U.S. Agents Arrest Dozens of Fathers in Support Cases

New York Times ^ | 8/16/02 | ROBERT PEAR

[Don Joe]

The War on Fathers wages on.

"The recent arrests represent a new avenue of enforcement."

No, it's the same-old-same-old. Oh, they did arrest one "deadbeat mom". Tokenism at its finest.

How sad that the GOP has decided to whore itself for the feminista vote.

I think I'm going to sit out the next election.

[Don Joe]

Please ping those you think would be interested/make positive contributions

[Pern]

You would think the Fed's would have a higher priority than a few dead beat dad's. Gee, now I'll sleep better tonight, knowing the Fed's are out there, protecting me from those dead beat dad's

LOOK OUT!!!!! There's one now!!!!

[chance33_98]

Soon, we will all be criminals for something and be swept up in a similar situation. Then no one can own a firearm or vote....hmmmm maybe godel was right.

[Phantom Lord]

Lets get some honesty injected into this debate.

The real problem is DEAD BEAT MOTHERS! Not dead beat dads.

Of all the fathers, ordered by the courts to pay child support 64% do.

Of all the mothers, ordered by the courts to pay child support 57% do.

[CaptRon]

If this still works the same as it did the 20-odd years ago I was a Probation officer, the Feds only go after these guys because there is some sort of welfare involved. In other words, you're picking up the tab because these guys aren't carrying their load.

[ijcr]

Meanwhile, 7 million illegal immigrants dot the fruited plains...nice one! John.

[Auntbee]

I have a little problem with this. My husband was injured at work and he hasn't received a workmans comp check for four weeks. He was only $69 behind in his child support and they arrested him for "being behind in child support".

[End The Hypocrisy]

I personally know of women who have sworn they were on birth control when they weren't, just because they wanted to get pregnant and have kids because you know, everybody else was.

Meanwhile, how would you like to be one of those fathers who was fraudulently told they were the real father, only to learn years later that they weren't but that they nevertheless must continue with child support because they didn't find out within the statute of limitations (somewhere around 5 years). Here's a guy who just appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court:

http://www.paternityfraud.com

[ravingnutter]

Dr. Lewis said federal and state officials had conspired against him. "The government tried to entrap me in a crime and undermine my ability to earn a living," he said. "That's the reason I'm behind in child support."

Oh puhleeezzze...if you create a life you are responsible for the child...man or woman, makes no difference...that is the bottom line. Although I question the gender issue, I think it is about time HHS stepped up to the plate on this matter.

[Sandy]

ping

[joesnuffy]

One spouse abandons the other breaks the marriage covenant runs off with another taking the children with her...turns around making false accusations..gains custody and now wants back support...the federal govt intervenes and jails the new head of a differnt family.....hmmmm
nope this isnt right...this is pandering for votes

[RGVTx]

Mother...Father, I don't care. If they owe child support, make them pay!

[Don Joe]

"Mother...Father, I don't care. If they owe child support, make them pay!"

Nice attitude. Who cares if the "child support" is in reality "stealth alimony" to support the ex wife in the style to which she'd like to be accustomed, while the kids run around in rags (as happened to my kids, while the ex made a show of making sure the kids knew she was "getting something nice" for herself with the "child support" checks when they arrived).

And who cares if the amount of "child support" is contemptuously punitive, far and away beyond anything remotely imaginable as required for "supporting" the children. (And nevermind the recent feminst-driven laws that demand that the father support the ex-wife's household at a certain level of financial comfort).

And never mind if women who somehow lose custody are the greatest scofflaws on earth, while all the agitprop is waged against the ex-fathers.

Yeah, nevermind any of that.

Until it cuts too close to your home. To you, or your son, or your brother, or your son inlaw...

Then you'll mind.

But don't come crying to me when that happens.

"First, they came for the fathers..."

[Don Joe]

Please allow me to congratulate you on your excellent selection of a fitting and appropriate login name!

Kudos!

[taxcontrol]

Ok folks, I'm missing something here.

Child support is a STATE Court judgement - correct? At least I don't recall the Federal Courts issuing support judgements.

So why aren't the STATEs working with EACH OTHER using warrents and extradition, instead of having the Feds come in and make the bust?

Did I miss something here? Did Congress pass a law that enables Federal agents to prosocute State warrents? What gives?????

[the_daug]

A criminal information filed against the Oklahoma man, James A. Circle, says he earned more than $39,000 a year and had been ordered to pay $350 a week for a child in New Jersey


47% of pre tax income seems a little extream

[The PeteMan]

Have they arrested Bill Clinton or Jessie Jacksooonnnnnnnnnn yest?

[Raymond Hendrix]

I hear you loud and clear. My brother has been near suicide because of the hole he has found himself in because of back child support. He must pay INTEREST payments for the rest of his life of about $300 a month. The great state of California has told him to live in his car if necessary to keep the payments up. The kids have been grown for years and the $300 figure does not include ONE PENNY to reduce the principal. Yes, he screwed up and he needs to pay but the system is designed to reduce men to powder. I guess it is working pretty well.

I asked a social worker once what she thought about the child support payments going to support live-in boyfriends etc. and she answered that they do not dictate the lifestyles of the women. She could not understand that I was not talking about lifestyles. I was talking about THE MONEY that was not going to the kids. She walked away. I am all for supporting the kids but this has become a problem of supporting drug habits and live-in boyfriends.

Maybe the solution is to send all of these evil men to the concentration camp in Cuba...

[Robert_Paulson2]

Nothing but further pandering for the feminist vote...

shame on this administration, what a waste of FEDERAL manpower... state laws, state issues...

Whatever happened to shrinking the size of government and making it less intrusive? and less destructive regarding its impact on people, citizens, ya know Americans?

This "stealth alimony" income, is not taxed to the recipient... the poor bastard who pays though... gets it twice, once by NOT getting the exemptions, and two by paying his "cut" out of after tax income... the recipient gets the dough, some state bennies *(usually), and the tax deduction for the kiddies....

the guy usually cannot even drive to get a visit with the kids, as the "empowered" female gets to move and make life difficult as the custodial parent, or the "physical custodian" in a phony JOINT custody agreement. Either way, she gets the money and the power, while HE gets the bill and no kids. The founding fathers set it up just the opposite. Women did NOT get custody. Feminist socialism has really done its job.

We know a lady who is clearing SIX figures a year, TAX free, for spreading her legs three times for three different guys. Who said prostitution is illegal! It's alive and well, if you do it "right", as far as she is concerned.

What a country!