that you would advocate personal responsibility on the woman's part as well, not just the man's.>>>
Of course there is personal responsibility on the women's part!! She should pay for half the support! But I don't think that child support is exhortion and find it ridiculous that you feel the woman should shoulder the support of all children.
>>>BS, men do not have the same rights in the courts as women do.>>>
I call BS on you. Get out of the 1980's.
>>>Well perhaps in your little bubble this is the case. However, your distorted point of view does not make it any less.>>>
How ironic you accuse me of being in a bubble...
Or the itch-bays who figured out that they could get a lot of money if they got the kids after abandoning them for 5 yrs and pretend to be all good and religious and then get over 50% of the exes GROSS pay.
>>>and find it ridiculous that you feel the woman should shoulder the support of all children.
Did I say that..?>>
Uhh, duh, yeah you did.
You want women to be held accountable for THEIR actions and not require men to pay for support for THEIR actions. So what do you suppose will happen if the court orders are not able to be enforced? The women will shoulder the entire support of their children.
>>>Yes, I am accusing you of living in a bubble.. Perhaps you should read the stories of Men committing suicide because of the severe punishments inflicted on them by the family courts, or perhaps read about the Men who can not qualify for food stamps even though the government has taken 80% of their salaries, or perhaps the stories where Men are only allowed to see their children for 3 days a month.. If this occurred to Women the nags would be screaming..>>>
And as I said Bubble Boy, I can post just as many 'horror stories' to the other end of the spectrum.
Men are currently getting the short end of the stick.
There's nothing quite like having the court order you to pay X dollars to the mother, and then watch her drink it because she refuses to work and has nothing else to do with her time.
ROFLOL!
Thanks for the best laugh of the day.
Hopefully, that is the case. My son will find out in September.
>>>I would rather be called bubble boy than an emotional liberal propagandist like you.>>>
I know you are but what am IIII?? *eye rolls* Sheesh
Jack, your three sob story scenarios are all about the adults.
Don't your "friends" give a damn about their kids???
It seems like all the woman bashers who pop up on these FR child support threads sing the same sad tune.
And barely a word about the children. Sad.
>>>Hopefully, that is the case. My son will find out in September.>>>
Good luck to your son!! If more men would PUSH FOR JOINT PHYSICAL custody the child support wouldn't even be an issue. Unfortunately, alot of men don't want to be bothered being a single parent. (not all, just alot)
Of course they did. The first case he saved his paltry left over earnings and sent his oldest to college. His youngest (now early 20s) lives with him. Both kids see it his way (daugher is 27) and now deeply resent mom for what she did to them / dad / self / family.
In case #2 I have not kept in touch with the guy, but he was committed to having a relationship with his newborn, but felt he had been used as a sperm doner against his will. Felt the girls mom was partially to blame.
Case #3, he cracked. I actually advised him that his tactics were hurting his kids. He knew it, but really was a broken man. He probably could not work in hi-tech anymore.
Ms Schlafly makes some interesting points in her piece that is worth reading. While women do pay child support, the court system has been contaminated with laws like the Bradly Debt law, and the Violence against Women act which can and have been used to bludgeon some unsuspecting fathers into relinquishing their parental rights.
Because we know that there are laws on the books in this country right now that state that ONLY MEN ARE REQUIRED to pay child support. Women are excluded from this practice, right?
Unfortunately it happens to be men who bear the brunt of specious attacks on them by vindictive former spouses. For whatever their failings (infidelity or general stupidity) there is a presumption of guilt with respect to men in the Violence against Women act that is clearly discriminatory and that women are in fact not subject to. An allegation is all that is necessary for restraining orders and there is no confrontation of the accuser possible under the VAWA provisions.
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.
I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.
My point is that men have no LEGAL "reproductive right" that is INDEPENDENT of a woman's choice, wheras women have options that can be and are exercised independently of a man's wishes. Note that this feminine reproductive veto extends to nullification of the man's wishes whether the man wants the child or not, whether in or out of marriage. While I am acutely aware that this is in large part due to the uniqueness of the reproductive process, this nevertheless leaves the man without any independent ability to influence the woman legally.
I am not even necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, but I do find it curious that we often behave as though the only party affected by the birth of a child is the woman, and to prevent a negative influence on the course of her life we must preserve her right to kill her unborn child. If unmarried, she can "choose" to keep the child and can enlist the support of the state to forcibly take money from the sperm donor against his will. And if he wants the child, then he must yield to her choice to abort.
The common response to the man is that you should have been more careful in your choice of partner, or you should have kept your trousers zipped up. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman "chooses" to give him.
Again, I think that BOTH parties should allow a normal pregnancy to take it's course, and come to a mutually agreed upon resolution. But if we insist upon a regime where a "reproductive right" is allowed for only half of the human race, than I think that men should have some LEGAL option to influence the woman's "choice" in either direction, rather than act as though this isn't a significant life altering event for them as well. The one option that I would absolutely forbid, of course is a forced abortion. Consider paternal veto for unmarried men or presumptive divorce grounds for a married man whose wife "chooses" against his wishes.
Having said all this, I do think it unlikely to happen. Men are legally held to the strictest of standard of responsibility where conception is concerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.