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

Skip to comments.

Father Torches Car in Protest Over Child Support
Anchorage Daily News ^ | October 18, 2002 | Tataboline Brant

Posted on 10/20/2002 7:46:13 AM PDT by RogerFGay

Edited on 07/07/2004 4:48:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-319 last
To: Z in Oregon
With responsibilities must come rights, as with taxation must come representation...the Founding Fathers had automatic father custody. Reinstituting that is one of the best conservative causes possible!

Right you are, but it isn't so much a question of reinstituting the right as asserting it. When a mother motions for custody, your reply should be framed in terms of her showing cause for your right to be abridged. This right was never lost, or legislated away. Clever lawyers merely apply probate authority without the requisite challenge to a father's fittness. Arguments framed in terms of statutory "best interest criteria" are meant for placement of wards of the state. This is premature, where a father, or a mother can claim guardianship by right. The standard of review is not the same.

Patriarchy vs Matriachy is a "holy war" that has been stealthly waged within Western civilization for years, through the feminist movement (sexual liberation), no-fault divorce, gay "rights", anything that breaks down the family unit. It is time people woke up to the fact.

301 posted on 10/21/2002 6:19:49 AM PDT by right2parent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool; Z in Oregon
re:Fathers want custody of their kids. Why do you have a problem with that?)))

Actually, I agree. A child with his dad is more likely to be better supported, particularly if the dad remarries or has grandma on his side. Also, a child with her dad is less likely to be abused by Mommy's New Friend. What of it? It isn't happening anytime soon. And many men don't want their kids.

re: What grinds my gears is that the money had to be sent to a cheating, lying slut who didn't have to account for how the money was spent.)))

Someone close to me, someone I'm very fond of, is having this very thing happening to him...and the laws in his state supposedly allow the kids some say in where they go on divorce when they're over 13. They want to be with him, but the judge wouldn't even let the kids speak. Judge just threatened this guy with huge costs if he pursued his case. He's still pursuing it, and saving every dime to pay both his and HER lawyer in the oncoming battle.

Mostly he's afraid of her boyfriends and his daughters. But that's a separate issue from the support, which he's also been hit with and is enraged by. I don't feel too sorry for him there...a man must support his children, whether he likes the mother or not. The fact is, I'm afraid, he wasn't too very careful about who he impregnated. Most people around her knew her for what she was, and warned him, but he turned off his brain and let other things do his thinking. I guess he was foolish? We are all slaves to our foolishness, and he has to pay for his for a few years. Hopefully he will prevail in court.

He'll be better for his daughters than she, and she does not deserve the support. However, there is another rather unattractive issue around this thread. A man, shut out of his ex's bed, doesn't like to have to pay out money for another man's sex. This is some of the dynamic I hear going on, *not* thwarted fatherhood. He's paying for some other guy's pleasure, which is the authentic source of the rage.

302 posted on 10/21/2002 7:38:50 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool; Z in Oregon
re:Fathers want custody of their kids. Why do you have a problem with that?)))

Actually, I agree. A child with his dad is more likely to be better supported, particularly if the dad remarries or has grandma on his side. Also, a child with her dad is less likely to be abused by Mommy's New Friend. What of it? It isn't happening anytime soon. And many men don't want their kids.

re: What grinds my gears is that the money had to be sent to a cheating, lying slut who didn't have to account for how the money was spent.)))

Someone close to me, someone I'm very fond of, is having this very thing happening to him...and the laws in his state supposedly allow the kids some say in where they go on divorce when they're over 13. They want to be with him, but the judge wouldn't even let the kids speak. Judge just threatened this guy with huge costs if he pursued his case. He's still pursuing it, and saving every dime to pay both his and HER lawyer in the oncoming battle.

Mostly he's afraid of her boyfriends and his daughters. But that's a separate issue from the support, which he's also been hit with and is enraged by. I don't feel too sorry for him there...a man must support his children, whether he likes the mother or not. The fact is, I'm afraid, he wasn't too very careful about who he impregnated. Most people around her knew her for what she was, and warned him, but he turned off his brain and let other things do his thinking. I guess he was foolish? We are all slaves to our foolishness, and he has to pay for his for a few years. Hopefully he will prevail in court.

He'll be better for his daughters than she, and she does not deserve the support. However, there is another rather unattractive issue around this thread. A man, shut out of his ex's bed, doesn't like to have to pay out money for another man's sex. This is some of the dynamic I hear going on, *not* thwarted fatherhood. He's paying for some other guy's pleasure, which is the authentic source of the rage.

303 posted on 10/21/2002 7:43:08 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
I was very inexperienced at that point in my life, and scared to death that my ex would try to take the girls from me - either legally or by kidnapping. I made no protest. However, as I said before I think we girls made out better than he did. He hasn't seen them, and has no clue what they look like or the kind of women they've turned into with the passage of time. There are some things that money cannot buy.

You can say that again.

I think the public schools should teach something useful for a change - most people are scared to death of the legal system, don't know the jargon, and don't know their rights.

It seems like it should be a central element of Civics class to teach kids the courtroom jargon, procedure, and rules, and how to write and file a motion and how to do legal research -- since almost everyone, at one time or another, comes into contact with the court system, even if it's just a speeding ticket.

304 posted on 10/21/2002 9:29:05 AM PDT by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
There is no cesspool of human existence that doesn't have something even lower. *sigh*
305 posted on 10/21/2002 9:36:06 AM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
A man, shut out of his ex's bed, doesn't like to have to pay out money for another man's sex. This is some of the dynamic I hear going on, *not* thwarted fatherhood. He's paying for some other guy's pleasure, which is the authentic source of the rage.

It's all in the attitude, dude. I was delighted when my ex hooked up with a new beau. It improved her mood and attitude markedly. (And better him than me!!!!)

306 posted on 10/21/2002 9:39:25 AM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
It seems like it should be a central element of Civics class to teach kids the courtroom jargon, procedure, and rules, and how to write and file a motion and how to do legal research -- since almost everyone, at one time or another, comes into contact with the court system, even if it's just a speeding ticket.

This is a GOOD IDEA...

307 posted on 10/21/2002 9:41:19 AM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: null and void
That's the spirit ("Better him than me!"). One thing the fellow of my story says on frequent occasion..."Why do divorces cost so much?"

Because they're worth it!

308 posted on 10/21/2002 10:01:38 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
You have..............issues, my friend. Your daughter.........and subsequently, you..........got the raw end of the deal with her ex, to be sure. However, the point was a valid one: Why in GOD'S NAME would she stay with some asshole who beat her for eight freakin' years???? I just don't understand that, I've never understood that, and I never will understand that. NO excuse or pseudo-explanation can possibly work in such an instance. Next question. IF you knew about it, why did you "allow" this asshole to beat your daughter for eight years? If you didn't know about it, drop the last question and we'll label it "off the mark". However, I'll tell you this, as a father of seven: Any prick that beat one of MY daughters would be eating through a straw in an ICU for a long, long time.

First, when did I mention we were married?

Second, when did I mention this was a "daughter" (not that there's a familial relationship anyway) rather than a son?

Third, when did I mention that I have actually met this ex other than one time on the street very early in our relationship?

Fourth, when did I say that he beat her?

Fifth, please again explain to me how exactly her staying with him too long (she left the first time he got physical, but that's besides the point) or making a bad choice in boyfriends (let me guess, you and your kids never make mistakes. Typical of Freepers.) somehow resolves him of his legal obligations to his son. The focus of this is not on their relationship choices, but on the legal obligation owed by a father to his child(ren). It's a legal obligation. It's not about "Oh, she was a no-good two timer" (not the case, but an example) or "I don't want anything to do with him so leave me alone."

Conservatives want it both ways. They want the welfare pimps to stop rewarding the destruction of the nuclear family, but at the same time, want women to have to raise their kids and support themselves when 75% of the income supporting the family just disappears. So which do you want? More people on Medicare and welfare and less fathers around in any capacity? Or fathers actually supporting their kids and at least being men when they decide they don't want to be around anymore?

To me it sounds like you're encouraging men to not support their kids because of the bad choices their mothers make. So did my aunt who had a drunk in her house (she was married) with her and their three kids who terrorized them later on not deserve child support when the bum finally got kicked out?

309 posted on 10/21/2002 4:51:44 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Z in Oregon
With responsibilities must come rights, as with taxation must come representation...the Founding Fathers had automatic father custody. Reinstituting that is one of the best conservative causes possible!

Interesting theory but I don't think a totally extreme shift the other way is the answer either. I haven't really seen this thread played up as a "who should get custody" angle, but you're right in saying it shouldn't be automatically to the female. However, I don't think it's just either to automatically give the father custod. It's almost like the affirmative action argument.

Also, I don't think you've considered the fact that some fathers don't want custody of their kids. What then? Do we go even further back in time to a Dickens'ian era?

310 posted on 10/21/2002 5:04:49 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: glory
Nope, I think there are two sides to this story, but for every situation likes your girlfriends and my mothers CTID, I can tell you of a number of male friends whose wives went weird on them and decided to end the marriage. As I said, perhaps we need to get back to fault divorce.

Sure. I don't want to make it sound like I believe women should always get custody (which wasn't really an issue on this thread) or that men should get soaked.

However, on this thread, conservatives were choosing to defend one guy. A seemingly bad guywho doesn't support his kid, menaces enforcement officials who try to get the money he apparently doesn't pay to his kids, and who comitted a crime and didn't seem to show anything positive from this article (now maybe some of the posters here know this guy personally and can vouch for him, but the rest of us, to be fair, can only go by what we've read).

Now if they were using this guy just to push their agenda about alimony and/or child support, fine. In either case they're wrong. Wrong for defending the guy and for choosing the wrong "test case" for their anti-child support rants.

That's what bothers me. And I've seen it before on other threads where Freepers take up the cause of some scuzzball because they see what they want to see, which is their agendas being pushed, without regard to the facts. That white trash family about six months ago who starved their kids or something and if I'm not mistaken tried to take the kids back at gunpoint (or was that a separate case, which Freepers also hooted and hollered in favor of because drawing weapons on legal officers is Americana or something) was another example.

311 posted on 10/21/2002 5:11:49 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
If you don't have kids and have never paid court ordered child support, how are you qualified to comment reasonably and rationally on this thread?

You're not black and haven't been discriminated against so how can you reasonably and rationally comment on a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?

I don't own a gun so how can I rationally talk in favor of the Second Amendment?

I didn't vote for Reagan and was 11 when he left office so how could I think he's a great President?

I've never been arrested for a drug offense so how can I be against the War on Drugs?

Are you saying that you have to have had something happen to you to know whether something is right or wrong or have an opinion on it? IF that were true, we'd all have very little to talk about.

312 posted on 10/21/2002 5:16:08 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
Your point about bad examples being used to push good causes is valid.
313 posted on 10/21/2002 5:19:49 PM PDT by Z in Oregon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
One thing the fellow of my story says on frequent occasion..."Why do divorces cost so much?"
Because they're worth it!

A line I shall repeat, repeatedly.

314 posted on 10/21/2002 5:48:53 PM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die; saminfl
Ya know what?? My post wasn't even supposed to go to you...........it was to saminfl (the one who's daughter was regularly beaten, etc.).

I put the wrong name in the "to" box, based upon your subsequent comment.

So.......sorry, but forget about it. Wasn't a message for you.

315 posted on 10/22/2002 3:56:16 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
My apology to you. I should have just ignored you to begin with, will do in the future.
316 posted on 10/22/2002 5:13:18 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
One of the hard adjustments in a man's married life, I believe, comes when his wife starts putting the babies first, rather than him first.

Solution: every father should put his babies first. Ostensibly, be their primary caregiver.

317 posted on 10/24/2002 8:50:50 AM PDT by Z in Oregon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Marking spot...
318 posted on 12/06/2002 3:59:33 PM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: scab4faa
Reduction??? In child support?? They don't give a sh!t whether you have a job or not.. All they want is the money.. When I went to court for child support on my second child the judge said it did not matter if I was paying support for another child or not. I still had to pay the same no matter what.. I have never heard of them lowering anyone's child support but if you get a better job they will hit you for more in a blink of an eye!

Just FYI, my att'y filed a motion to reduce my payments this week. She says it can be and has been done in other cases. (Still no job)...

319 posted on 12/07/2002 7:24:11 AM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-319 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