Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jailed for Nonpayment of Child Support - But it's Not His Child
Townhall.com ^ | March 25, 2013 | Rachel Alexander

Posted on 03/25/2013 11:45:40 AM PDT by Kaslin

The feminists have ratcheted up the laws against men to such an outrageous level that paternity fraud is not just ignored, but routinely rubber stamped by the courts. Whether one agrees with the concept of child support or not, virtually everyone can agree that jailing men for child support over children who are not theirs is morally wrong. Men are routinely sent to jail for falling behind on paying child support, even though debtors' prisons in the U.S. were mostly eliminated in the mid-nineteenth century.

The family courts and laws are set up in such a way that makes it very easy for a mother to collect child support, and very difficult for a man to avoid it. If a couple was married, the default law is that the man will be required to pay child support for any child born while they were married. In order for a man who isn't the father to escape this outcome, he must obtain a paternity test and take a series of legal steps in court. Most states only allow a short window of time for a man to do this. If a man is not aware of the child, which he may not be if his wife or former wife doesn't notify him of the child right away, he loses all chance to fight the child support, and will be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars for the next 18 years until the child becomes an adult.

Courts routinely order these judgments even if the man is unaware what is going on. A March 2003 Urban Institute study commissioned by the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) found that "most noncustodial parents appear to be served by 'substitute' service, rather than personal service, which suggests that noncustodial parents may not know that they have been served."

Judges and prosecutors are fully aware of the DNA tests exonerating these men, but still rule against them. They hold men to super high technical standards that are not equally applied against women. Women can make all kinds of mistakes in court obtaining child support, and the courts will look the other way or help them. Men are not treated equally. Many fathers who find themselves in this situation are not wealthy, connected, or familiar with the law. I am an attorney and still have a difficult time figuring out how to file things correctly in family court.

An honest woman would never force a man to give her money for a child that was not his, but the family law system has been set up by feminists to punish men and make women feel good about taking child support from them.

Leigh Adelmann, a father of four from Arizona, remarried a few years ago. His second wife was three months pregnant. After being briefly married, his second wife moved out, telling him she needed space to think. She moved back in when she was eight months pregnant and had the baby. After giving birth, she left again, and filed for divorce three years later. The entire time, Leigh thought the child was his. She listed him as the father on the birth certificate. In 2010, she confessed to Leigh that the child was not his. She moved to Missouri and obtained an order for monthly child support of $910 from Leigh.

Leigh's first ex-wife, who makes a six-figure income and is remarried, insisted on receiving $2,000 each month in child support for their children, even though they both share custody of their children. Default child support orders assume that fathers are working full-time at minimum wage pay level or above. In reality, state audits reveal that 80 percent of default dads don't even make that. Leigh is a self-employed contractor in the construction business, and when the economy went sour, he got behind on child support to the two women. By the time all the child support and arrears had amassed last year, he was required to pay $4,800 monthly in child support to the two women. The absurdity of this can be seen when contrasted with the average income in Arizona, which is only $2,140 per month.

On October 25, 2012, Leigh was arrested for a warrant out of Missouri for failure to pay child support, and extradited by law enforcement to a jail in Missouri. His second ex-wife had applied for welfare in Missouri, and in return the state issued warrants for Leigh and her first ex-husband, who was also behind in child support. This was strange since it is virtually unheard of for a state to extradite anyone but the most violent criminals from other states. Usually a perpetrator must have committed a serious felony for a state to spend all the money to transport and house him. Even more bizarre was that both the courts and prosecutors in Missouri and Arizona were well aware that the child was not Leigh's, because I filed briefs on his behalf in both courts and informed them. Leigh recently found from the Arizona court that it is too late for him to dispute paternity.

After three months in the Missouri jail, Leigh was released. He is trying desperately to keep up with the child support payments (and last week was able to get the child support order to his first ex-wife reduced), but is terrified he will not be able to keep up and the Missouri court will throw him back in jail. His friends set up a website to raise money for Leigh's legal defense at freeleigh.weebly.com.

It is astonishing that women can force child support from their innocent ex-husbands without a conscience. Those children will suffer emotional damage growing up knowing they've been used as a tool of revenge to hurt someone. It risks giving sons a low view of women, possibly turning them into women-hating misogynists. Leigh's ex-wife could easily remove his name from the birth certificate and end all of this.

One childless friend of mine did not find out from his ex-wife until a year after her child was born that she was pregnant. By then, it was too late to object to child support in court. He was required to pay child support until the child had grown up, even though he had no interaction with her.

Brandon Parsons, a Marine who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, is forced to pay one-third of his salary to his ex-wife for another man's child. The court refused to reconsider the order because Brandon did not file the paternity legal pleadings with the court until two years after the child was born.

Even if the courts rule in a man's favor, the state may still come after him for unpaid child support. A court in Maine ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that was not his. However, the state revoked his driver's license and came after him for $11,450 in child support. When a man gets behind in child support, the state may cut off any of his licenses, including any professional licenses he may need to earn a living like teaching credentials and state bar memberships.

The tide is slowly turning in some places. Some states have passed paternity fraud legislation, although most of the laws are too weak to make much of a difference. In 2004, the California Court of Appeals ruled in County of Los Angeles v. Navarro that a six month statute of limitations did not apply to set aside an old default judgment against a paternity fraud victim. Some fathers are obtaining justice by suing for damages, instead of trying to retroactively modify paternity and child support. In Tennessee, a court awarded damages in Hodge v. Craig to a man equal to the child support he'd paid over the past 15 years, under the common law remedy of intentional misrepresentation. Richard Rodwell, a British man whose wife fooled him into thinking children she had through affairs were his, was awarded $40,000 in damages in February from a lawsuit he filed against her.

These were the few fortunate men who had the resources to fight the system. In order to try and achieve justice, it requires a lot of money, time and perseverance by paternity fraud victims to maneuver the complex court system which is biased towards mothers. This situation can be fixed by holding the biological father responsible for child support, not the innocent man dragged into this by a greedy and ruthless ex-wife. Right now women are not prosecuted for paternity fraud. They should be, because it would stop a lot of the bad behavior.

It is brutally unfair as well as sexist towards men, that a mother can decide she does not want a child, and abort the child or place it after being born at a fire station, deserting the child with no consequences. She will never be required to pay child support. A man does not have that option. He cannot even stop the child from being aborted. It takes two people to have sex. Both should be treated equally under the law, instead of forcing men to act as a welfare system for women.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: acultureoflife; childsupport; communistgoals; culturewar; feminazism; judgesandcourts; savethemales; shakedownracket; smashmonogamy; smashthepatriarchy; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

1 posted on 03/25/2013 11:45:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Billie Jean is not my lover
She's just a girl who claims that I am the one
But the kid is not my son
She says I am the one, but the kid is not my son

2 posted on 03/25/2013 11:51:16 AM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“fooled him into thinking children she had through affairs were his, was awarded $40,000 in damages in February from a lawsuit he filed against her.”

Anyone care to guess what he will garner from her? Zero is already taken by me.


3 posted on 03/25/2013 11:51:42 AM PDT by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

I’ll take $0.01, trying for second place.


4 posted on 03/25/2013 11:52:37 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
For forty days and forty nights
The law was on her side
But who can stand when she's in demand
Her schemes and plans
'Cause we danced on the floor in the round
So take my strong advice, just remember to always think twice
(Do think twice)

5 posted on 03/25/2013 11:52:47 AM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Disgusting and frightening. I was raised by a woman and around a bunch of men haters. If anything, I’ve gone through life scared of women. Even with my newlywed wife, I’m afraid to have children but not because she might take me for a ride in the courts but because of what I went through as a child of a single mother.


6 posted on 03/25/2013 11:53:10 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Can’t this type of injustice be taken up to the Supreme Court level???

I mean, if the Supreme Court can take on a case relative to whether you can say the word “God” in school, surely there has to be grounds to take a case where the state can deprive of your ‘liberty’ on account of someone else’s child.


7 posted on 03/25/2013 11:58:02 AM PDT by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Thanks to what the favored political/regulator constituents brought to us during ‘80s and ‘90s. The great part of the default process is coming, and so are the consequences of such policies. Have fun. Enjoy the slide.


8 posted on 03/25/2013 11:59:47 AM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; stephenjohnbanker; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Gilbo_3; Impy; NFHale; BillyBoy; ...
I been posting about these for years , and warning for decades, this is an evil system that discourages marriage and encourages divorces, all under the guise of supporting the children.

I have seen two father's lives ruined by this, where the mom/wife basically ran out of state with the kids (far away) then sued in family court and won child support AND back child support. In both cases the men didnt put up much of a real fight because they thought it was for their kids. After their lives were ruined they understood too late.

Understand, while child support was sold and defended as being the kids (watch Judge Judy), legally it is solely the Mother's money to do whatever she wishes with it just like alimony used to be.
If it means buy her new boyfriend presents or supporting him with it, then that is perfectly legal. There is no requirements on her on how the money is spent. (as long as social services is not seeing an abuse problem)

Its 100% one sided.
Get joint custody if you can, assuming she didnt flee with the kids.

9 posted on 03/25/2013 12:01:01 PM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Nancy Lanza received $240,000 per year in alimony from her ex and was scheduled over the course of a few more years to get nearly $300,000.


10 posted on 03/25/2013 12:01:36 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I frequently see people defend state sanctioned marriage (as opposed to or in parallel with church based marriage) on the basis that children need to be protected.

Well 80% of children are born outside of marriage anyway and the state is very efficient in seeing two people are tethered financially to a child. So seems to me no good reason to have state sanctioned marriage.


11 posted on 03/25/2013 12:02:51 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA

First off, the case would need to be heard at the appelate level and then be accepted by the SC...not going to happen simply because everyone knows the outcome to the question of whom is the father? “I don’t know.” So you see, it would be unfair to the tart to have to raise a child alone without someone paying and they already have one doing just that.

There really is no just way to handle these situations I guess, what would be just to the non father would be an injustice to a child and visa versa. Of course the dad could be awarded custody and the lady ordered to pay child support but what non father would want to do that i.e. raise someone else’s kid?


12 posted on 03/25/2013 12:03:37 PM PDT by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DManA

80% = Large fraction (not an exact number)


13 posted on 03/25/2013 12:03:42 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

>>> was awarded $40,000 in damages in February from a lawsuit he filed against her

The picture is dangerously wrong in this one sentence.

The justice system is not set up to right OTHER wrongs.


14 posted on 03/25/2013 12:03:43 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
been there, done that, got the t-shirt...

like the mob too, in that its easy to get in, but near impossible to get out, even after jumpin thru all the hoops, as no part of the beauracracy knows or expects whats going on around the others in counties/state...

surprising we dont have lots of county attornys and judges getting smoked on a daily basis...

15 posted on 03/25/2013 12:05:47 PM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

Kudos to Rachel Alexander for having the courage to write about the single largest income redistribution scheme ever devised by (wo)man.


16 posted on 03/25/2013 12:06:30 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

I think the current number is about 50%, much higher among minorities.


17 posted on 03/25/2013 12:11:04 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (What word begins with "O" and ends in economic collapse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The militant raging man-hating feminazis have the politicians on their side. They politicians are deathly afraid of feminazis.


18 posted on 03/25/2013 12:12:00 PM PDT by I want the USA back (Pi$$ed off yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“An honest woman would never force a man to give her money for a child that was not his, but the family law system has been set up by feminists to punish men and make women feel good about taking child support from them.”

And some wonder why men are declining to ever get married.


19 posted on 03/25/2013 12:16:09 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (I’m not a Republican, I’m a conservative! Pubbies haven't been conservative since before T.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

and a woman that can figure out how to buck the system can make SERIOUS bank.


20 posted on 03/25/2013 12:16:45 PM PDT by absolootezer0 (2x divorced tattooed pierced harley hatin meghan mccain luvin' REAL beer drinkin' smoker ..what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DManA

It’s 73% in the black community.


21 posted on 03/25/2013 12:19:22 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (I’m not a Republican, I’m a conservative! Pubbies haven't been conservative since before T.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Two words: postnuptial agreement. Of course, since you are already married, this may require some couples counseling.


22 posted on 03/25/2013 12:19:41 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (Liberalism: knowing you're better than everyone else because of your humility. -- Daniel Greenfield)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Hardly News. I had to check the date of the article to see if it was 2013, 2003 or even 1993.

This has been happening for years.


23 posted on 03/25/2013 12:21:33 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I blame the men. Women are more sexually active now there’s no assurance they’ll be faithful men know this. Why sign a birth certificate first before getting a dna test.
Trust but verify.


24 posted on 03/25/2013 12:26:54 PM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0
RE :”and a woman that can figure out how to buck the system can make SERIOUS bank.”

she doesn't have to buck it, just meet a man with $$$ and tell him her doctor said she is incapable of conception. (can claim she had a hysterectomy). Then she announces a miracle has taken place, she will be a mom again. Her prayers have been answered. Then she goes to family court again to get her 21 year award $$$$$ for sleeping around.

Then find another, and another. family values..

25 posted on 03/25/2013 12:30:41 PM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DManA

One might come to such a foolish understanding based on the disastrous results of divorce.

But looking at the overall economic and societal benefits of marriage - we can only agree that state-sponsored marriage is the only way to go.

You want to end welfare in one generation? Require all welfare recipients to be married.

You want to end poverty and ignorance in America? Extend tax BREAKS not penalties to married couples.

You want to gut and put an end to divorce courts that are churning out millions of children from broken homes who have half the advantages of normal children? Slap a big tax/penalty on divorce.

You want a hundred more reasons why the government should favor marriage? I got ‘em.


26 posted on 03/25/2013 12:31:24 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

That and FALSE ARREST.

I was arrested after my ex accused me of hitting her- THANK GOD I was able to prove I was not even home at the time (I was actually in my attorney’s office, on the phone with the judge setting up a court date- there was no question in his mind I was inocent)

But that was a pre-trial judge- when we went before the real judge she CONTINUED to use the fact that I was arrested but she “dropped the charges to be nice”

I was forced to file charges against her so I could get my day in court to prove my innocence- but the prosecutre at first refused to prosecute because “You’re just doing this to get back at her”

I demanded that he prosecute and had the foresight to contact an attorney and told him I would be in court filing a ‘writ of mandamus’ the minute I walked out his door if he didn’t.

End result? They postponed the trial for one month, and the NEXT WEEK when I was not even present they offerred her a 6 month ACD (adjournment contemplating dismissal) if she didnt do it again for 6 months.

I was FURIOUS. I lost my job and was forced out of my $300,000 home that had to be sold at foreclosure... She cost me $100,000 as certainly as if she had taken it from my bank account- and NOTHING happened to her.

After she was killed in a car accident (I swear I was home with the kids!) I found websites on her computer DEDICATED to framing men during a divorce. One title page was “So, now he’s in jail- what next?”

And then women wonder why men are afraid to marry now?
Just find a woman you hate and buy her a house- you will be better off.


27 posted on 03/25/2013 12:31:26 PM PDT by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Charlie Sheen once said, “I don’t pay them to come over and have sex with me. I pay them to leave when they are done.”

No sex before marriage. It’s just not a luxury most people can afford anymore.


28 posted on 03/25/2013 12:38:49 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I disagree. Religious marriage means something to people and results in all the benefits you mention.

State sanctioned mariage is next to meaningless to most people.


29 posted on 03/25/2013 12:45:14 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This story sounds bogus to me. No way any court would force someone to support someone not related to or adopted by him.


30 posted on 03/25/2013 12:46:34 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

When a kid is born, spend a few extra bucks to get a dna test done. Trust but verify.

For instance, my business partner found out just before his dad died that his brother and sister were children of another man by his cheating mother.


31 posted on 03/25/2013 12:47:03 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
No way any court would force someone to support someone not related to or adopted by him.

Don't go into a courtroom looking for justice - all you will find there is the law.

32 posted on 03/25/2013 12:50:35 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
Now Jack, how is the poor girl supposed to know whose kid it is, exactly? Lotsa possibles out there, my man.

The way it works is that if the kid is born within 9 or 10 months since the break-up between Sheila and Brian, the law's first guess is that the kid is Brian's. They WERE married, you see? Further confusing the situation, is the occasional "be-back" Brian succumbed to at the warm invite of Sheila. ("Now why would she do that," you ask?)

Of course, all of this was legally decided long before DNA and such. So, Brian now has to scientifically prove that said progeny is someone else's problem. This may, or may not, convince the court because since then, Brian has been tagged with "domestic violence," "sexual abuse of a minor child," "Littering, Treason, and Lèse Majesté" and a host of lesser charges which seem to endlessly spring to the lips of lesbolawyers.

The default position of society? Well, Leroy, Daunté, and Shaquil have your answer. Have 30 forty children by 20-30 different women and let the courts and the welfare department handle the whole thing. O yeah, don't forget to register and vote early, often, and wherever you're told.

33 posted on 03/25/2013 12:53:51 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (The Obama Molecule: Teflon binds with Melanin = No Criminal Charges Stick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

i meant all the ways she can use the system to get “free” money on top of child support. food stamps, WIC, housing assitance, cash assitance, heating credits, EIC, SSI, medicare, free day care, working for cash..
another good scam is to get multiple fathers.. tell one if he pays cash right to her, she won’t have the state come after him. then she can get more from having the state go after a different guy for a different kid..


34 posted on 03/25/2013 12:54:29 PM PDT by absolootezer0 (2x divorced tattooed pierced harley hatin meghan mccain luvin' REAL beer drinkin' smoker ..what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DManA

State sanctioned mariage is next to meaningless to most people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think we should try it. You want welfare? You want your Earned Income Tax Credits? Then show me your marriage license.

Instead of rewarding the providers (married folks), we punish them as we reward the takers (divorced or never married with children)

Does this make sense to you?


35 posted on 03/25/2013 12:55:37 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

Boy are you naive. This has happened to thousands of men.


36 posted on 03/25/2013 12:57:30 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RginTN
I blame the men.

Well, there's a shock.

Women are more sexually active now there’s no assurance they’ll be faithful men know this. Why sign a birth certificate first before getting a dna test.

This is exactly the kind of twisted rationalization for failing to hold women accountable for their own behavior that makes reasonable people regret having given women the vote. Also, I don't believe that the birth certificate needs to be "signed" by the man. The mother needs only to name the father, and the man has the burden of proof put on him to prove he isn't the father, and he only has a small window of time to do that.
37 posted on 03/25/2013 12:58:00 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why should a man be punished with a baby for 18 years? Doesn’t he have the SAME choice as a woman? Doesn’t the woman have a CHOICE in her partner(s)?

Oh to be empowered. Meanwhile as a single man with no kids, I still have to jump through hoops at the DMV to “prove” that I do not owe any back child support in order to procure/renew a driver’s license.

Guilty first, prove your innocence.


38 posted on 03/25/2013 12:58:08 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Please understand the law here in NY:

If a man has sex with a woman, she is entitled to half of his assets, and also half of his earnings for the rest of his life.


39 posted on 03/25/2013 12:58:43 PM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

No. Not in the least. You cannot manipulate people’s hearts with tax benefits.


40 posted on 03/25/2013 1:01:43 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

How do you prove a negative to the DMV?


41 posted on 03/25/2013 1:03:13 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA

It is all based on the “best interests of the child”. They could care less if it is the man’s or not. I know!!

It should be nationwide, a DNA test for ALL births. It should be that any beeotch that tricks a male should be fined into poverty, and sterilized. Period!!


42 posted on 03/25/2013 1:04:30 PM PDT by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

On the other side of this is a friend of mine in Fresno, CA who is in the middle of a divorce from her husband of 26 years. She has three kids with him (16, 13, and 11) and over the years she and the kids have lived in near-poverty. There’s always been questions of food on the table and she’s had to borrow money from her parents to pay bills and buy clothes for the kids.

Her husband works in sales and has always told her no end of hard-luck stories about why he could not make more money to help out at home. He also filed the taxes on his own all that time because she was a stay-at-home mom and dodn’t need to sign the tax returns.

Now her attorney pulled all of his bank records and found that he’s been making over $300,000 a year! He also has money salted away offshore!

It’s guys like this who caused the current system to work the way it does.


43 posted on 03/25/2013 1:08:59 PM PDT by MeganC (The left have so twisted public perceptions that the truth now appears pornographic.- SpaceBar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DManA

I guess they have a list. But as a man in the state of Texas, I have been required to present a Social Security CARD (not just the number) to obtain a state issued driver’s license and that is the reason cited.

If you ARE a deadbeat dad, you are to be prohibited from obtaining a license until you are settled up.

Nothing about DRIVING requires a socialist insecurity account.


44 posted on 03/25/2013 1:09:31 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DManA

You cannot manipulate people’s hearts with tax benefits.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’m not interested in their hearts. It’s the POCKETBOOK that matters.

If 50 million fools can vote for Obama and the free phones and the free EBT cards and the free Obamacare and all the other crap the lying crap-king promises them, then why can’t the Republicans (who are supposed to be conservative) promise to end welfare, cut the budget, end wasteful spending, increase educational standards, lower the deficit, create new jobs and lower taxes.

How is this possible? Simple. Healthy traditional marriages. Support that. Endorse that. And in one generation - America will be the greatest nation on earth again.

Trouble is - there are no politicians anywhere that have the brains and the nads necessary to do this.


45 posted on 03/25/2013 1:11:12 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’m in general agreement with the commentary, but there are exceptional situations. In the 1980s, a friend of mine was raped and bore the rapist’s child. The rapist was not prosecuted. Her husband was in prison all the while, knew what had happened, was supportive at first, but eventually he wanted to divorce, and for grounds he used adultery, and cited the child as proof. He was on the birth certificate as the father. He was outraged that he’d have to pay child support when he got out of prison, and mean enough to disgrace an innocent woman with false charges.

As it turned out he never had to pay support, and neither did the rapist. They both died young, in the same year. Child grew up sane and normal in spite of it all.


46 posted on 03/25/2013 1:16:33 PM PDT by HomeAtLast ( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

You are thinking logically. This has actually happened several times that I know of so probably quite often. Once the “dad” has been paying child support and it is later determined he is not the biological father, the courts don’t care. He is required to keep paying. Doesn’t sound fair and it isn’t, but it happens.

DNA tests should be required of every “father” before his name is put on the birth certificate, married or not.


47 posted on 03/25/2013 1:19:49 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

And in Texas, if you are DEAD and no longer paying child support, you are officially entered into the “deadbeat dad” rolls and become an addition to the statistics that show how gawd-awful men are when it comes to meeting their responsibilities.

True.

My brother wrote his PhD dissertation on this very subject—enraged the feminazi mutants at Texas Women’s University, enraged them so much, they actually held on-campus protests against my brother, demanding he be denied his PhD because of his study.


48 posted on 03/25/2013 1:41:30 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
...But it's Not His Child

Was it caught in his trap?

49 posted on 03/25/2013 1:55:31 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
An honest woman would never force a man to give her money for a child that was not his, but the family law system has been set up by feminists to punish men and make women feel good about taking child support from them.

The screwin' ya get;
for the screwin' you got.

50 posted on 03/25/2013 1:57:01 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson