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

Skip to comments.

Man Dying of Child Support Enforcement
Mens News Daily ^ | May 30, 2003 | Roger F. Gay

Posted on 05/31/2003 2:42:54 PM PDT by sourcery

The child support enforcement program is a disease that has probably caused more suffering and death than any other government program. It was introduced by Congress in 1975 and has been engineered into a weapon of mass destruction in the years since. Despite sound evidence of destructive economic, social, and political effects and repeated cases of suicide linked to insufferable conditions created by current practices, politicians and administrative representatives continue to satisfy themselves with less than convincing denials, a few false and misleading statistics, and the claim that "it's for the children."

Various protests have generally been ignored, even when they are so serious as to cause harm to protesters. Potential danger lies in a particular form of protest: the hunger strike. The problems with child support enforcement, which were internationalized during the 1990s, have been met with occasional hunger strikes in several countries. Daniel Chang, a Chinese immigrant, has been the most recent to stage a hunger strike in the United States. His strike began on May 15th in Piscataway, New Jersey. Dr. Chang holds a Ph.D. in computer science and has a professional job. Despite federal involvement based on a pre-existing federal involvement in welfare, this case has nothing to do with the public welfare system.

The federal child support enforcement program is not for the children of course. The money spent on children is just as green whether paid under state rules or through a federal program. The incentive is the billions of dollars that Congress spends each year to keep people interested. States receive "incentive funds" in proportion to the amount of child support collected. In order to maximize the amount of funds they receive, states enrolled as many men as they could and arbitrarily increased the amount they were ordered to pay. All payments are counted as "collections." Everybody in government understands the scheme. It's pork. It's a brand of corruption older than government itself. A prospective enemy was demonized ("dads"), and people were called to arms against them; pledging their money and loyalty to the cause.

My early introduction to the child support enforcement system included a case in which a chiropractor had been involved in a serious auto-accident that resulted in brain damage. He was unable to continue his practice, and his savings was eaten up by medical bills. The state enforcement agency echoed the prevailing political sentiment ? "There is no excuse for not paying child support," and began confiscating social security benefits in an effort to satisfy the very high payments that had been set in light of his previously high income. The crippled man was left without sufficient income to pay for rent and food, and certainly without sufficient funds to pay a lawyer to attempt to straighten things out.

The reason for such harsh measures is the federal funding system. States receive money in proportion to the amount of child support "collected." Taking away social security benefits may have been worth $10 a month to the state; a little bit toward paying the salary of the collection agent who was robbing him of his sustenance.

This is the system that Dr. Chang is fighting. It isn't about reducing welfare expenditure. The money he owed is for support of his daughter from his first marriage. She is now 20 years old (an adult) and studying pharmacy at Rutgers University. He also has a 12 year old daughter from his second marriage. A well-paid professional, the austerity of his home and lifestyle is testimony to payment levels that are out of proportion to caring for children. Someone in his economic position would normally be able to raise two children in reasonably good style.

That judges have become beneficiaries in the enforcement scheme, pay linked to outcome, is a direct attack on judicial independence and therefore our Constitution ? in effect, an attack against the United States. American colonists raised this same issue in the Declaration of Independence; complaining about the King of Great Britain and his manipulations of democracy and the rule of law. "He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

Dr. Chang has only protested once before. In June, 1989 he marched with others in New York City to protest the killing of peaceful protesting students and others by the Chinese government. The only pattern seems to be a loathing of government oppression. And this time it's personal. He has been jailed three times (once for 108 days) and has no drivers license due to child support debt. This represents two of the practices fathers so often complain about. Atop arbitrary, unjustifiably high child support orders, often the reason for debt to begin with, spending time in jail and being unable to drive make earning an income to pay child support (and support oneself) ever so much harder. The alleged success of such practices is really a few instances in which friends and family, who do not owe child support, have pitched in to pay debts. That led at least one judge to claim that the practices worked for him. By and large, the expanded practice has left tens of thousands of fathers without licenses and an untold number with unlimited jail time; often until debt is paid, with no way to pay the debt while in jail.

Dr. Chang's experience is one that has been repeated many times across the country over the past fifteen years. Sheriff's deputies literally kicked in the door to his apartment and arrested him at gunpoint - weeks after he had made necessary payments. Employees at the Middlesex County Child Support Department had refused to help weeks earlier after his employer had missed a child support payment and miscalculated another. His employer is charged with making payments after deducting them from his pay, a common practice since the early 1990s. Dr. Chang points out that his employer is generally cooperative with the agency, but had made errors after an end-of-year payroll conversion. He contacted the child support agency and sent the money himself, but that didn't stop the violent enforcement action weeks later.

Give me liberty, or give me death! Or as Dr. Chang puts it: "It is better to die once than live a thousand humiliations." Isn't this just the sort of thing that led to the American Revolution? Is it the kind of government behavior that led to student protests in Tienanmen Square? It's probably deeper than that.

The assault on a man's life typically begins with a mother who decides to "liberate" herself from marriage, simply dealing a father out of his own personal and family life. The process is exceptionally easy. The government has been dedicated to helping women "liberate" themselves from marriage for decades. Once extricated, women often move on to new relationships, taking his children, a portion of his property and future income with them. The engineering of a new life quite often involves keeping the old one (the ex-husband) at an extreme distance, totally disengaged from his own children.

The process and its effects involve the deepest emotions there are. But to that we have now added a government operation designed by people who are using the situation to steal. They're stealing money from these very same fathers, often making mere existence difficult. They are doing it in order to steal money from taxpayers who are paying for the system in proportion to the amount of money taken from fathers. Finally, as if that isn't enough, they're stealing freedom and even life.

Dr. Chang hopes to force a conclusion to his ordeal within one month of the start of his protest. If he can, he will eat again and return to work. He has two weeks vacation and has arranged for a two week extension. This defines his goal of ? in effect ? winning an argument within a month. His water and salt diet is dangerous, especially if it continues for long. Several people have met with him, and have encouraged him to stay alive. When he began his strike on May 15th, he weighed 166 pounds. When I last received an email message from him, May 28th, his weight was 16 pounds less - 150 pounds.

Dr. Chang has vowed to continue until his demands are met. They are as follows (in his own words).

1. I do not owe any money to ex-wife Yee-Sang Yen. 2. If I have a job, fair monthly support money will be sent to the child, Olivia Chang, directly without going through any child support department. 3. The Middlesex Child Support Department repairs the damage it caused to my credit, and informs the Motor Vehicle Services to erase all my driving suspensions and restore my driving privilege immediately. 4. The Middlesex Child Support Department reimburses me the following: $282 for restoring my driving licenses, the cost of repairing the door damaged by the sheriffs, $280 taken from my wallet, $20 for getting from the Middlesex County Court to home.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: fatherhood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-277 next last
Dr. Chang's web site
1 posted on 05/31/2003 2:42:54 PM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sourcery
This tactic has always struck me as being extraordinarily immature. If you don't want to support them, don't make them!

"Lower than manhood are these: To rut with a woman when he already has a wife, and to abandon the children of his body." --Orson Scott Card
2 posted on 05/31/2003 2:50:03 PM PDT by ChemistCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
I just wrote this on another thread.....
On News/Activism 05/31/2003 10:38 AM PDT #24 of 25

I hear the girls who get pregnant get that way from men in their early twenties.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And you know, this is just another sticking point with me. People need to choose carefully who we marry. If a man is boring or mean before you married him, he is going to be after as well. So many women my age, (late 30's early 40's) ditch these men, rape them for child support and go on to a happy little life while the kids have to kiss daddy goodbye.
Girls with good daddies have less of a chance of teen sex than those that don't. Stupid women, look at who you are marrying. If you don't like him before the wedding, you'll hate him in 5 years. No one changes, you didn't. If you find yourself in a boring marriage, wait until your daughter is out of school then divorce. I understand if your hubby is beating you but if he was a player before, he'll be a player later. Understand that once you have given birth to those children, you are in it for the long haul. You may be divorcing a man you no longer like, but those kids love him. No other man will take his place.
/rant off/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, this man made two babies in two different marriages but anymore I see more women throwing away their husbands. Too boring, too cheap, spends too much money, whatever. They can do this because they can get child support sooo easily.
There are deadbeat dads but there are deadbeat moms to. We rarely hear about them.
People please THINK before you procreate.
/rant off again?
3 posted on 05/31/2003 3:00:33 PM PDT by netmilsmom (God Bless our President, those with him & our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
Fathering a child certainly creates a responsibility--but morally speaking, it is not not unlimited. The issue here is whether or not the amount of support set by the system is reasonable--and whether or not it remains so as things change.

No one forces a father to provide some fixed-dollar level of support to his children while he remains with the mother. But fathers who lose custody of their children (regardless of fault or reason) are told by the system how many dollars per month they must provide. The evidence that the amounts set by the system is in many cases far beyond reason is quite compelling. The situation as it exists makes fathering children a rather risky proposition.
4 posted on 05/31/2003 3:04:57 PM PDT by sourcery (The Evil Party thinks their opponents are stupid. The Stupid Party thinks their opponents are evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
If you don't want to support them, don't make them!

Hey Einstein, it had nothing to do with not wanting to support the child. It had to do with the fundamental fairness and equity. The current system is inherently flawed. Fathers are forced to do things monetarily after divorce, that they aren't required to do while still married. You call that fair? Well, maybe if you live in North Korea or China, but not in the USA.

For example, a married father still living in the house has a choice whether or not to help contribute to, or pay in full, college tuition. However, once booted out of the house, the courts MANDATE the father pay a huge amount for tuition.

5 posted on 05/31/2003 3:08:34 PM PDT by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
If you find yourself in a boring marriage, wait until your daughter is out of school then divorce.

Good advice mom. Also, for you guys out there, a couple years BEFORE you divorce move to a state that doesn't have alimony. Viva NJ!

6 posted on 05/31/2003 3:11:59 PM PDT by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon
Then pick your bride carefully, and stay married to her.

Time after time in this society, people hold big heavy buckets of liquid manure over their heads and pour it out on top of themselves, and then whine that gravity did it to them.
7 posted on 05/31/2003 3:19:08 PM PDT by ChemistCat (3 Nephi 17:7-8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: sourcery
Where's the "Bite Me" Alert?
slackers!
Any man; and I use the term gingerly, who will consent to making a precious child but refuses to care for the child properly; that includes having to be ordered to care, does not deserve a days rest. If their conscience is so seared that they have to be told to care for their own flesh and blood then I see no redeeming qualities in such a "man".
9 posted on 05/31/2003 3:24:31 PM PDT by MeekMom ((HUGE Ann Coulter Fan!!!) (Life-long Python Addict))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
What happens when the woman is assessed child support and falls in arrears, Nada. My EX was number 7, on the dead beat parents list in Mass, and walked.
10 posted on 05/31/2003 3:29:51 PM PDT by Little Bill (No Rats, A.N.S.W.E.R (WWP) is a commie front!!!!,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
. If you don't want to support them, don't make them!

What a simplistic mindset. You do know that non-custodial 'Moms' are about 5 times more likely to be deadbeats than non-custodial 'Dads'.

Family Law needs an overhaul.

11 posted on 05/31/2003 3:34:16 PM PDT by StatesEnemy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
pick your bride carefully

Good advice - a year or two of high school should be dedicated to choosing wisely.

12 posted on 05/31/2003 3:38:27 PM PDT by Ben Chad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: StatesEnemy
These things were once more complicated for me. I could see multiple sides to problems like this. Then I held my son for the first time, and watched my husband hold his son for the first time. It all became much clearer: I would do ANYTHING to give my child the best chance at a happy, moral, successful life.

So now it's simple. If you make a baby, you do whatever it takes to raise that baby, all the way through. The best way to do that is in a stable marriage. If you aren't willing to make the effort it takes to have a stable marriage, don't have kids.

That goes for both sexes. No success in other areas of life matter if your kids are bent by your selfish choices. There ARE no excuses for failure in the home.

Any more ad hominem arguments? Bring them on.
13 posted on 05/31/2003 3:40:24 PM PDT by ChemistCat (3 Nephi 17:7-8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
The situation as it exists makes fathering children a rather risky proposition.

Well, that's the idea. We don't need responsible breeders when we can get our sexual gratification from casual rolls in the hay or that wonderful policically correct gay lifestyle.

And when there are hordes of third worlders just waiting for their chance to immigrate to this country, we don't need to replace native populations either. </ sarcasm>

14 posted on 05/31/2003 3:41:26 PM PDT by Vigilanteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
An article this badly written does not deserve more than a skim.

I finally gleaned that he was engaging in a hunger strike to protest having to support his daughter, whom he had abandoned. A court ordered him to support her. Had he not left her, the court would never have gotten involved.

It's very much like asking a polar bear to help you divide a seal. Stay married, and the court doesn't get into it.
15 posted on 05/31/2003 3:43:03 PM PDT by ChemistCat (3 Nephi 17:7-8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MeekMom
Any man; and I use the term gingerly, who will consent to making a precious child but refuses to care for the child properly; that includes having to be ordered to care, does not deserve a days rest. If their conscience is so seared that they have to be told to care for their own flesh and blood then I see no redeeming qualities in such a "man".

You didn't read the article either, did you? This has nothing to do with his paying child support. All the support was paid.

16 posted on 05/31/2003 3:44:12 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: StatesEnemy
Family Law needs an overhaul.Big time. The "system" has developed into another politcally correct witch hunt. There is no "due process" . There is no equal protection.
17 posted on 05/31/2003 3:47:16 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MeekMom
Amen, sister!
They can't even understand that they should keep their boys to themselves if they can't deal with the consequences??? Please. Payment or nonpayment, custody or visitation, does not a Dad make. Fathers are a dime a dozen. Dads, however, are a precious commodity! If you have to be legislated and bullied into doing the right thing, the poor kids shouldn't have to give you the time of day!! They are nothing but DNA donors and don't deserve the love of a child...
18 posted on 05/31/2003 3:48:53 PM PDT by chiromommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MeekMom
If their conscience is so seared that they have to be told to care for their own flesh and blood then I see no redeeming qualities in such a "man".

So if I am unable to make my payments because of brain injury, Im a slacker?

19 posted on 05/31/2003 3:49:26 PM PDT by cardinal4 (The Senate Armed Services Comm; the Chinese pipeline into US secrets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
The assault on a man's life typically begins with a mother who decides to "liberate" herself from marriage, simply dealing a father out of his own personal and family life. The process is exceptionally easy. The government has been dedicated to helping women "liberate" themselves from marriage for decades.

This appears to imply that she walked out on him for no good reason, took the kids, and socked him with the child support. If this was so, it's true the article ought to say so directly. But an outrage is an outrage no matter how horrid the prose.

20 posted on 05/31/2003 3:51:08 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
Then pick your bride carefully, and stay married to her.

Yeeeesh!!! Hey, Chemist Cat, pay attention. In case you hadn't noticed, it isn't always up to the groom whether or not he stays married to the bride. If she wants to divorce him, for whatever reason or no reason at all, she can. Nothing to stop her. FURTHERMORE, she is GUARANTEED 1/3 to 1/2 or more of his after-tax take-home pay if she's had a kid by him. If she wants to remarry and start a new family, no problem!! If HE wants to remarry and start a new family ... pretty hard to do on a severely trimmed income.

This is IMMORAL and our society is paying the price, yet people like you remain blind to the reality of it, blaming it ALL on the men -- any woman who is a mother is an automatic saint, and any divorced father who doesn't pay hard cold cash out the nose and then some, was stupid for fathering a kid that you perceive, usually incorrectly, he didn't want. HENCE:

Time after time in this society, people hold big heavy buckets of liquid manure over their heads and pour it out on top of themselves, and then whine that gravity did it to them.

And we're ALL paying the price, in the form of drug-addicted, crime-prone, or suicidal teens boys with twisted examples of what Dads' roles are, girls with insane expectations of men, and on the whole, a deteriorating culture. With respect, I would say women/men with your kind of mindset are the ones pouring the manure on everybody's head.

My solution? Come up with a reasonable, affordable dollar amount sufficient to support a child -- say, the amount that the state pays foster parents to raise foster children. No matter the income of either parent, the amount should be the same for any kid. This would SEVERELY reduce the temptation of women to dump their husbands for any other than the most serious and justified reasons.

21 posted on 05/31/2003 3:51:15 PM PDT by Finny (God continue to Bless G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, and success. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MeekMom; ChemistCat
Roger F. Gay used to be a FReeper and post his own articles here. He lives in Sweden. He won't say why he lives in Sweden while he rails against child support laws in the U.S.
22 posted on 05/31/2003 3:51:27 PM PDT by wimpycat ('Nemo me impune lacessit')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
This is the system that Dr. Chang is fighting. It isn't about reducing welfare expenditure. The money he owed is for support of his daughter from his first marriage. She is now 20 years old (an adult) and studying pharmacy at Rutgers University.

No father should have to pay to support a 20-year-old unless he wants to. It's a damned dirty system that mandates otherwise.

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
http://video.ire.org/10650.ram (Requires RealPlayer)

Who is Steve Emerson?

23 posted on 05/31/2003 3:52:34 PM PDT by JCG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Bill
The courts in this regard are pathetically slanted toward women in this regard. Its an abominantion to justice.
24 posted on 05/31/2003 3:52:45 PM PDT by Rebelbase (........The bartender yells, "hey get out of here, we don't serve breakfast!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
disregard one regard.
25 posted on 05/31/2003 3:53:11 PM PDT by Rebelbase (........The bartender yells, "hey get out of here, we don't serve breakfast!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Finny
Ain't no fault divorces wonderful.
26 posted on 05/31/2003 3:54:50 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
You know, while I agree that catastrophic injury or health problems qualify as extenuating circumstances and should be treated as such, they are the exception and not the rule. The bigger problem are these irresponsible punks that go around like Johnny Appleseed impregnating women without the slightest concern that the woman, assuming she has the child and keeps it, will have to somehow cough up the money to meet the child's needs for his or her entire childhood. While I also believe it is irresponsible of the woman to put herself in that position, the fact is that what's done is done. It takes two to make a baby, and both should be responsible for caring for it. I don't necessarily believe that it should be a government issue, but until we get back to instilling some values in kids instead of worrying about removing any reference to God from textbooks somebody has to make sure these kids are fed, clothed and educated. It isn't their fault their parents are idiots.
27 posted on 05/31/2003 3:56:24 PM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chiromommy
Just joined today,huh? And already you are looking down your nose at others?
28 posted on 05/31/2003 3:56:56 PM PDT by cardinal4 (The Senate Armed Services Comm; the Chinese pipeline into US secrets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
""Lower than manhood are these: To rut with a woman when he already has a wife, and to abandon the children of his body." --Orson Scott Card "

I agree with Card; unfortunately, child support enforcement rarely has anything to do with a man abandoning anyone. The fact is that in America about 52 percent of marriages end up in divorce, and in about 90% of these cases the wife files for divorce, and the man gets the boot. This is hardly abandonment, eh? I did a personal study of this phenomenon for a Father's Group in Massaschuetts. I spent days and days pouring over divorce files in "Family Court" in a large city to obtain statistics. Results: 90% of the divorces were filed by the wife, (no surprise there, they are the ones who lose nothing but what the want to lose, the husband. Women are almost always awarded the house, the kids, the furnishings, the bank account, and a sizeable chunk of ex-hubby's income - typically a third of his gross in my state). Conversely, the men lose their family, their home, and 2/3rds of their income, (the govt. gets 1/3, the ex gets the other). Men were awared custody of their children in only 10% of the cases I examined, and usually this was due to gross behavior by the wife, such as drug addiction or severe neglect of the children.

I'm all for supporting the children, to whatever degree possible, after a divorce. But my experience working in a Father's Group was that the men not only did not abandon their children, they had to go to extraordinary measures just to get to see them. In our State, the State Department of Revenue now collects child support from the guys, (I say 'guys' because so few women are ever ordered to pay child support they are irrelevent to any serious discussion). The Dept. of Revenue is chartered as a tax collection beurocracy of the state, how they got involved in child support payments is interesting. While I understand there are good-for-nothing bums who get women pregnant and then leave them high and dry, I have known many a professional man who was compeltely broken down, financially and emotionally, after divorce. Most men are decent human beings, and they want to be a part of their children's lives. And most men have to fight like hell to make this happen; many get discouraged at the incredible difficulty and just give up. Though most fathers try hard to keep their children in their lives, the Courts grant only the customary bi-weekly "visitation" of their children. (fyi, "visitation" was a word first used in prisons when a family member visited an inmate). The system is corrupt, unfair, and utterly biased against men. I hear about the guys who skip out on the kids, but all the divorced men I've known have had to literally go broke with attorney's fees just trying to keep their children in their lives.

29 posted on 05/31/2003 3:58:44 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
Then pick your bride carefully, and stay married to her.

Time after time in this society, people hold big heavy buckets of liquid manure over their heads and pour it out on top of themselves, and then whine that gravity did it to them.

Precisely.

30 posted on 05/31/2003 3:59:33 PM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Or do you only know how to be pious?

I would have used the word sanctimonious....but that's just me.

31 posted on 05/31/2003 4:01:40 PM PDT by Focault's Pendulum (Living under a rock is looking better every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
Joined yesterday, and I can't wait to see what else I can find to "discuss"! But I've been looking down my nose at deadbeat dads and their whine-bag supporters for a lot longer than a day...
32 posted on 05/31/2003 4:02:23 PM PDT by chiromommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
Ad Hominem? I don't think soo.... it is still a simplistic response to a complicated situation.

Your anecdote of hubby and yours experience is wonderful - but doesn't mean jack$hit to a guy who may or may not see his children, and has a set price on his head - regardless of his changing circumstances.

33 posted on 05/31/2003 4:04:15 PM PDT by StatesEnemy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: independentmind
In many of these cases, though, it isn't the man's fault at all. They married with him acting in good faith, she got a wild hair (or already had one), she walked out, she got the kids and a piece of his money, commonly far greater than the old fault-divorce alimony, and she does not even need to show she SPENDS the support on the kids. Alley cats who thought they could get away with a one night stand should pay, but in many other cases the law itself is seriously screwed.
34 posted on 05/31/2003 4:05:32 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
You got that right! The only reason I got Divorced, after years of seeking resolution, was that I hauled her in on a Child support complaint, pay or go to Jail. The Judge descided rather than send her to Essex County Jail to give a sense of the court, settled, with a small advantage to me.
35 posted on 05/31/2003 4:07:35 PM PDT by Little Bill (No Rats, A.N.S.W.E.R (WWP) is a commie front!!!!,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
"Lower than manhood are these: To rut with a woman when he already has a wife, and to abandon the children of his body." --Orson Scott Card"

Orson Scott Card is a Mormon, a religion with a rich history of bigamy. I'm wondering where he got his morals? Judging from the Titles of some of Orson Card's books, he hardly seems like a philosopher I'd whose ways I'd chose to follow. "How To Write Science Fiction and Fantasy" ???

36 posted on 05/31/2003 4:08:09 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon; netmilsmom
As with everything the government sees fit to involve itself in, this issue too has become very unbalanced. Of course it should be administered fairly and often isn't. I know of one such situation right now where a dad is being completely crippled by the unreasonable demands of his ex-wife. It cuts both ways. The bottom line is that there are selfish men who blow off their kids as if they are none of their concern and there are selfish women who use their kids to get what they want. Neither is balanced or fair, but as I said in my previous post, I'm afraid that until this country sets decency and morality as a high priority again and people are motivated to do something because it is the right thing to do that we are stuck with inadequate and overbearing government interference at all levels.
37 posted on 05/31/2003 4:08:42 PM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
If you make a baby, you do whatever it takes to raise that baby, all the way through.

The law is too screwed up to accomplish this. If she walks out with the kids and she isn't a screaming crackhead or childbeater, she doesn't have to prove to the court that she's spending that child support on the kids. She can be eating porterhouse steak and caviar and driving gold Cadillac with that money, and feeding the kids old moldy peanut butter sandwiches and making them ride broken down bicycles wherever they go. Don't matter to the in-"justice" system.

38 posted on 05/31/2003 4:09:16 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Right. Get rid of no fault divorce.

BTW, I've seen many claims that women now initiate anywhere from 2/3s to 90% of all divorces. If that's the case, then perhaps someone should look into exactly why so many women feel that they are unfulfilled.

39 posted on 05/31/2003 4:09:19 PM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: independentmind
Blame, in large part, the liberals who set a system up which pretended to be kinder but instead was far crueler.
40 posted on 05/31/2003 4:13:43 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
"Then pick your bride carefully, and stay married to her."

Great post, too bad you forgot to mention how a man stays married to a women bent of divorce in a nation that grants "no-fault" divorces upon request. The divorce rules are made to order for women in our system. Here's just one of hundreds of examples. A woman is filing for a divorce under the customary "no fault" law. She cannot afford a lawyer. The Courts in my state will give her one, for free. Now, her husband, equally poor, must go hire his own lawyer, as no such program is avialable to men. I will be only too pleased to list all the other easily proven examples of gender bias in divorce and child support cases. So thank you in advance for asking me.

41 posted on 05/31/2003 4:14:48 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: independentmind
Oh and liberals, in unison now: "IT'S FOR THE CHILLUN."

NO IT'S NOT FOR THE CHILLUN. IT'S FOR THE CONTROL FREAKS IN THE ALMIGHTY SOCIALIST LIBERAL STATE.
42 posted on 05/31/2003 4:15:36 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
My heart just bleeds for all these poor beaten down deadbeats. Their gross irresponsibility is so misunderstood. Such a terrible tragedy. Where is my crying towel?
43 posted on 05/31/2003 4:21:38 PM PDT by RichardW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeekMom; Beacon Falls
How about my friend,who used to live in Colorado, who having divorced, was ordered to pay outrageous child support based on a salary he made years ago? He went back to NYC to regain his job as a printer, then lost that job on 9/13/01. The court stills orders him to pay the ridiculous amount.

The court is STACKED against honest men and good fathers, who try their best to comply with BS orders from weakling sissy judges.

I don't want to hear anymore about it. It's corrupt thru and thru.

FMCDH

44 posted on 05/31/2003 4:21:39 PM PDT by nothingnew (the pendulum swings and the libs are in the pit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
"If you make a baby, you do whatever it takes to raise that baby, all the way through."

Now, does this philosophy of yours include the mother staying with the father "through good times and bad", as pledged? Or is this just one of those feminist "male only" philosophies? Just curious.

Confucious say: "Woman who keeps knees together won't get prego". bonnnggggg

45 posted on 05/31/2003 4:24:31 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chiromommy
I've been looking down my nose at deadbeat dads and their whine-bag supporters for a lot longer than a day...

You sound to me just like lots of women, and some men I know, too -- they wear blinders, they see the narrow and carefully cropped picture that reinforces their false sense of security that they hold the moral high ground. There are very, very few real deadbeat dads, but millions of men who are stupidly, narrowly, falsely accused of being deadbeat deads by blindered twits who are too timid to see the light. The child support "solution" these twits promote has lead to much pain and suffering in children, especially male children. If women had something to lose in divorce, there would be far fewer divorces. But -- and this is what the sanctimonious "no tolerance for deadbeat dad!" twits refuse to see because it threatens them in some way -- the REALITY is that women have nothing to lose (except the hubby the don't want) and everything to gain. People who support this status quo are indirectly responsible for much unhappiness in kids.

46 posted on 05/31/2003 4:26:34 PM PDT by Finny (God continue to Bless G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, and success. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: chiromommy
Morality will never be legislated and you running to the FedGov for a solution will not work for you either . The problem is solved in the home .
47 posted on 05/31/2003 4:28:30 PM PDT by Ben Bolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chiromommy
But I've been looking down my nose at deadbeat dads and their whine-bag supporters for a lot longer than a day...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When you have been here a little longer, you will see. The media makes the men out to be constant bad guys. If the wife leaves this guy and he is BY LAW made to pay a certain amount even through medical problems, that is unfair. He didn't choose to leave, he should only pay what is fair.
I worked for a Psychiatrist. His wife left him and took his two kids. He fought 4 years for a settlement. Everytime they would agree she would want something more. He brother worked for one of the most powerful law firms in Cleveland. FINALLY they settled. You know what he got? No house, no cars, no motorcycle, no squat. He got his practice worth $15,000. She got everything else. Then he had to pay $5000.00 a month for child support and alimony. I knew, doing his books, this man didn't make that amount after expenses. You tell me that was fair.
He ended up folding the practice and moving into the private sector to prove he didn't make the money. I lost my job.
Yeah, this was really fair. And in the end she soured his kids on him so much, they had to be forced to see him. They liked me so would go to the office. She had it all. This is what men fight against. It isn't always his choice.

48 posted on 05/31/2003 4:29:39 PM PDT by netmilsmom (God Bless our President, those with him & our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
He brother worked for one of the most powerful law firms in Cleveland
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Make that "Her" brother.
49 posted on 05/31/2003 4:35:15 PM PDT by netmilsmom (God Bless our President, those with him & our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
ChemistCat, Perhaps you could consider reading before making moral pronouncements? Here is your synopsis:

I finally gleaned that he was engaging in a hunger strike to protest having to support his daughter, whom he had abandoned. A court ordered him to support her. Had he not left her, the court would never have gotten involved.

Here is the relevant paragraph from the article:

Dr. Chang's experience is one that has been repeated many times across the country over the past fifteen years. Sheriff's deputies literally kicked in the door to his apartment and arrested him at gunpoint - weeks after he had made necessary payments. Employees at the Middlesex County Child Support Department had refused to help weeks earlier after his employer had missed a child support payment and miscalculated another. His employer is charged with making payments after deducting them from his pay, a common practice since the early 1990s. Dr. Chang points out that his employer is generally cooperative with the agency, but had made errors after an end-of-year payroll conversion. He contacted the child support agency and sent the money himself, but that didn't stop the violent enforcement action weeks later.

Where do you get any sense that Dr. Chang abandoned his daughter?

Dr. Chang is protesting the Jack Booted Thug tactics of a police state that punishes him after he has done the right thing.

From your other posts, I expect better. This issue has been so well used by the OldDominantLiberalMedia to beat up men, that I might expect people to be taken in by all the propaganda, I suppose.

50 posted on 05/31/2003 4:50:11 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-277 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