Free Republic

In reply to:
“not to nitpick, but wouldn’t the feds make you pay 15% Social Security on that cleaning business, or is that above a dollar threshold.”

That’s included in the $1,300 tax that the divorced mom owes; in fact, it’s basically all of what she owes. And half of the 15% FICA is deductible from gross income (see line 27 of the 1040). The goal is to come as close to the sweet spot in professed earnings as possible (in the vicinity of $9,000 in adjusted gross income). Below or above that, the single mom with one child gets a less than optimal take. Like I said, for pretending to work and filling out a form, she gets about $1,600 (and credit for paying about $1,350 into the Social Security system - even though she hasn’t paid a dime).

“My former boss (making 200 grand/yr) lived with a girl and he had her work just enough to get the max EIC.”

You don’t have to really earn income to get the credit; you simply have to say you do. Assume you’re a divorced mother with one child living with you. You claim “head of household” filing status. You claim that you’re self-employed in a house-cleaning business. You claim to earn $9,700 in that business (you don’t really do any work or earn any income though - you just say you do - it’s a cash business so who can really dispute your claim to income). You claim to drive 1,000 miles in your business (your only business expense). Your tax due is about $1,300, but you have an EIC of about $2,900 ... a nice profit of $1,600 for simply filling out the tax forms.

What's lost in all of this hub-bub is the issue of the question that was asked. It's one of those issues where both the religious right and the libertarian fringes of the Republican Party actually agree - and yet the Republican Party completely ignores it.

Tony Tailor asked McCain whether as president he "would be bold enough to address the issue of equal access to children for fathers that have gone through divorce."

He specialized the question even further,“Many soldiers are experiencing multiple tours in Iraq and this is exacerbating an already high divorce rate. In times past the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act protected soldiers away in combat from litigation launched against them at home but it did not protect their custody rights to their children. If you (Senator McCain) were to become president, what would you do to help protect soldier's custody rights to their children?”

One wonders why the Republican Party refuses to address an issue that has such widespread appeal but is kept from implementation by lobbies that profit by it (the same psychological associations that want to drug your kids in school ... and the Bar Association for who the divorce industry is their bread and butter) and a few fringe extremist feminist groups that consider all men to be potential threats.

Lyrics for Song: Do You Want Fries With That
Tim McGraw

I thought that was your voice
I thought that was my car
Now we ain't ever met before
But I know who you are
You're living in my house
And I'm living in a tent
And don't laugh, this second job of mine
Is paying both our rents
You're out here buying Happy Meals
And I'm eating rice and pintos
You so much as crack a smile at me, man
I'll come through this here window

Well you took my wife
And you took my kids
And you took that life
That I used to live
My pride, the pool, the boat, my tools, my dreams, the dog, the cat
Yeah I think that's just about everything
Oh I almost forgot
Do you want fries with that?

Your ketchup's in the bag
And a check is in the mail
I hope your chicken's raw inside
And I hope your bun is stale
I'm supposed to tell you
"Please come back"
But how bout this instead?
I hope you both choke on a pickle
Man, that would tickle me to death
I don't know what you're waiting on
You're holding up the line
Oh man, you ain't got no change coming back
Are you out of your mind?

Well you took my wife
And you took my kids
And you took that life
That I used to live
My pride, the pool, the boat, my tools, my dreams, the dog, the cat
Yeah I think that's all there is
Do you want fries with that?

Well you took my wife
And you took my kids
And you took that life
That I used to live
My pride, the pool, the boat, my tools, my dreams, the dog, the cat
Yeah I think that about covers it
Do you want fries with that?

“I know of one divorce case [a guy I used to work with] where, as respondent, he demanded a jury trial. In most jurisdictions, divorce isn't handled by family court, but by the civil version of felony criminal court. That's per statute. If you want a jury trial for such matters, change the law. Lobby your legislature. But go all the way, so if some fifteen year old commits ANY felony, we can try him as an adult, and put him away {I'm a retired prosecutor].'Good of the child' cuts a lot of ways”

Since you’re a lawyer (a retired prosecutor) I can get away with taking an anti-lawyer jab and ponder if you’d like to see fewer 15-year-old felons or whether you really enjoy the current count and simply want to be able to prosecute them as adults (and I’d agree with you as far as violent felonies go)

One of the strongest correlating factors, perhaps even the strongest correlating factor, to your teenage felon is the absence of the biological father from the teenager’s home. There are many who would have you believe that this is because a father in the home ensures adequate economic support; and that economic support to single mothers can make up for the absence of the biological father – unfortunately it doesn’t pan out that way.  Even economically deprived children turn out less “felonious” when their biological fathers are physically present to parent them.

Furthermore, the teenager most prone to violence is the teenager who suffers abuse at home. Guess who the perpetrators of the majority of abuse against teenagers are. If you guessed biological fathers then you’d be wrong. Most abused teenagers suffer their torment at the hand of their mother’s new spouse or domestic partner, or from the mother herself.

For these reasons alone I would think you would find it compelling to keep fathers in a parental role with their children.

As for changing the laws; yes, we do lobby our legislatures, and have done so for decades. But we are opposed by one of the most influential lobbies imaginable; the one that you belong to – the Bar association. It represents the lawyers who work the divorce and custody industry – which, after all, is the cash cow of your ilk.

A group in Massachusetts has been able to demonstrate the effectiveness of this Bar association to oppose popular will. It’s increasingly difficult to get iniatives placed on the ballot to implement changes to law. However, in 2004, a measure was placed upon the ballot in about 25% of the legislative districts in Massachusetts. It read:

Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation requiring that in all separation and divorce proceedings involving minor children, the court shall uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children and the children’s right to maximize their time with each parent, so far as is practical, unless one parent is found unfit or the parents agree otherwise, subject to the requirements of existing child support and abuse prevention laws?

The initiative received an 85% approval rating. In nearly every district it received more “approval” votes than the votes received by the legislator from that district (the legislator that it was intended to influence). And yet the Massachusetts legislature fails to enact such legislative changes. The measure is opposed by the Bar Association every time it comes to committee.

And so the Bar says, “Let them eat cake”, to the public … because lawyers would lose their cash cow. Is it any wonder that lawyers are held in such low regard by the public?

 “I know of one divorce case [a guy I used to work with] where, as respondent, he demanded a jury trial. In most jurisdictions, divorce isn't handled by family court, but by the civil version of felony criminal court. That's per statute. If you want a jury trial for such matters, change the law. Lobby your legislature.”

You didn’t mention whether he got his jury trial.

But I must mention that I don’t ever “demand” when I go to court. That little tyrant in the robe is even more vindictive than my ex. I “request”. And yes I requested a jury. And yes, I was politely denied; as, I understand, was Murtari – as have been several dozen others that I know of.

Silly me; I believe the civic lessons that they taught in school. Change the law!?! I thought the Constitution was the law. But, as the libertarians are quick to point out about the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution … it’s all void where prohibited by law.

 “And that support is court mandated.”

 

And that court mandate was sanctioned by a jury of his peers, right?

 

You’re guaranteed a jury, if you so choose, in any criminal proceeding.

 

I was even able to request a jury in a civil case in a small claims matter.

 

Why can’t you get a jury, a constitutional guarantee, in family court? How is it that anyone can be imprisoned by judicial fiat without benefit of the final checks and balances provided by a jury?

 “Sorry, but he punishes the child by refusing to pay the support. And that support is court mandated”

 

Dominic Murtari wants for nothing except his father.  “Can’t buy me groceries”, as you lyricized it, doesn’t apply. His physical needs (housing, food, schooling and extracurricular activities) are met. What would have been lacking from Dominic’s life is the valuable involvement he had with his father; involvement that came at a price of over $60,000 over the course of seven years due to the child being moved thousands of miles away from the father.

 

All of the basic, and a host of the superfluous, physical needs of the child are met. Can we not, even under these circumstances, acknowledge that the father’s relationship with the child is more important than what comes out of his wallet to be sent to the child’s mother?

 

Perhaps that’s a lesson we need to drill into every young man’s head: your value to your child is what comes out of your wallet rather than the relationship you have with your child. Let’s see what that does to the institutions of marriage and family. Perhaps I should point out here that men are already learning that lesson; the percentage of white males who have never been married is almost 25% higher than white females (remarkably, the percentages in the black population are almost gender neutral – though the numbers for blacks are significantly higher than for whites).

 “You know nothing of my husbands' sacrifice!!!!!!!”

 

You’re correct, I don’t. But you led me down that path by writing that your husband had a demanding job rather than a demanding family situation. I guess I’m accustomed to too many Yuppie fathers to whom a half million dollar home, Beemer, and weekend golf game is more important than time with their children (“I can’t take time off for family leave – we just can’t afford it”)

I applaud you both for your dedication to your family.

“If something ever happened to my family, I think it would only be right to have me be the main provider. My husband works and I have always stayed at home. I've always been the one that has taken and picked up the kids. I've always been the one that cooks their food, does their laundry, helps with the homework, etc. My husband has worked.

It doesn't mean that my husband hasn't wanted to be home more, but he has a demanding job.”

I assume what you mean by, “if something ever happened to my family,” is really, “if my husband and I broke apart (i.e.: divorced)”. A different definition would be, “if my husband were to shuffle off this mortal coil and the rest of our family had to survive on his life insurance, or his savings, or (what is probably the worst available option) what I could earn in the workplace having been out of the workforce for as long as I have.”

If your husband’s job is so demanding then he really should have given more careful consideration to what’s required of parenting before he decided to become a parent. People entering demanding fields should be aware of the life choices they abandon by entering those fields. You said it well when you mentioned “It doesn’t mean that he hasn’t wanted to”, but yet he made a conscious choice.

I walked away from six-figure careers four times to be a stay-at-home father. Once for two years (when my youngest was six months old) and later, in less demanding childhood periods, for intervals of nine, twelve, and six months. Yeah, your career takes a significant hit when you do that, and you have to put the extravagant purchases on hold – but you owe yourself (and your family) the experience of you being there in a fully engaged way. During the other times I either dropped the children off at school each day or picked them up (razzing their friends and talking with their teachers everyday). I checked their homework every night. I brought them into my workplace at least monthly. My children learned to cook from me. I chased naked, soap-sudsy, slippery children around the house trying to keep them in the tub. If you can’t do these things then you really need to reassess where your priorities are and ask yourself why you thought having children was an appropriate choice.

Parenting is the best hobby in the world. It’s not a job as some would have you believe. No one is there to manage you while you engage in it. There really is no set of bureaucratic procedures you can follow to do it correctly. You can’t place an “income-earned” on it like you can with a paid job. But the satisfaction, if you do well, is beyond anything you’ll find in a paid job. However, if all you’ve done is to pour money into your family then you’ve done nothing but pay for someone else’s hobby; and you’ve really contributed nothing of yourself to your children.

If you were to categorize the men’s movement as it pertained to parenting, you’d find Equal Parenting advocates, like myself, who believe that a child’s parents should contribute equally of finances, emotion, time, nurturing, household duties, impact to career, and the other aspects of raising the child. From the way you describe your husband it appears that he falls into another category, the Equal Custody advocate, who believes that Equal Parenting can wait until a custody action is filed with the court before being implemented.

I hope that your children never experience their family breaking apart. It’s like you said, we ought to be working on keeping parents/families together. Unfortunately, there’s a slightly less than 50% chance your family will break apart due to divorce. Perhaps you and your husband should work out the details while you’re still friends. If you can’t talk about such things then there are problems afoot (and the talk might just get him reconsidering his level of involvement with his children). Just remember, it all goes downhill once lawyers, GALS, psychologists and judges become involved. If you want my advice, put a nuptial agreement in writing that the people who attended your wedding (these family and friends here assembled) are the jury to define the outcome of any divorce or custody action.

“Now he gets to eat off the citizens.”

Is this what they call irony? Murtari is on a hunger strike, for crying out loud

"If he cares so much about the kid[s], why hasn't he paid the support?"

 

Let me preface this by saying that I'll be paying about $20K in child support for my two teenage children this year. My children’s mother filed for an increase in child support, claiming indigence (she got herself fired from a good office job because she doesn’t like working for managers – and the child support allows her to get away with performing odd jobs while maintaining her social life). Three weeks following the decision the indigent parent purchased a second automobile – a two-seater sports car (and the kids wear tattered clothes and eat cereal for dinner).

 

Here’s my definition. "Child support" is a verb, not a noun. Child Support is the parenting that parents do for their children, rather than what comes out their wallets. My own opinion, and it’s an opinion shared by 85% of the voters in a 2004 Massachusetts referendum, is that parents ought to be sharing equally in all the responsibilities of raising their children.

 

Murtari is a fit parent. No one, not even the court, disputes that. If he wasn't a fit parent then they wouldn't be allowing him any access to his son. Yet, when he petitioned the court for equal custody of his son the court denied his petition and assessed him child support based upon a income that the court imputed to be about twice as high as his actual income. Then the court allowed the mother of his son to move to the other side of the country, taking their son with her (not exactly in the best interests of the child to remove the child from his other parent and paternal extended family - nor to remove the child from the social/community environment he had grown accustomed to). So Mr. Murtari ends up spending $60,000 to try to maintain a relationship with his son. If the court is going to allow one parent to remove their child from the other parent then shouldn't the travel expenses of the non-custodial parent be taken into account?

 

Actually, shouldn't what the non-custodial parent pays for supporting the child while the child is with the NCP also be factored into the equation. The NCP has to maintain household facilities for the child even if the child is only there for a part of the time.

 

I’ll grant you, if a parent abandons a child to be raised by someone else, then that parent ought to be assessed the charges needed to bring the child to responsible adulthood. But if a parent is able, fit and willing to participate equally in raising the child then why is that parent relegated to a “Non-Custodial” status? Even worse, why is the custodial parent allowed to move a child out of the district where the custody ruling was entered (where the child had been living) and effectively eliminate the other parent from the child’s life; putting the NCP in the position of having to choose whether to be a parent (connected with the child) or a wallet.

 

There is outright bias against fathers in family court. I petitioned for equal custody from the very beginning. My children testified that they wanted it. The mother and father live a half mile apart. The judge even verbally ruled for equal custody. Yet when the mother refused to cooperate in the writing of the order, the judge awarded sole custody to her. I even offered to set up a third house for the children and pay all the expenses of operating it (the kids stay there and never switch houses; the parents do the switching as a penalty for their screw-up). Mothers have no incentive to compromise or negotiate when they are the defacto owners of their children.

 

For anyone who has not been through this process, particularly fathers, keep the following two definitions in mind - because they seem to be in vogue within the family court system. The court considers a good mother to be one who is not a drug addict or child abuser. The court defines good fatherhood only in terms of maternal deficiency; which is to say, a good father is one who is attempting to jettison a parenting partner who is a drug addict or child abuser.

I was amazed that the New York Times would publish something like this on Mother's Day ... maybe justice IS coming.

I've included a editorial from the Polytechnic regarding Sen. Clinton's selection as commencement speaker.

http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=3822&part=1

Dear President Jackson,

I want to start out by saying that I’m a Democrat. I supported Hillary Clinton in her Senate bid in 2000, and will again in 2006, should she choose to run for re-election. For the most part, I’ve supported your decisions here at Rensselaer since I arrived in the Fall of 2001, but I can’t support your decision to have Senator Clinton here as our commencement speaker.

To me, the choice of speaker should not be a question of politics. A person should be invited to speak at Commencement to offer words of advice and encouragement to the outgoing class, as they commence the rest of their ongoing education, and as they enter the working world. They should not, however, be used as a political statement to further any extra goals or agendas.

I don’t know what goals or agendas you may or may not have, but I do know that Senator Clinton is an extremely controversial person. From the moment she announced her candidacy to run for office, people all over the country have been arguing with each other about her motives and ideals. For whatever reasons they may have, a lot of people in the country, let alone New York state or even RPI, simply hate her.

Whether you have used the choice of Senator Clinton to bring the Institute esteem and fame, I don’t know. If you have used it to increase alumni giving or make our school more attractive to prospective students, I can’t say. But to me, as a current student and senior, I know that this has outraged people on campus, and a lot of seniors, several of my friends included, have pledged to never give to Rensselaer or even attend their own Commencement.

I think the students should have a say in who speaks for their Commencement. I think it’s too late to go through all the candidates again, but I, for one, would rather have no speaker and graduate with my class than have Senator Clinton speak with my friends and classmates upset or missing. We should put it to a vote, a referendum during the GM week elections, in which seniors can vote—yes, or no—on whether or not Senator Clinton should speak. I think that’s the only fair way to do it, and I think the Senator herself would agree with me that that would be the best solution.

From the kids who sweated through each and every one of their classes, to the student-athletes who have gone on to records and titles, to those student-employees who have worked to better campus as members of FYE, Residence Life, or Admissions, this day is about them. It’s about their time here; a celebration of what they have done. To many, however, the choice of Senator Clinton is a slap in the face on what should be their day.

I think that it would be a crying shame to go ahead as is. To stop even some of our seniors from enjoying that day to their fullest degree is deplorable. I know I won’t be able to. I’ll go no matter who speaks, but we got here as a class, and we should all leave together.

Vidhu S. Pandey

MECH/AERO ‘05

In '76 we had Walter Cronkite. I suppose I expected Rather this year; but the speaker they came up with leaves me speechless.

"I wish the article would have told us why he lost his medical liscense."



It's a Clinton-era law. If you don't pay theh child support you've been assessed then you can lose your driver's license and any professional licenses/accredidations that you have.

"That said, a 17 year old is certainly old enough to choose to live with you if Mom isn't taking proper care of her, correct?"

In Illinois it doesn't matter how old they are. My 15 year-old son (almost 16) defies his mother to simply come visit me (he like to stay here as he doesn't have a bedroom at his mother's house). She sends the police after him to bring him back home. He tells her that she can't keep him there after he turns 18. She replies that when he turns 18 she's kicking him out. He used to be a straight-A student - got his first D this past grading period (no A's at all). Thanks Family Court!

"It is the same old game. He fathered the children. decided to move on, for what ever reason. And assumed that meant he didn't have any responsibility for the children. WRONG"

50% of American marriages fail; and in over 70% of the cases it's the wife who decides to move on. "Dead Beat Dad" is a term that has made it into the American vocabulary because politicians just love to run for office by demonizing them (most of the time they're "Dead Broke Dads"). The term "Run-Away Mom" hasn't quite caught on - and it's the term that applies in those cases where wifey didn't feel fulfilled or was simply bored with the marriage, so she left.

I'll mention a case I brought up in another thread, but there's thousands more just like it. This one is from a buddy in Michigan. His wife had an affair with another man. When hubby finds out, the wife files for divorce and gets a court order kicking hubby out of his own house. When the divorce is final:
-1- he's lost his house and half his other equity
-2- he gets stuck paying the legal bills of both sides
-3- he pays almost 30% of his after tax income in child support
-4- he is only allowed to see his daughters every other weekend and on Wednesday evenings (oops, sorry, the court intended him to be able to see his kids then - but the ex doesn't allow it - he hasn't seen his kids in two years - the court doesn't seem interested in solving that part of the equation).

No wonder the male suicide rate in the child-bearing years is three times that of women.

"I'll have to look for Boeing or Airbus planes."


AIRBUS!!! How dare you? You're Amur'kin ain't ya, then fly an Amur'kin plane (a takeoff on something Carroll Shelby said about sports cars)

All the things you mentioned come bundled into a relationship and don't require the context of a marriage. In fact, the sex and household chores can be purchased as a commodity (at a far less dear monetary/emotional toll than comes at a divorce). The "bud" part is a bit outside that realm, but I can't imagine anyone standing at an alter and listening to:
"Will you take missyme to be your lawfully wedded 'Bud'?"

There's something in human relationships that most people seem to think can only be achieved via marriage (I wish I knew what it was because I've met so many people who feel they can't be complete until they are married). I understand the religious connotation to the ceremony but most people don't really take that seriously. If they did there wouldn't be so many divorces (you don't screw up on the committments you make to the omnipotent - results in a big penalty).

I think it was Simone de Beauvier that said men avoid marriage early in life but desperately seek it late in life; probably based on her experience with Satre and his late-life proposal; I think she also implied that the time scale was flipped for women, wanting marriage early in life and avoiding it late in life - but don't quote me on it).

Yeah, it's a clever analogy; a cute play with words.

We're hampster dancing with the pellets of companionship inside the cage. Yet the entity supplying them is outside; beyond that cage door that is being closed.

You're right, it is very funny.

Even if a man is planning on having children there are few reasons to get married (the downside risks outweigh the possibility of benefit). Name a benefit a man receives that he doesn't already have by virtue of the standing relationship. Perhaps among them would be:
-1- the ability for a wife to visit you on your deathbed when you're unconscious
-2- the ability to pass government-sponsored survivor benefits to your wife
... I can't think of many more, but would like to hear them.

For a man the only way to make a custody situation worse is to throw a marriage dissolution on top of it. Without marriage he at least retains the equity he has built up. Granted, if the wife outearns the man then the pendulum would swing in the other direction.

If you want children then draw up a private contract between the mother and the father rather than deal with the blanket contract that the state offers (the clauses of the state contract are never clearly stated - family court decides for you upon dissolution of the marriage; so you won't know until then).

In your own child-rearing contract clearly state what is required of each parent. Also state what conditions and responsibilities will prevail if the two parents decide to abrogate their initial contract (a 50/50 split of time would seem to be most equitable but if the parents dicide differently then write it up and commit in writing to it).

You do raise a valid question: "What really is the purpose of being married?"

And "everyone should at least try it 2 times" would be humorous if it weren't so succinctly, though sadly, to the point. There are some to whom it means so much that they never do it; and others to whom it means so little that they do it with as many spouses as possible.

I don't read his beliefs that way at all, particularly the Socio-Democratic mindset. Government which governs best is that which governs least. One of the very basic bulwarks of our system of government is that all who go before the law for judgement are treated, individually, as equals. No special treatment is to be afforded to individuals, nor special punishment is to be meted out to individuals, based upon the gender class to which that individual belongs.

He's not asking for special treatment, he's asking that our government stand up, at home, for the very basic tenets that it is professing to stand-up for throughout the world. What he seems to be saying is "Stand up and protect the rights of our own citizens in our own backyard before treking the world to afford these rights to strangers in strange lands".

If you want to look at Socialism in practice then take a hard look at the family court system. It is government intrusion into the family - it drives the philosophy of "It takes a villiage" to the extreme (government, not you, knows best for your children). It redistributes wealth. It rewards the unproductive at the expense of the productive.

The family court system is designed and tailored to benefit lawyers. By maximizing conflict between parents it maximizes billable hours. Granting equal access to the children in such situations would greatly reduce this conflict. And why do the bar associations oppose 50/50 parental access plans? Because it would cut into the profits of what is a cash cow for the legal profession. Family court is very much an industry - one that thrives on the misery it can induce in those going through it.

In a society in which half of all marriages end in divorce and in which over 70% of those divorces are initiated the female partner, I don't, for a second, think that it's men who have a problem with committment. Perhaps women should look a bit more realistically at the marriage vow before they "commit" to it. Then again, perhaps the marriage vow itself should be amended to say the reality of what happens; "till death do us part - or unless a better option comes along sooner".

With the divorce/custody laws the way they are and given the manner in which family courts wreak havoc upon husbands/fathers, I'd have to say, "If you're a male considering getting married, you ought to be committed - to an institution that could treat such lapses into insanity".

I'll mention one case, but there's thousands more just like it. This one is from a buddy in Michigan. His wife had an affair with another man. When hubby finds out, the wife files for divorce and gets a court order kicking hubby out of his own house. When the divorce is fina:
-1- he's lost his house and half his other equity
-2- he gets stuck paying the legal bills of both sides
-3- he pays almost 30% of his after tax income in child support
-4- is only allowed to see his daughters every other weekend and on Wednesday evenings (oops, sorry, the court intended him to be able to see his kids then - but the ex doesn't allow it - he hasn't seen his kids in two years - the court doesn't seem interested in solving that part of the equation).

So, if you're a man considering marriage and you're willing to endure those four things if you future wife entertains the whim to leave you ... then by all means, go get committed.