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

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

[RGVTx]

I've seen both sides of this story. I know a father who faithfully paid child support while the ex-wife kept the kids hidden for over 7 years. Yes he was done wrong, but he figured at least some of what he paid helped his kids and that was the most important part. After years of his kids being brainwashed by the mother, he was also able to prove to his kids that he did care about them enough to take care of his obligations to them no matter how he felt about how the money was spent or the fact that his visitation rights were rendered void by the ex-wife's actions.

And the other side of that story is that I just spent 2 years providing a home for a deadbeat parent's child. He had no problem letting me pay for his child's needs even though I'm not even related to his child. He thinks his having new boots or a new CD is more important than paying his child support. The child's mother spent that 2 years furthering her education, getting a job and saving money to buy a home. She has accomplished all her goals in that 2 years all without steady child support, but with a steady abundance of help from me. I know how little that child support helps because I've seen 2 years worth of paying the expenses that his random child support would not cover. Even if he paid as scheduled, it still is just a drop in the bucket of actual costs to care for a child.

This jerk is more than willing to give up all claims to his child if he doesn't have to pay child support.

I'm real sorry your children had to suffer because of a selfish mother. But do you think for that reason you should not have paid child support? I don't see how not paying would have helped your children.

If the mother of your children was so rotten, why didn't you sue for custody? Surely you could have proven a better parent than she, especially since she was so neglectful of the children's needs. Maybe you did and lost? I know the courts are not always fair in custody cases.

There are many variations on child support stories, but the bottom line is, you played, you pay. And I don't care what your sob story is, pay for your child's support!

[Don Joe]

"I'm real sorry your children had to suffer because of a selfish mother. But do you think for that reason you should not have paid child support? I don't see how not paying would have helped your children.

Thanks for the condescending tripe in response to an obvious fast-scan of my posts.

You don't see how my not paying would have helped my children? BFD. I challenge you to show me how my PAYING "helped my children".

In fact, it is obvious that BY PAYING I actually HARMED my children. The money that I could have used to provide for their needs instead went to their mother to buy her "nice things".

Thanks to "child support", my children did without.

"If the mother of your children was so rotten, why didn't you sue for custody?"

You cocky know-it-all experts really turn my stomach.

Next time, before condescending to lecture your audience, perhaps you could trouble yourself to f'n READ what they WROTE?

If you had bothered to READ my words before REPLYING to them, you would know that after TEN YEARS of battle, I ended up with custody.

"There are many variations on child support stories, but the bottom line is, you played, you pay. And I don't care what your sob story is, pay for your child's support!"

I cannot think of an appropriate reply to that statement which would NOT get me kicked off Free Republic.

So I'll let your demonstrably florid imagination fill in the f*cking blanks.

[Don Joe]

"And the Federal law enforcement effort to make sure that mothers live up to their responsibilities is...?"

Nonexistent.

As the bitc# in charge of imposing Michigan's Child Support Guidline put it when I asked that question (on a state level), there are no mechanisms to enforce anything with respect to the mother, "because we believe that mothers care for their children."

That blood-boiler says a lot. Among other things, the unspoken flip-side -- that fathers don't "care about their children" -- should be a wakeup call to any XY-enabled entity walking the face of the earth. At least walking upon that part of it that falls under the jurisdiction of any state using Michigan's policies as a model.

[RGVTx]

Take a chill pill! You see alot more emotion in my post than was ever intended.

I do apologize for not reading all of your posts before responding to your one post to me. I certainly didn't do that to tick you off, so please don't assume so.

You've made way too many assumptions about me with just a few of my words. I'll try to correct that a bit.

If you noticed, I did acknowledge that custody cases are not always fair, so don't assume that I always lean toward the woman's side of this issue or any other issue.

You asked me to show you how your children benefitted from your child support payments. Since I can't supply first hand information I'd have to take a guess. You said it took you 10 years to gain custody of your children, right? Then I suppose for that 10 years your children were without a roof over their heads, food, medical care, school supplies, clothing, beds and bedding,...you get the picture. Or did you pay for all of their needs during this 10 years?

Now that probably ticked you off again even though it wasn't intended to tick you off but rather in hope you might see that if even a tiny amount of what you paid in child support helped to put a roof over their heads, food in their tummys or a bed to sleep in for even one night, then it was a help to your children. That's about the best you can hope for under your type of circumstances until you can change the situation as you eventually did.

I also doubt that non payment of you child support would have helped your custody case. Where would your kids be now if you were cooling your heels in jail for non payment? Probably not a pretty thought.

Does the mother pay you child support? I hope she does, as she should.

I'm glad your custody battle is over and that your children are in better hands. I applaud you for your endurance and determination. I do understand that our family law is a mess and needs to change. I hope you channel some of your anger towards helping to make that happen. Probably to your surprise, I do agree that family law has been unfair towards men for too long. But I stand by my opinion that if you owe child support then you should pay it, no matter the circumstance. The answer is to change the circumstance the legal way, as you did.

I hope I've made my points without raising your blood pressure again. Especially since I don't think our opinions are that far apart.

[GatorGirl]

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.

And I say to the MEN, you play, you pay!

[RGVTx]

I wonder what they'd call her had she aborted and saved all those guys their money?

[guitfiddlist]

And I say to the MEN, you play, you pay

Well, if play for pay is aok - then let me tell all the men here that there are some outstanding deals outside this country. We all have just been informed as to the true nature of marriage/relationships here in this country (so aptly put by GatorGirl), so what the hey - all were talking about is price now.

Central America is great this time of year. Not to mention the Ukraine, and (sigh) Brazil.

With everything going on (as described in this thread), you deserve a break today. See you in Costa Rica :^)

[GatorGirl]

Thank you--I agree that it is very sad that some people in this country enter into sexual relationships and/or marriage so lightly that when they inevitably break up after producing children, it comes down to a financial battle. No one seems to care a whit for the welfare of the children, it's all man against woman and to hell with the kids.

I hope your faith in other societies is not misplaced, but I fear it is. It's a sign of the times, friend!

[HiTech RedNeck]

Now that probably ticked you off again even though it wasn't intended to tick you off but rather in hope you might see that if even a tiny amount of what you paid in child support helped to put a roof over their heads, food in their tummys or a bed to sleep in for even one night, then it was a help to your children.

It sounds a lot like DJ's ex was providing just fine for the kids out of her own pocket, and that DJ's support payments were being used only for luxuries for the self-pitying ex.

If that's the case then your premise is blown out of the water.

[Red Jones]

yeah, well, I think things have changed since 20 years ago. because I know a fellow who was recently thrown in jail for 8 years by state of Indiana, he owes 45 grand in child support for 2 kids. The divorce occurred 15 years ago, the kids are 19 & 21. They are in the care of ex-wife who makes 200k a year. The two 'kids' are in college and have never had any problems with money at all. The guy thrown in jail has a new family with 2 kids aged 10-13 who need their stepdad out of jail, not in jail. The guy only fell behind on child support because he's had a bad back and can't work. That's the story I got and I believe this family that gave it to me.

I also know a woman who lives also in Indiana, had a divorce 3 years ago, lost custody of kid because she works minimum wage jobs and couldn't afford day-care. Now she has to pay 200 a month in child support, but at her 6.50/hour job after she pays her bare expenses she can't afford it. She has been told by state of indiana that she is headed for jail if she can't pay up. It is an obnoxious situation. Again, in this 2'nd situation the kid is doing fine without child-support. He lives with dad and new stepmom, husband makes 50 grand and stepmom stays at home taking care of kid. Kid has no problems.

A person should never both have the kid taken from them against their will and their money for child-support taken from them. Don't fool yourself, this is slavery for government to take your kids and then take your money also for up to 20 years even. The marriage institution is being destroyed. And people are dividing up into groups pointing fingers at each other and lying to each other about it all.

[GatorGirl]

Sorry I seemed to have stolen your words...I hadn't read your post yet when I posted.

I guess those that don't want to support their children would prefer abortion. What about taking responsibility for the choice to engage in the activity that might produce a child, and if that child is produced, for fully meeting one's financial responsibilitiy toward that child? That's all I'm asking.

[Robert_Paulson2]

I never did the "pay or play" thing you so joyously refer to, but it is possible that those who cheer it on so vociferously, may in fact be beneficiaries of the play and pay scam, themselves.

be careful what power over others you are willing to surrender to your idea of socialist-federalism... there are always unintended consequences to such choices... and they are often unexpected and ALWAYS unexpected.

watch and see. give it some more time. every little doggie has its day.

[Robert_Paulson2]

ALWAYS unpleasant... (correction)

[GatorGirl]

I don't know where you got the idea I get any joy in making this observation, in fact I find it very sad.

If you think I'm the beneficiary of any such "scam", buddy, tell it to my husband who is currently protecting our great country from terrorists. Unless you call a fully monogamous marriage which has produced two children so far a "pay and play scam". And you never addressed the fact that the men who are "supporting" this woman are just as responsible for creating those children as she is, which was the sole point of my post.

The only people getting the government involved are those who do not get married or stay married. They are the ones who cede power to the so-called socialist-federalist government.

[Red Jones]

I noticed that also, the man who makes 39 grand a year and has to pay 350 a week is being made into a slave. it is quite likely also that he would like to have custody of the kid and it is further quite likely that he makes more than his ex-wife. He could probably support the child just fine if they left him alone. Instead, he is being denied any opportunity to have a life, all because he got married; Some men are going to learn from this to simply not get married. Women are going to grow old as old maids as a result of this and children will not be born.

[Don Joe]

"And I say to the MEN, you play, you pay!"

And I say to women like you, go play with yourself.

[disclaimer]

And I say to the MEN, you play, you pay!

And what do you say to the women? You play, the Men will pay!!!

Thas is happening - are you purposely blind to the female role in this fraud?

I know, it’s only the men at fault. Females are just good darling people now, right?

[Robert_Paulson2]

believe what you want, but wait and see.
every federalist-socialist action taken "for our good" ends up going beyond its intended scope... and it is the law of intended consequences... that evil MUST always be the result.

the federal government needs to stick STRICTLY to its constitutionally mandated powers... defense of the nation is in there, usurping state authority to enter into the realm of family law, is not. This type of federal action is but ONE of many steps that socialists DESIRE to take in the future. Their target will be YOUR family... happy though it might be, now.

If you think you will never be affected by such usurpation of the constitutional mandates for the Federal Government... guess again.

once again... every doggie has its day.

[RGVTx]

"It sounds a lot like DJ's ex was providing just fine for the kids out of her own pocket, and that DJ's support payments were being used only for luxuries for the self-pitying ex."

-------

I'm shaking my head in amusment.

The kids are provided for "just fine....out of her own pocket"...so who gives a damn where her luxury money comes from?!?

What makes you think paying child support means you get to decide which dollar bill gets spent where and when? Would it be more acceptable if she had marked the proper amount of bills with the words "child support" then used them to provide for her kids? Then would it be okay if she used unmarked bills to buy her luxuries? Do you realize the silliness of your conclusion?

Her money is her money and the child support is her money, too. As long as she provided for her kids "just fine" then it doesn't make any difference what she spent on luxuries or how she paid for them. And as long as the kids were provided for "just fine" then obviously the child support payments did help the children.


It also doesn't matter if she made more money than the dad. Why should any parent shoulder all of the financial expense of children while the other parent still has parental privilleges?

This goes both ways, in my opinion. Now that dad has custody of the children then mom should be paying child support without complaint as long as the children are being provided for just fine, no matter if dad makes more money or not.

[Don Joe]

"It sounds a lot like DJ's ex was providing just fine for the kids out of her own pocket, and that DJ's support payments were being used only for luxuries for the self-pitying ex."

Bingo. By his "logic", the abysmal level of "care" she provided (I'm pressed for another term for it when stuff happens like her neighbors calling me to beg me to do something so the kids aren't playing outside in rags in the winter while she minces about like a fashion plate) -- was more than adequate.

However, by paying the ex her tribute -- NONE of which did a whit for my children -- I was forced to provide a much lower standard of living for them during the times they were with me.

All I can say is that it's pretty f'd up to see men -- let alone putatively "conservative" men -- buying into the truly degenerate pack of lies promulgated by the left wing filth that runs with the feminist vermin.

The fact that they buy into it with such gusto is further cause for discouragment.

As to the smarmy advice given in the other recent posts, I'll simply say that my kids are grown and on their own, and have been for quite a few years now. My ex built up a fairly (dis)respectable back-support owed to me (even at the infuriating token level of $25 a week), which I ultimately forgave (I had my lawyer draw up the papers to make it official), for the sake of MY blood pressure.

It was interesting seeing her refuse to pay $35 a week after TWO YEARS of paying NOTHING -- with ZERO back-support awarded for that two year "grace period". She flew up from Texas to plead poverty. She minced into the courtroom with perhaps $400-$500 worth of clothshorsery that might have been appropriate at a cocktail party (including 4" heels), to tell the court that she could not afford $35 a week.

The court, of course, would have none of that, no fools they.

So they lowered the amount to $25.

Which, she protested, would bankrupt her (from her -- at that time -- income of probably $75 grand a year).

The judge reared back and said, "Do you expect me to believe that if I ordered you to pay $25 a week it would drive you into bankruptcy?"

She replied "Yes."

But the judge, Brave Man that he was, stood his almighty ground, and awarded me the grand sum of $25 a week for my two daughters. (dat be in da aggragate; $12.50 per mouth)

And to make the already too-long story short, she refused to pay it. Phrases like, "I'm not going to pay him anything!" graced her lips.

Six odd months later, I was back in court. And that Brave Bold Judge ordered her to pay -- or else!

So, a month or so later, I received a token amount. Maybe $150 or so.

And then nothing.

Six months later, back in court. And again The Big Bold One ordered her to pay up -- or else!

But this time, she didn't.

She'd figured out the game. She figured out that when the payer is a She, the "pay him or else" means, "pay him or else don't pay him!"

So, I forgave the debt, and "moved on".

I will NEVER, however, forget the unspeakable horrors that were committed against my children, nor will I forget the foul scumbags in the Child Support Industry that empowered the abuse, and forced ME to finance it.

May they all rot in hell, and may every piss I take from now to Kingdom Come trickle down on them as they cry out for a drop of water.

And as I've said in other threads, my contempt for this foul system would be mitigated if I had any sense that my situation was unique -- or even "not that common". However, over the years since, I've encountered more men -- and children -- who have been ravaged by the "Child Support" Industry.

So listening to the fools who insist that I just don't get it... listing to that bulls#it is like being a concentration camp survivor having to endure some fool "historical revisionist" trying to patiently explain to me how hitler wasn't such a bad guy after all, since none of that "concentration camp" stuff really happened.

Try to bulls#it someone who doesn't know better. Try to bulls#it someone who hasn't BEEN THERE.

Have a nice day, y'all.