Posted on 06/16/2010 8:59:20 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Where does the Constitution say that? Or is it in one of the penumbras?
free access to the courts? good luck!
ever check out the courts hours? they start later than the typical work day begins, and ends earlier- makes it really hard for those of us that WORK to get in touch with anyone.
heck, my worker only accepts calls one day a week, for three hours in the afternoon. i’ve never been able to get in touch with her- even when i take time off or take a late lunch. the ex.. they talk weekly.
“Here’s a clue ladies, if you want your child’s father involved in your child’s life and paying for that child, perhaps you should be a bit more discerning in selecting the men you bed.”
Worth repeating.
Good men are out there. But most women would rather opt for the bad boy because they are the easy ones, only finding out that the bad boy didn’t get his reputation for nothing.
And the woman is ALWAYS going to be THE one to change him. /s
That wasnt your point at all. Your post made no mention of them being deadbeats. But I guess if you find men who lost their jobs and cant pay support low-lifes, it says more about you than it does about anyone else.
You said the overwhelming % of deadbeat parents were fathers. I said you are using the wrong statistics.
Imagine there are 1,000 fathers who owe child support, and 10% dont pay. That is 100 non-payers.
Now, imagine there are only 50 mothers who owe child support, and 10% dont pay. That is 5 non-payers.
Both populations have 10 percent not paying, but if you take non-paying fathers as a percentage of total non-payers, then it looks like 95.2% of non-payers are fathers. That is just due to the fathers who owe sample size being much larger, nothing to do with gender.
In fact, if 100% of the women in the above did not pay, and 10% of the men did not pay, the fathers would still be 66% of the non-payers.
The only thing Im pointing out is your lack of a grasp of statistical analysis, sorry if that hits one of your nerves :)
Exactly. Why can’t they just reduce the arrears to judgment and get a judgment lien, a writ of execution, and/or wage garnishment - the same tools you use to collect on any other court-ordered payment of money.
But no - the “deadbeat dads” issue is one of those legal issues where reason always seems to take a back seat to emotion. The existence of specialized child support courts only exacerbates this.
You’re telling me what my point was? That’s rich. Deadbeat dads (and no, I am not one nor was my father) are low lifes, regardless of the marital drama. If the shoe fits wear it.
Yet another good reason NOT to get married. Remember, nobody has ever gotten divorced without first getting married.
So, essentially their approach to debt collection is to hold the man hostage in order to extort money from their families.
______________________________________________
Hey, it works. See post 55
(Not saying I like or don’t like, mind you....)
Remember, nobody has ever gotten divorced without first getting married.
_____________________________________
I know what you mean, but remember also, getting married is not a prerequisite to having kids.
Plenty of nimrods in family courts are fighting support and custody battles, yet they never said their vows.
Im telling you that the point you made is not the point you think you made. You did not say that anywhere in your post, only some half assed statistic.
But good job in completely ignoring what I wrote and not responding to a point that is based in fact. Have fun being a reactional emotional progressive who fudges statistics to make yourself feel better.
I’m sure it does work - though the numbers in the chart suggest that it isn’t really any more effective at collecting money than not putting them in jail.
It’s probably more emotionally satisfying to the judge, the other spouse, and some members of the voting public, though, and I suspect that’s the point.
It’s a “penumbra” under Equal Protection from a SCOTUS case in 1970 I think - forget the name of the case. But it’s a pretty well reasoned one with a lot of support in our founding docs.
The X insisted that the divorce agreement include the saving of 2% of our incomes for college expenses. When the time was close (a few years ago) her sugar-daddy had just been wiped out in the stock market but, to her credit, she managed to come up with her share. So long as she was close I wasn’t going to make it ugly, despite her having done so in the past over relatively trivial matters.
I had well over the required amount.
Like I said, she has nothing over me anymore. She took me to mediation 3 times (I won twice) and she is welcome to try again. I’d enjoy it.
The system is out of balance - it’s favoring women over men - that’s not good for anyone.
You hit the nail on the head!
That's another part of the issue. Courts and lawyers look at it as a money-making proposition and claim that it's "for the children". The amount they skim off the top to cover their bureaucracy can be astounding.
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.