Posted on 08/19/2002 2:07:59 PM PDT by Don Joe
Depends on how many kids he had. For four that is not all that much. He would have had to spend more than that had he stayed married. Obviously you have no idea how expensive it is to raise kids.
Stay married and you never need worry about child support.
I have a hard time believing some guy went to jail for being four weeks late and on unemployment, unless he fruduently claimed he had no support obligation. Then he should have gone to jail.
Feds steped in on 100 cases. You people have a cow. Give me a break. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The cost of a little fun can and often is very high.
What would you consider positive like you think arresting guys who make 5-7 dollars an hour at a crappy job can afford to pay .....or..... is it just a bunch of guys living large on 35 -50 bucks an hour and just dont want to be burdened with a child and responcability ?
Im one of those eight dollar an hour guys who pays his support while the ex spends it on drugs and booze yet my kid is in her custody and im paying for her fun while she lives the stoned life and the court through its infinite wisdom says shes the better parent no matter what proof i show shes not GO FIGURE just curious about your thoughts .
"Depends on how many kids he had. For four that is not all that much. He would have had to spend more than that had he stayed married. Obviously you have no idea how expensive it is to raise kids."
Obviously you didn't read before going into full-auto-keyboard-punching mode.
"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"
If you have a hard time believing that, then you are clearly out of your element and should cease and desist from weighing in with your wisdom. Men are routinely jailed solely on the basis of dollars versus calendar, "extinuating circumstances" not allowed to be entered into evidence.
I have expressed my thoughts on this matter quite a bit here on FR over the past months and years. Stick around, perhaps I'll express them again at some point.
Otherwise, please accept my apology for informing you that I do not jump when someone barks out "Jump!"
Most of the "absent parents" are hauled before a Family Court judge in a day or two, forced to beg, borrow, or steal a certain amount,then cut loose.
No pretense is ever made of fairness, justice, etc. In one jurisdiction, the proceedings are called " Pay or Stay " Days, and the only real object is to squeeze enough money out of the "Delinquent Dads" to justify part of the cost of the big roundup.
Now I will agree that more work needs to be done about making the system more fair. We need father's rights. These men need to get together and push for better laws. It is better than it used to be in most states fathers now at least stand a chance of being the CP receiving support. Used to be that almost never happened.
Thing is men don't pay for years then start paying. They see that 47% of their pay is going to this woman they hate and quit or get fired. They don't want to pay so they lie and say they don't owe support. That get's them in jail. The lie not the money.
If you lie to a credit card company to get a credit card you can also go to jail.
If "a" ment that he had only one child. I doubt how many children were involved was in the information given out. Then he must have been making a lot more before. If he is now making less he is responsible to go to court and try to get the amount lowered. But he owed at least $10,000 so that is still a lot of weeks he didn't pay.
You just don't get it. AT ALL.
Years ago, before I got custody, I was threatened with jail for being THREE weeks late.
Why was I three weeks late?
Well, it crept up on me over the course of about six months. A day here, a couple of days there, always making the weekly payment, but slip-sliding away as it were.
Eventually, those "days" added up to the majick three weeks, and in was hauled my ass.
I tried to explain to His Majesty that my $75 a week (out of which I was paying $35) was made more difficult by the fact that I also had to buy my kids stuff like winter coats and boots that my ex REFUSED to provide out of the money I DID pay. (As I mentioned earlier, she made a grand scene of telling them she was getting herself "something nice" with the "child" support checks when they arrived.)
His Majesty simply ordered me to STFU, and then proceeded to f*cking LECTURE me on how I had to face up to my f'n RESPONSIBILITY to "provide for my children".
I have utter contempt for "the system", and even GREATER contempt for fools who blindly and IGNORANTLY defend it.
Yes, that would be the likes of you.
Did you ever work for the Clinton Regime?
I was running a net loss, but His Majesty and the Royal Drones didn't give a rat's ass. They demanded that I claim "income", so, I took the amount of money that I bled away from the store to try to keep the lights on and some food on the table, and then was ordered to give about half of it to my whore ex (I use the term literally, by the way, so spare me the lecture).
So out of her fifty grand a year, AND the $35/wk from me, she was able to provide the kids with precisely... nothing.
HER "accountability" in this situation?
Zero.
Nice system.
Wrong stuff obviously happens. The question is why are the Feds in this? A system run amuck, to say the least.
I'm wondering what you believe should happen in your situation?
Ex told me if I did'nt pay it, I would end up in court for other bills dating back to 1991. I said "You cannot get money for something 10 years old that you are just now presenting....I lost!
During this 3 year ordeal, she made visitation pure hell. I saw my boys 75% less..and she told me she would do that if I didn't pay up. IT HAPPENS!! Believe me, fighting it in court doesn't help if the custodial parent(especially a woman) has no integrity. The courts will believe the woman on almost anything.
Bottom line...these amounts are skewed. Man cannot claim deduction and woman doesn't have to claim support as income. If man wants to quit job, court will impose old salary until new salary exceeds it, then new will take over.
Either you are only one-sided and unfair or you are just ignorant of the prejudices against men in these matters.
Accurate line. And entirely true.
And the Federal law enforcement effort to make sure that mothers live up to their responsibilities is...?
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.