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

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

[DNA Rules]

Appreciate the constructive / prescriptive approach...will get back to particulars.

[DNA Rules]

If you go to a lower paying job you had better go to court first and explain this decission to them and get their approval. That is a right you gave up in the divorce agreement. I have heard many fellow men brag about how they avoided child support. It discust me to no end. Many seem to feel no love for the children they fathered. They complain because their ex-wives spend the money this way or that. Who cares how it is spent. A court ordered them to pay it but did not order her to spend it in a particular way. Were she not caring for kids she could make far more in the workplace. I see men working 16 hour days and complain that their wife spends the CS money on a dress. While they are buying new cars and thier ex drives a 96.

I can't count the number of myths mixed together there!

[RogerFGay]

The guidelines were there to protect the non-custodial parent, not the other. The amount of the ongoing award or the amount calculated for reimbursement of past support cannot be so much that it impoverishes the non-custodial parent"

Good grief don't tell me anyone actually believes this hogwash!

GatorGirl is spinning like a top. No wonder she's dizzy. I've heard it said that the guidelines were designed to help fathers. But mostly, people are no longer willing to say that in public any more. One test of that line and it was over. The risk of getting bludgened to death by the crowd is just too great.

[GatorGirl]

Sweetheart, that comment was not posted by me. I believe it's ImphClinton that you want on that one.

*Smooch* GG

[RogerFGay]

Pardomwha madomizell. It was addressed to you. My mistake. If I could edit my comment, I would. Kiss Kiss.

[mountaineer]

It's probably more accurate to say those comments are generalizations. I wouldn't say they're myths, however, because I have observed and personally dealt with people who have said and believed the very things Imph Clinton described. Not all non-custodial parents are like that, but some are, and it is their children who suffer.

[Robert_Paulson2]

indeed.

[DNA Rules]

Fair enough, I rephrase to "The idea that such characterizations apply to the majority of non-custodial parents is a myth".

Sure, there are some like that. But not most.

[DNA Rules]

1) Don't have sex out of wedlock (difficult in our depraved society, I know) and/or remain faithful to the marriage vows at all cost during the children's minority.

You know, I agree with that, but would note that many of the cases in question are ones where the children arose out of a marriage. Plus it could be noted that the winner-takes-all (sole custody) motif encourages divorce, even when there has been no infidelity.

2) Allow parents for whom divorce is inevitable to craft their own solution in accordance with the family's previously established standard of living and needs of the children (I think that' s where you're at.) But as I pointed out (in vain), this solution presupposes that neither party invokes the involvement of the state by seeking enforcement (because support is not being paid) or visitation rights. This also presupposes a formerly married couple who can put their own petty selfishness aside and work together to meet the needs of their child. Plenty of couples do this and they are NOT involved in the child support system because they don't bring it upon themselves. They are not the ones who are complaining--the only ones who complain are the so-called "victims" of the system who have brought it on themselves by failing to adhere to their support orders.

As far as state involvement goes, I would say that the state should mandate equal-time joint residential custody, modifiable only where both parents agree to a modification or one is proven criminally unfit in a court of law.

Regarding assets, those should be divided on the basis of who earned them, with the only exception being that those assets accrued during any periods in which one marital partner stayed home by mutual agreement--- which would be split 50/50.

Regarding child support, a simple percentage-of-income guideline, applied to both parents equally with no 'credit" for parenting time, and paid into a checking account from which withdrawals can be made only by check, and those with memo-line notations as to the nature of each expense. With copies of all checks being sent to both parents each month. Great accountability with no muss and no fuss.

3) Recede from "no fault" divorce back to a fault-based system in which the party who chooses to abandon the marriage would be required to rebut a presumption of parental fitness.

I've become unconvinced of the value of returning to '"fault" divorce. That might be a good thing for the churches to tackle, but the State should not have that tool to coerce people to stay married where the marriage is bad.

(This system would still rest on the premise that one parent should be named custodial parent and one should be held financially responsible, which no one here thinks should happen...)

Which no one, including yours truly, believes should happen, regardless. That winner-take-all arrangement is the root of all the other problems. All of them.

4) Allow either parent to divest him-or herself of all legal responsibilty for the child.

Ah, the mantra of the C4M losers. Nah. We don't need to toss paternal responsibility out the same window that paternal rights went through; we need to bring the paternal rights back.

But of course our anti-government friends would have to concede that many would have no choice but to rely on welfare to meet the child's needs as a result of that solution.

Welfare is bad. Government husbandry, literally.

[DNA Rules]

Men are told that they have the responsibility to pay, without the right to raise their own children.

This is taxation without representation.

Revolutions are fought over such.

[DNA Rules]

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

So long as you also say, "Mother...Father, I don't care. If they pro-created, they deserve joint custody!"

See the connection? Thank you for playing, "Every equation has two halves!"

[Cold Heat]

It came to mind the other day that this subject of men's rights regarding a child should be brought to "the nine" in the form of a good solid case.

A case similar to that of the man who wanted the child and the woman wanted to abort. I believe it ended with a mis-carriage.(ya sure)

Someone needs to bring a good one to them and I hope it happens soon. This might be the the crack in Roe v Wade armor.

[DNA Rules]

This might be the the crack in Roe v Wade armor.

It will be, but the Supreme Court needs at least one more replacement first.

[Don Joe]

But... but... but mothers care about their children!

[RogerFGay]

National Public Radio "The Connection" 10-11 am EDST, Thursday Aug. 22; will focus on "deadbeat dad" politics. Guests will include pro-family writer and psychologist, Gerald L. Rowles.

[Ben Chad]

LOL - I've been on the short end of this stick for 7 years but with only 10 more checks remaining to be written to my ex wife. With one of our three kids in college and two more on the way, there's no relief in sight. I also got the short end of the stick as far as time with the kids. So, boo hoo, pitiful me, poor poor pitiful me (/sarcasm). I get a kick out of fathers who whine and wallow in self pity about the unfairness of being forced to support their children (no good father has to be forced to do so). They need to have a good cry and then get on with life and do what good fathers do which is to serve, often without thanks or appreciation.

[apillar]

I've always found it strange that the Federal Government throws someone in jail for back child support. What does it cost? Something like $40,000 a year to keep someone in jail? If these people are making so much money wouldn't it be more efficient to garnish their wages rather than lock them up.

By the way I read a story recently about a lawyer in PA that flat out refused to pay child support. They locked him up for several years. Recently an appeals court released him even though he still said he had no intention of paying because they ruled that people can't be held indefinitely for back child support even if they still refuse to pay.

So the men or women that refuse to pay child support can still beat the system although they might have to spend several years in jail to do it.

[RogerFGay]

Another Man Down in the War Against Fathers

[right2parent]

"The guidelines were there to protect the non-custodial parent, not the other. The amount of the ongoing award or the amount calculated for reimbursement of past support cannot be so much that it impoverishes the non-custodial parent"

Good grief don't tell me anyone actually believes this hogwash!

I'm afraid you missed the point. This was the original intent, and the only use that passes a constitutional test. I wasn't talking about current misuse (unconstitutional application). If you think you have a better handle on the legislative history of this act, I'm sure we would all welcome any evidence you may have.

[RogerFGay]

I'm afraid you missed the point. This was the original intent, and the only use that passes a constitutional test. I wasn't talking about current misuse (unconstitutional application). If you think you have a better handle on the legislative history of this act, I'm sure we would all welcome any evidence you may have.

What you described was never the intent of the use of guidelines. Guidelines (actual guidelines as opposed to presumptive formulae) were used before the federal reforms in an effort to apply the law more uniformly. They were not designed to protect ncps any more than anyone else who is involved with a court order. The guidelines put into use after the federal law was passed making them presumptively correct were designed to increase child support awards to a total of 250% of what they would have been under established child support law.