General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI May be Going to Debtor's Prison
From Daily Kos:
That meme is that 'poverty is a choice'.
After I explain, I know how easy it will be to tell me I 'could have made better choices'. Believe me, I know that. But the choices I made at the time were reasonable choices. Many people have made many of the same choices I have made and managed to do well by them. So the choices I made were reasonable, but things just didn't work out. In retrospect, I could have done things differently of course, but I did not have the luxury of foresight at the time.
<...>
My misfortune created gaps in payments and the debt accrued. The last blow, however, was by far the most heartbreaking and among so many other unfortunate coincidences, it bore the worst possible timing.
<...>
I can hardly describe the angst, agony, and sickness I feel at being told that I've chosen to live in poverty. So many people put barely half the effort into finding gainful work that I have and are doing just fine. There's no way to describe how awful this feels. Yet, in this country, we are afflicted with that poisonous meme that tells us people are poor because they somehow deserve it, and that the rich deserve to be richer. It is not just a meme, it is a sickness that pervades and infects the minds of people who might otherwise have been kinder and more understanding of their neighbor's plights, but instead visit scorn upon those who might have so much more to offer if not for their struggle. Sure, not everyone in poverty is fighting so hard to get out, but after so many efforts prove utterly futile is it any wonder that people might just give up?
It's actually long, but it's worth reading:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/07/1089502/-I-May-be-Going-to-Debtor-s-Prison
The author is effectively going to jail for being too poor to pay. Wait till you read about the circumstances.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)There's a chance I may not be posting here for a while. 
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... though it's not much comfort, my personal financial situation is going from bad to worse and short of something radical taking place.....
...let's just say we are screwed. A lifetime of work has been drained from us, with little hope that anyone in a position to make it better (read: the government owned lock, stock and barrel by the 1%) even cares the tiniest bit.
Getting locked up for debts, is something we were taught didn't happen in America. I guess we were lied to then, also.
There's a storm on the horizon, a big nasty one.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)to put people. Are they going to take the man's wife and daughters and pimp them out til the bill is paid? Scary stuff. How is this man suppose to pay back anything if you through him in jail.
randome
(34,845 posts)Do you know how many men would take low-paying jobs just to spite their ex-wives? If the courts do nothing, then child support agreements mean nothing.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)are having some big problems.
ret5hd
(22,161 posts)
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)like all poor people do silly, don't you listen to the sage advice from the right side of the "Democratic" party?
Such an enlightened elder from that best side of our party just explained to you why he chose this, you are supposed to be impressed by his wisdom, didn't you know that?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It does happen. Maybe not squalor, but they'll take the hit. Women would too. People can be very nasty for the period of time right near the divorce.
annabanana
(52,802 posts)Mean as in not compassionate, and mean as in stingy, petty and small.
It sucks the soul right out of public discourse. You can see it in LTTEs that moan."Why should I pay for this and that if it doesn't redound to me specifically, but to my neighbor."
Has the atomization of society eliminated the very concept of "neighbor"?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)You realize that's what he's saying ,right? The "this and that" being his kids.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Where, exactly, did Croft ever question whether he 'should' pay support?
In fact, he admitted paying despite the fact that the kids wanted for nothing.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)". Sure, she and the children lived on a half-million dollar piece of property the boyfriend 'bought' from his father (drove a hard bargain, I'm sure), she had a late model Cadillac at her disposal, and a brand new $2000 cat. Yes, that's “two-thousand dollar 'C'-'A'-'T'”, as in fur, claws, nasty temperament and the litter-box scent as delightful as having rancid corn-dogs jammed up your nasal passages by a skilled proctologist (Don't get me wrong, I like cats enough, but the kids tell me this one is a pissant). I also had and continue to have severe reservations about the sorts of activities that she might spend the money on. If the reputation of the boyfriend indicates anything, my reservations are valid. So even though she and the children had everything they needed and then some more, I signed the papers for my job to deduct money out of my pay every week to the tune of $150."
That's his way of justifying non payment.He sounds very passive aggressive, and you have no idea whether or not the kids "wanted for nothing" other than his words.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)I'm willing to bet there's a glaring omission that would make all this make much more sense.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)On many issues.
gateley
(62,683 posts)doing just that!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Pithlet
(25,089 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)Those issues might do a lot to explain the poor judgment.
randome
(34,845 posts)That's not much at all for child support.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)ps: in current dollars, that was also the median male income in 1968.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/
table p5, "all races"
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Just isn't. If the kids are to believe that divorce isn't about them, then neither is the re-marriage.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)How you can read where he says that he pays despite those circumstances and call it a 'justification' for not paying while in complete ignorance of everything else is just messed up.
There's just nowhere in your universe where non-women can be victims of society, is there?
You have serious meanness issues.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)have "meanness issues" disagreeing with you does not make one a monster.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Which is based on federal studies that decide how much of parental income is used in intact families to pay for children's needs. The boyfriends are irrelevant, because they don't owe a dime to support that child.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)lapislzi
(5,762 posts)Yes, I am sorry for the writer's misfortune.
And, I am not in the judging business.
No, I don't have the "gift of foresight" either, but some of this man's judgments seem very ill-advised and questionable.
Not to mention his highly emotionally charged retelling of the divorce situation. I've been through divorce. If you are trying to plead your case to an audience (who may already be sympathetic), it doesn't help your suit to tear down the other party. It merely maligns your own credibility.
I could relate my divorce story as a lurid tabloid splash, but it wouldn't change the facts, or my circumstances.
And the fact that, by his own admission, he had opportunities to act in his own defense and did not take them. I don't understand that.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)If so, then he should present same to the judge. Even someone acting as their own counsel can do that.
I understand bad luck, and I understand bad judgment. I also read Post #116, and it deepened my suspicions about the writer's story.
As I said, many questions, few answers. And I'm sure the wife has a story, too, and it won't look like his.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)He explains exactly why he didn't push the perjury issue.
My God, the ignorance abounds.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)I read a lot of excuses and flimsy justifications. Some of the excuses I found plausible. Not all, including his "reason" for not pushing the perjury issue.
My conclusion is that his story is suspect. I am entitled to that opinion, as you are to yours.
Form whatever opinion you like about me or my comments, but ignorant I am not.
I rarely take anyone's story at face value. Never one like that. I like to think I am a critical reader in every sense of the word.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)You've selected whatever bits and pieces you felt like in order to achieve your forgone conclusion that his situation was a choice or result of poor character.
You are exactly the type of person he said was infected with this sickness of blaming the poor for their situation.
You're transparent and oblivious to it.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)I have repeatedly explained that I have sympathy for the gentleman's plight. But, I found many aspects of the story implausible. I am entitled to ask questions. I am sure there are things he has not told us, for his own reasons.
I had no foregone conclusions before I read the story, but I sure had a whole lot of puzzling questions after I'd finished it. If that makes me a "blamer of the poor," then I think your reasoning is very faulty.
It is YOUR choice to swallow his story whole and without any critical thinking on your part.
It is also YOUR choice to smear me with your broad brush.
And, um, don't contradict me when I told you that I read the whole thing. I did, and I don't lie. If you don't like my take-away from it, tough on you.
Good bye, and peace to you.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)clearly he's burned over his divorce. who knows how much of it is true.
that said, the fellow shouldn't be going to jail if he honestly can't afford the payments.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Lionessa
(3,894 posts)He doesn't take much responsibility for his choices (sort of does but in such a lame way it's ridiculous), and spends most of his time demonizing his ex-wife who we are to take his word on that she's a evil, gold-digger (yeah, like that's not every ex-husband's bs line to not accept the fact that they had faults they were unwilling to keep in check while demanding the woman be perfect), even attacks her mother (how classic is that?), and then claims to be just like every other person whose been experiencing economic desperation. He's not. There are a lot of us who very simply lost our employment or business and simply can't find any other income, no drama, no blaming family or friends or exes, just economic hardship.
It's not worth reading, really not. I wish I had the time back. Yes, perhaps it is unfair to expect child support when one is broke, but since he presents his reasons for being broke in such a way as to be unbelievably one sided with himself as some type of troubled hero of heart and soul, makes the entire story essentially unbelievable.
He's not telling the whole story, only the sob parts, imo.
It seems as though he tried to start up a business rather than spending the effort looking for a job. That's likely what led to the possible jail time. If you've got a child support order, you can't just decide not to look for a job and try your hand at starting a business. You don't have that luxury, and the courts won't look at that kindly.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Lionessa
(3,894 posts)The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)in order to allow you to believe that the situation is not as the author described.
You assume he is lying not based on the information that is there, but on your own biased perception do to experiences that may have no bearing on this particular case whatsoever.
One of the greatest problems with the dialogue in this nation is how people substitute their own perceptions for what is right in front of them in black and white just as you have done here.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)I haven't seen any details provided that weren't included in his tales.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)the tone of which is so obvious. He wrote, he says he unable to handle normal set backs without losing jobs, he claims to have been a good husband whose wife shat on him and is evil, he claims that somehow because the step father is wealthy he shouldn't be expected to pay his child support in lieu of a many time delayed scheme wherein he even says that similar shops were closing letting me know there was not a lot of evidence that even if that got started they would have succeeded, . . .
What essay were you reading, I see clearly both by facts presented and by tone the reality of this type of guy. I repeat that I understand that experiential examples perhaps allow me to hone in on these things, and they are there.
mysuzuki2
(3,580 posts)a male could not possibly have a legitimate complaint against a female. Women are never vindictive and never lie.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)nothing to do with his ex-wife.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)And if you had bothered to read the article, you'd know that he was pursuing a business in order to make sure they would be taken care of when they are no longer living in luxury.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)He had an order to follow. He needed to try to find a job to fulfill it. He couldn't provide the proof that he'd done so, probably because he hadn't been because he was focusing on pursuing that business. Edit that might be what got him in trouble.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Really?
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)It isn't the starting the business that would get you in trouble. It's the not looking for employment. If you can do both, no problem.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Is he obligated to pay the same amount regardless of circumstance?
Sure the non-custodial parent should help. But not at a level that ruins him. If the ex has to cut back, well, I guess they should have made better decisions too. The children, in this case, aren't getting money even when the Dad goes to jail. It isn't about them.
kag
(4,189 posts)She left him.
What about HER responsibilities to try and make the marriage work? I have no sympathy for women or men who dump their spouses when the going gets tough, and then blame THEM for any perceived hardship.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)Edit sorry for that answer. For one thing I can't stand the argument "for the sake of the children". For another, I can't imagine her having to stay with someone who would post about the mother of his children the way he has. He's capable of that? What a winner. I can see why she got the hell away. He's a rageaholic.
I thought it was pretty childish, and almost said so, but I don't really like to get into pissing matches with people on the web. (Not that haven't ever
So thanks for the follow up.
Still, I respectfully disagree. I know there is another side to the story, but I'm not inclined to just assume the guy is lying just to make people at DU or KO's or wherever feel sorry for him. One of my best friends was summarily dumped by her husband a couple of years ago just after she had been diagnosed with a debilitating disease. So I guess I have some sympathy for people whose spouses duck out of a marriage when it's not all rose petals and baby's breath.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)"There's always two sides to every story" is just another way of dismissing one or both 'sides'. In my experience, one person is being more honest than the other.
The author here has left himself open to a whole world of discovery. There are enough clues in this to figure out who he is and then verify the story. It seems to me that Croft gave all of the details of his back story to explain the 'bad luck' part of the 'broke and unlucky' theme and the inherent unfairness of the circumstances. Personally, I find it more interesting and believable because he included the background. If he hadn't, then I might be wondering whether the kids are with a struggling mother.
There are stories like this all over the place, I linked to it because my story is astoundingly similar and I'd laugh in your face if you tried to tell me any of it wasn't true, not actually having lived it yourself.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)mistakes, though he seems to have plenty of vigor for blaming others and circumstances he chose to put himself in.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)The story is obviously one-sided and as such should be taken with a grain of salt, but situations like this do happen quite often even when no mistakes are made. It's the consequense of having a hard line approach when it comes to dealing with deadbeat parents.
So yes, you could be right in that there's much more to the story. People by nature don't offer facts that are unfavorable to them. But it's also very possible that this person is caught up in a system that is often very unfair to some.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)nearly every divorced man that has attempted to date me, I can see the bs within it. Perhaps you've not been as "fortunate" as i to have dozens of experiential examples.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Fortunately I've been married to the same person for the last 25 years, so I haven't gone through it myself (although I don't take it for granted that it won't).
I know that very few people take much responsibility for their own divorce. However, I also know that very rarely is it just one side that's at fault. Having known both sides in a few divorces, I also know that BS flies from both directions pretty much with equal regularity.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Lionessa
(3,894 posts)the bs stories so many men tell about how they are so picked on and sensitive and they'd be someone if only everyone and everything wasn't against them, and and and ....
I am jaded from seeing reality, in this case the reality that these type of men just don't have the personal integrity to be entirely honest nor the personal wherewithall to overcome normal set backs without drama and therefore isn't anything at all bad or unfair.
I realize you men all think women are the drama queens, but honestly this guy is representative of many, many drama queens that just happen to have a penis their legs.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Thanks for proving my point LOL
pnwmom
(110,185 posts)and always has some scheme that doesn't work out. He also couldn't ever get it together to pay child support, though his ex-wife was really struggling on her own with their two children (and no boyfriend in the picture, wealthy or otherwise.) This long screed looks like something that could have been produced in a manic mood.
He mentions not being on some medication that helps him. This is why psychiatric care and medicine should be as available as any other health care; unfortunately, though, sometimes people with the disease don't like how the meds (like Lithium) make them feel.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)that he may have some psychiatric issue(s). He reminds me so much of another person I know who has had problems with addiction and mental issues his entire adult life. The things that this guy says about his ex and how everything goes against him (very little blame on himself) sound just like the person that I know.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)That is the most reprehensible posts I have ever read on this site.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Not 'won't', but 'can't'.
crazyjoe
(1,191 posts)A friend's financial circumstances changed. He did the best he could with making payments. Things got dire. He contacted both his & her attorney. They went back to court & the payments were reduced. Doing nothing, like with any debt makes the situation 100 times worse.
A female friend of mine paid whatever monthly to her ex for their son. The son chose to live with the dad because he had acreage, dirt bikes, a barn to work on old cars in. It was an amicable divorce. Her job cut her hours, she struggled. Instead of not paying, she spoke with her ex, they went to court and got the situation cared for legally. Their son now has a decent car repair business of his own. Both of these cases were in WI, so ymmv.
Not contacting a debtor in any case, is a bad idea. They are usually willing to work with you.
Initech
(107,296 posts)
Response to The Doctor. (Original post)
gratuitous This message was self-deleted by its author.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)to jail for failure to pay child support.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)That's called 'debtor's prison'.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)The care of the children.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And child support is figured based on income, so he could have paid.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)There's nothing you can say that will change the fact that ultimately, this person is being punished because he couldn't afford the payments.
If you bothered to actually read the article, you'd see that he tried to have the support adjusted but the court refused.
"Worse, I have been told that because I earned a higher income in the past, I therefore have an obligation to make that same income. The exact wording is: “Child support is based on a parent's ability to earn, not what their actual income may be.”. In other words, 'if you're not making what you can earn then you are failing deliberately'. Hardship, and even reality itself have no bearing on the court's opinion. "
I know you'll disagree, but casting judgment in ignorance is not an admirable practice.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If that's the law, it is contempt of court not to pay the judgment. That's just how it works.
The law got that way because some people quit jobs to spite the other parent.
If ability to earn is that law in that state, it is applied that way to everyone in that state whose case ends up before the court. That's what justice is.
And there may be exceptions in the law. But it's ultimately contempt of court to refuse to pay a duly arrived at child support order. There may to relief in appeals or petitions to modify. But you don't get to just thumb your nose at the court.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Someone should just tell that to the economy so that he'll start getting paid more.
That's how it works, right?
It really amazes me that so many are so bent on finding fault with this guy that the sheer lunacy of the law escapes them.
After all, no one with a degree is working for minimum wage right now, right? Since they all can earn more, you're saying that they're all just lazy bums, right?
The insanity of that is really lost on you?
treestar
(82,383 posts)The economy would make a good defense for some people. Even in a good economy there can be reason for a dip in income. But if it was just to spite the other parent, the Court will step in.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And what is better for a child? To know your father is a convict, or to have a mother who decides not to put them in that position, IF she does not need to. But that would take someone with compassion and real concerns for their children.
Money is not everything and many families have survived without throwing their fathers in jail by simply moving on and dealing with their situations in a positive way. Teaching children to be vindictive harms them. And it happens often in these situations.
How is sending the father to jail going to provide money for the children anyhow? And how is he supposed to get a job after he has spent time in jail?
This country is badly in need of huge reforms when it comes to humane treatment of its citizens especially its children.
These laws have destroyed families. When the cure is worse than the desease, it's time to find a different cure. The father, eg, could be suffering from a mental illness that has not been treated. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, as it is in many of these situations.
But one thing is for sure, having a father with a prison record, does not benefit children in any way and many mothers refuse to do this for that very reason. They put their children first.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)on single incomes. That way leads to poverty for too many. Money isn't everything. But it's most things. It's food. Shelter. Clothing. Access to better education. That's why child support exists. And that's why when a parent willfully ignores an order, jail time is a possibility. Without that possibility, too many would ignore the obligation completely, and many more children would live in poverty. No, not every parent should be thrown in jail for failure to pay. But the possibility needs to exist for those who simply refuse.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)devastating. They would rather see their dad even if he can't pay child support, than know he is in jail. Ever visit a jail and see the children going to see their fathers? I have, and I now what it does to them. Not to mention that if he has a hard time now getting a job, watch what happens when he has to tell potential employers he has been in jail.
In some more evolved societies, the children are the first consideration. What will it do to them to have to tell their friends 'my dad is in jail' eg. How the father can be helped to earn enough to provide for his children, money is spent on social programs to ensure that everything is done to avoid imposing the stigma of jail, not just on a poor father, but on his children also.
I am truly saddened to see here a Democratic board, any support for jail as a solution for this kind of problem. I used to think only the 'law and order' crowd on the right would support this kind of 'solution' to a problem that could be handled in a more humane way.
But this is the America of today where humane treatment of anyone, is no longer considered. We are all about 'revenge' and 'punishment' and just look at what kind of society we are becoming as a result of those kinds of policies.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)Otherwise more won't pay. It's that simple. If no one ever went to jail because they didn't pay, more wouldn't pay. Then we have more children suffering.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)We live in a Democracy, or at least we pretend to. Jail is for criminals. Most fathers who are not paying child support are not paying because they CAN'T. They are poor. Jail doesn't cure poverty, it creates it. And poverty is not a crime, or at least it wasn't at one time in this country until the far right took over.
This is a Republican idea. That you can beat people into doing what you want. Progressives do not think that way, and countries that are run on progressive principles do not have half the problems authoritarian countries have. Because they SOLVE problems, rather than punish people.
Can't believe what I read here on DU sometimes. Since when is it a progressive policy to use jail as a solution to every problem?
No wonder we have the biggest jail population in the history of the world, ever. We are worse than third world dictatorships with our 'put them in jail and throw away the key' attitude. And if jail worked so well, we would have no one who is not paying child support, would we?
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)But refusal to pay child support is and should be a crime. If we disagree, then we just disagree.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Do you mind if I use this in the Feminists Forum? I'm feeling adventurous tonight.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)were going through custody battles and child support issues and what I saw was tragic. Fathers who love their children often being denied access to them even when they are paying support. I'm sure there are fathers who want nothing to do with their children, mothers too, but I do not believe parents in general, mothers or fathers, do not want to do the best they can for their children.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)...about not paying child support because they CANT you are probably coming down on the side of deadbeat dads. Not sure how well that would play there.
I haven't found exact stats yet - just this quote from an MSNBC article:
Thousands of so-called “deadbeat” parents are jailed each year in the U.S. after failing to pay court-ordered child support — the vast majority of them for withholding or hiding money out of spite or a feeling that they’ve been unfairly gouged by the courts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/#.T6qJJe18Ot4
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It's likely that there are people who withhold money who can afford to pay, that is not a stat, just a normal probability in any group of people. But where are the stats proving that an overwhelming number of fathers are simply refusing to support their children? I didn't make the initial claim which is why I asked for stats.
In case anyone didn't notice, millions of people lost their jobs in this country over the past number of years. We have a huge poverty problem here. The poor are the most likely to land in jail.
But if you're a wealthy Republican Politician eg, who could afford to pay but will not, you won't land in jail most likely.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)since it is your hypothosis that most people don't pay because they can't, not because they won't. You are the one saying that the majority of "deadbeat dads" are actually victims here. It's on you to prove your claim.
The article from MSNBC said that most of the issue is with fathers choosing not to pay. Until you have something different, I'll go with that. Because in my opinion, that is most likely the truth.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)claim that a majority of fathers are just dead beat dads. I requested some proof of that, still didn't get it.
As for anything coming from the MSM that deals with filling up our for profit jails, are you serious that we should accept their 'opinion' on actual facts? The same MSM who reported every lie told to get us into two wars?
I will assume the claim is wrong since so far, no one has been willing to back up their claims, other than your link to a MSM article which doesn't provide actualy, investigative reporting on the facts.
As the author of the diary said, the meme, a rightwing meme in case anyone has forgotten, that people 'choose to be poor' has now spread to the left. Ten years ago I had this exact same argument, only then it was on a rightwing dominated board where the progressives were pretty outnumbered, but at least making the case for the poor. How sad to see the change on the left, where now those same, wrong 'blame the poor' arguments have been accepted as fact.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)Because the natural progression of your argument will be seized by the right wing. Which is if you can't afford to have children don't have them. Child support is not awarded in just divorces. It is awarded for unmarried couples too.
73 percent of black children are born outside marriage, compared with 53 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of whites. And educational differences are growing. About 92 percent of college-educated women are married when they give birth, compared with 62 percent of women with some post-secondary schooling and 43 percent of women with a high school diploma or less,
This is an issue for minorities and under educated. The above quote, from the New York Times shows (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all) that it disproportionally effects black woman.
Can't you see that yours IS NOT a position a Democrat should be taking? Do you really want the right wing to latch onto "well if Democrats think it's about the economy......"
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)leap of logic. Please provide one, even a slight hint, that might suggest that refusing to support the rightwing meme that the poor are criminals and belong in jail, in even the remotest way translates into the creative screed you just posted. I won't hold my breath.
You have built an enormous strawman which fell even as you created it in order to avoid the actual topic.
My question was simple, but all these comments later, it still has not been answered. I take that to mean that the claims were false. If not, a simple link to a credible source with statistics would have appeared long ago.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)You want to know how? They'll do it like this. Let's assume your position, that the majority of people who don't pay child support (not just divorced couples, unwed couples, partners, everyone) are because they can't. They don't have the money. Let's say that is the official "Democratic" position. I can basically say "I can't pay" and you're off the hook. And before we get into the "each case should be judged" route. That's not what courts are for.
Parents who had support because it was legally required - all of that dries up. If I don't pay, I don't go to jail, so I am not going to pay. As well intentioned as you believe non-custodial parents are, they money will drastically be reduced.
So how do Democrats make up that shortfall? Because you have to make up the shortfall right? You can't yank money away from all the custodial parents without replacing it. Or are you actually suggesting that? For now let's assume you are not, and that the money will be replaced.
If you read the info from the NYTimes, the vast majority of children born out of wedlock are minority and poor. And you have just grabbed any legal recourse they had for support. The right will jump all over this and spin it as one of two things.
1) You want to raise taxes to replace the lost money. Since the majority of these women are likely also on some sort of public assistance, the right would have an absolute field day with that. The right already hates people on public assistance. So now in your scenario Democrats are saying "it is not the parents legal responsibility". How do you think that will play in the election?
2) It would inevitably bring up (from the right) that poor people should not have children if they cannot support them. And since the Democratic position is that non-custodial parents don't have to support their children, you give their position substance.
Do you really want to give the right EITHER of those positions to start from?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)everything, think? Is THAT why you support their policies? Because the 'law and order' policies you are supporting are RIGHTWING policies. And you are so afraid of what people who have not been right about ANYTHING, as long as I've been around, might 'think' about Democrats, that you are willing to submit to their WRONG policies, just to, well what? Have them say nice things about democrats? Forgive me while I laugh.
Do you know that in most civilized countries no parent goes to jail for not being able to pay child support? How do they do it? In the most advanced countries, which we surely are not anymore, education, compassion, opportunities, you know, actually caring about people, putting as much effort into the most important resource, PEOPLE, creates a society where people do not need to be threatened with jail, to do what is right.
We have lived under Republican draconian policies for so long that this society is now a failed society in many ways.
But most decent people want to take care of their children and will if they can do so. Sometimes, regardless of whether they are divorced or not, they cannot and yes, any decent society should step in and help, not threaten with jail, families in these situations. They can spend the jail money eg, on education for a new career for the father eg, if he has no marketable skills. That would benefit all of society far more than wasting money on jail.
Are we so devoid of ideas that the only solution to every problem in the US now is JAIL?? What a waste of money and lives.
This father did not kill anyone, he did not rob banks, he has committed no crime, except he is poor. A decent society WOULD treat him as an individual, for SOCIETY'S sake, for the common good and try to help him find ways to improve his life and the lives of his children rather than throw him in jail.
If jail worked, there would be far fewer people not paying child support. So clearly, this jail solution is not working. Go outside of this country and tell people what we are doing here and watch their reaction. It is inconceivable in many developed countries to throw someone like this in jail. They look at you as if you are from some third world dicatorship.
How sad that even Democrats have succumbed to the Republican idea of what society should be like. What a nightmare.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)If the legal requirement to pay child support is removed, do you think the amount of money given to custodial parents by non-custodial parents will increase or decrease?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Who gave the court the right to remove a parent's and a child's rights by declaring one parent more important than the other?
This is not the fifties. If two adults make a decision to end their marriage, that does not end their responsibilities or parental rights. So right there is where the problem begins.
Parents who have made that decision should work out how they intend to take care of the children. Only when they cannot come to an agreement should the courts be involved in their business. And generally most parents are doing that today. Many states now have no 'custodial' parent. Both parents bear the responsibility of raising the children.
Next, if one parent, either the mother or the father, loses a job, becomes sick, or for any other reason finds they cannot contribute to the financial needs of their children, there should be a social services agency to which they can go to get assistance. Courts, lawyers and jails cost immense amounts of money, and family court is among the worse areas of our judicial system rarely acting in the best interests of families, ruling on the 'law' rather than on the needs of the family.
Job training, not jail, temporary relief from struggling with payments and facing jail if they cannot, should be available, for the sake of the children mostly. The state SHOULD step in if necessary. However if one parent can support the children while the other is working on the issues they need to, the state has no need to pay.
Iow, doing everything possible to keep families working, not doing everything to ensure they will fail, which is what is happening now.
When custody is shared, both parents are legally obligated to provide for their children. All parents are legally obligated to do that, regardless of separation, most of them do it without interference from the judicial system, don't they?
The whole structure needs to be changed, and all the money spent on our for profit prison system which incarcerates so many people who should not be in jail, needs to be invested in PEOPLE, not in private prison corporations.
If we think like progressive Democrats and not like 'law and order' Republicans, we can create a better world. Other countries have.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)policies unless we want to be. Sorry to have to tell you that other countries don't seem to need to break up families and destroy children by throwing their parents in jail simply because they are poor. But I'm even more sorry that there is any support for these pernicious policies on the 'left' when not so long ago, any of these destructive 'law and order' policies initiated by the right were vehemently opposed by Democrats whose ideas have always been far more constructive for society.
We were done from the beginning since as a Democrat I have not and never will support anything that came from the wasteland of ideas that IS the right wing of this country.
I'm still waiting for a link to those statistics btw.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)You can't answer a simple question. Whether you like it or not, THERE ARE custodial and non-custodial parents. That's the entire concept. That's the law.
You don't accept, and don't like, this premise. You don't accept what is the law. There's not much point in continuing is there?
Because the question wasn't what Sabrina thinks about the law, it was
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)He had the right to do that but for some reason didn't.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)However, he has received a very good suggestion in the comments, one that should be the first consideration of any judge involved in cases where children are concerned.
Apparently he can ask for a representative for the children which will not cost him or his wife. This will help determine what is in their best interests, which clearly this judge is not even thinking of right now.
I see this being discussed here as if only the husband and wife were involved, and only money was at stake. When in reality the most important aspect of this case IS the children. I have asked over and over how sending their father to jail will benefit the children. Apparently people are focused on 'punishing' someone they secretly believe must be to blame for being poor and therefore deserves to be punished. Poor IS a huge crime in this country.
But the reality is that it is the children who should come first. It's interesting to read all the comments here supporting jail for a father in order to satisfy some strange need to exact punishment, rather than a resolution that will have the best possible outcome for the the children which this is supposed to be all about.
I hope he finds out how to go about getting a lawyer for the children. They sure need someone to speak for THEM. It appears that those justifying the jail option, are speaking only for themselves with little or not regard for what it does to a child when a father they love is sent to jail by their mother.
He apparently has a very good relationship with his children. They love him. No judge has the right to take their father away from them. But I know, we live in a capitalistic society where money is THE most important consideration even if it means destroying those children, which it very well may do.
Put it this way, they will survive waiting for him to get a better job, during which time they can spend weekends and share memories with a loving father. But those weekends and those precious moments will be stolen from them by a harsh judge who is more interested in the 'law' than in justice for the children.
I've known fathers who went through this, and I have no doubt that the children are the last thing anyone is thinking of, and in the end, they will suffer the most, more than he will or his ex wife, if he goes to jail.
Good that someone is thinking clearly. Good that someone in the comment section realized that NO ONE is representing the most important people in this story. Let's hope they get that representation.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)I totally agree that the father going to jail benefits no one. Where I am, the worst thing that happens is a deadbeat dad loses his driver's license (although it could be argued that taking away his driver's license might affect his ability to pay child support, when he goes to jail it's a guarantee he won't pay). I also agree that children should have free access to their father and that if the father wants 50% custody, the courts should be fair about it.
I will say I'm a bit biased, in that I'm in the midst of a divorce and luckily my ex was okay with me having the kids most of the time. I say luckily because I was the only one who cared for them in our home. My ex did not participate in the day to day care (diapers, baths, feeding etc) He would come home, hide in his basement office, and occasionally come out when the kids begged him to and would play with them for 15 minutes or so. He rarely took them anywhere. So when he decided his girlfriend (who hated our kids) was more fun, I was thankful he didn't ask for 50-50 custody, because at that point I think I'd have lost it. My kids were everything to me and I did everything I possibly could to make the marriage work (My ex is a narcissist/sociopath - not 'diagnosed', but it was suggested by my child's therapist - so that will explain how difficult that was for me to try to deal with). If he would have taken my entire reason for living away 50% of the time I would have thought that was entirely unfair given I did nothing wrong, he left me and he didn't give a crap about the kids before the split (so that's my bias). Unfortunately judges never take that stuff into account here, but I do wish they would. Also, MY ex has been going around my former (very small) town telling everyone I'm living the high life while he's stuck in poverty. LMAO, my rent takes more than 1/3 of my money, groceries another 1/3 and then the rest has to cover tuition (I'm a f/t student), clothes for 4 kids, utilities, school fees and supplies, gas money, insurance etc. So I don't have much sympathy for the author of the original journal post, because I see how my ex manipulates people into making them think he's the victim. He's very good at it. And the post had some 'trigger' wording that reminded me of things my ex tells people.
Anyhow, where I live, 50/50 is standard. I belong to a divorce support group and pretty much any spouse who asks and wants it gets 50-50 custody. Most guys pay support willingly without complaint. The only guy I ever heard complain stated that he was pissed his ex was taking half his pay, since how could HE live on HALF? He was also pissed she bought a new car. Someone else in the group asked him if he realized that since it was difficult for him, one person, to live on half his pay, imagine how hard it was to raise 3 kids on it, plus, didn't he want his kids to have a new car to be safe in while his ex drove them to their activities. He was mad, but came back to the next meeting admitting he was so mad he hadn't seen it that way and that he was going to turn over a new leaf and no longer complain about making his children's childhood safe and comfortable. Good for him, more men should look at it that way.
Also, it's illegal where I am to keep the kids away from their parent no matter if the child support is paid or not. Some guy could be homeless and never have paid any support and as long as the custody agreement says 'reasonable access' or better, he can see his child with 24 hours notice. In the system I have navigated (here in Canada) access is NEVER tied to support. I DO agree with that. Which is also a huge reason why jail should never be the solution to this particular problem because how can a father have fair access to his own children if he is in jail for non-payment of child support (Which is not supposed to be tied to support payments?). Makes no sense.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)raising four children alone without the support of their father, emotional support I mean. You ARE lucky that he did not ask for shared custody. For one thing, it is better for the children not to disrupt their lives and they should always be the main concern.
Regarding the OP, if his story is accurate, he appears to have a good relationship with his children. And in a way, his situation is similar to yours in the sense that his spouse left him for someone else. She disrupted the home and the children, as in your case. As you said,
I agree with that. You did nothing wrong, nor did the father in this story, as far as ending the marriage. He accepted that the mother would have custody. Not sure what state he is in, but not all states here have the 50/50 custody arrangement. So he may not have had a choice, although he does indicate that if he had known his ex's plans he might not have agreed to her having custody. If he had gained custody, she would be paying him. But that is unlikely given her circumstances which, financially, appear to be more secure.
My problem with this situation is that the children have no say. The mother must have reported him so if he goes to jail, she will be responsible for that. Sometimes if a mother wants to leave a marriage for someone else, she will give up child support, something they may arrange privately, especially if she knows the father cannot provide it anyhow and she is going into a more secure situation. I know of at least couple who did this. It ended any ongoing battles over money and there was no threat of this kind of disastrous and never-ending legal entanglement, leaving everyone free to go their own way and the children free to love their father for who he was. And, should their circumstances change, the mother could always go back and ask for support if she ever needed it. Seems to me, if I were the one cheating, I might want to do something like that and just go on with my life.
I did notice a comment to the diary on DK which stated that the children have a right to representation and that the father should apply for it on their behalf. Their lawyer, court appointed, could then focus on what is best for them. So far, this has not been considered in this case it seems. From his comments, his children do not want him to go to jail. He apparently spends time with them and they will be deprived of that should he end up in jail.
I would imagine that for a child who loves their father, it would be beyond painful to know he was in jail because of them and how helpless they would feel when no one is willing to listen to them. So of all the suggestions so far, I think getting legal representation for the children might be the best thing he could do now, putting their interests in the forefront and giving them a voice in these proceedings.
All I know is, jail won't get money for those children if that is supposed to be the goal. So what is the reason and what is the expected outcome? When he leaves jail his chances of getting a job will be even less.
Canada seems to have a more humane attitude towards these situations from what you say. The US uses jail to solve every problem, we are devoid of real solutions to problems and poverty is a crime. Access to ones children often does depend on money which imo, IS a crime in itself.
I hope everything works out well for you. You deserve the best and so do your children. It must have been very difficult to live with someone who had so little interest in the children. Thank you for your post. You sound like a wonderful mom!
treestar
(82,383 posts)The court decided he could pay. Child support laws are based on a pretty tight standard. Naturally there are many who think they "can't pay" but they mean they don't want to pay. And if the parent will not support the child when they can, society has to do something. It can't just let them decide they won't pay and then say there should be no consequences due to the children. The children need support.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Courts impose fines on poor people that they cannot pay, because courts often have no clue about what it takes to survive when you do not have enough money to live on.
I have not read enough about this to know his circumstances, but jailing parents for inability to pay child support is extremely damaging to children and has longterm effects on them. But who cares, money is everything in this country and when money is involved, no one appears to be able to think clearly and come up with any solution other than rightwing, authoritarian, law and order 'solutions'.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The formulas were not decided out of thin air, but based on how much intact couples spend on children and accounting for the fact there are now two households.
And there is always a right of appeal and a right to petition for modification.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There are child support laws, and people are judged under them if they can't work it out for themselves. That's the reality. People don't get to pay support as they choose, but according to a standard that is equal for all.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Texasgal
(17,235 posts)out screed about his anger towards his ex-wife.
Bleh.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)There is community and resources for those ensnared in the injustices of the system.
The group fathersandfriends.org is actively advocating for some sanity in the laws.
I have suffered for several years now alongside a family member who is going through a similar process. Hollywood couldn't write the script for this one. Like the story in the OP, the actions and decisions of this crazy-authoritarian ex and of the courts are crushingly NUTS and defeating, and not in the best interests of the children.
Several things every parent going through this should know about:
1. Parental alienation is now a recognized abuse of the children. It is child abuse. Parental alienation is when a parent deliberately turns children against the other parent. It is child abuse, and should be so named, and family courts should root it out and punish it.
2. States get money from the federal government for collecting child support. The family court system is a MONEY-MAKER for states.
3. If a parent signs a contract with the state to collect the child support, that parent cannot also go to family court and sue separately. That would be a breach of contract with the state.
Stay strong, all those who are caught between the poor economy and the system. Reach out. Stand with each other.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)Of course the flashy headline and heart wrenching snips make for more views/recs.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)And not going all out on his Ex in the divorce hearing. Sounds like he let himself be screwed in the settlement and it snowballed from there.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)not shooting through innocents to get at the enemy.
The wife sort of used her kids as shields; she knew her ex-husband wouldn't want to hurt the kids, and she took advantage of that.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Frankly, it sounds like he did fight to try and get custody (at least partial), so the kids were dragged through it. And he didn't fight the financial side enough, which does not need to involve the kids. Anyway, he's toast, the kids have lost their dad, and mom has her pyrrhic victory.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)He won't be earning squat in Jail. And having that on his record means he will probably never get a good paying job. To survive he'll probably have to go underground economy, and maybe try to disappear in another state. Eventually he might find a sympathetic Judge who will reduce the support award.
In the mean time it sounds like the kids know what she did to their father. And that isn't going to help anyone.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)She probably got what she wanted, which was to vilify him and destroy him.
I am assuming, of course, that the story is true.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)I'm sure he would have mentioned it if they were. The 2000 dollar cat gets mentioned more than once. He'd expound on an engagement.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)He said he finally landed a good job right before she left.
He say can't complete the books he began or patent his inventions because he no longer had the financial security that was provided by her.
He didn't have to pay child support until 12 months after she left, when the divorce was finalized, but was already going into debt and having difficulties making ends meet from the time she left and before he agreed to pay child support.
He says he fought for custody of the children but in other comments said he was in financial trouble at that time. How was he going to adequately care for the children? Not unless he received significant child support from his former wife.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Yeah, that could be the problem.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Personally I think this is the kind of guy who should benefit from a small business loan. I can't recall if he talked about collecting unemployment, but with a little bit of start up money he could have done something good, which may have cost us more than UI but had the potential to grow more jobs.
It's a tragedy we can't take people's initiative and energy and leverage that with a loan. And then to pay for his stay in prison? That is more ridiculous than paying for a pot smoker's incarceration.
This story is so sad.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)at all. Throw them in jail with no crime committed?
Sure! Let's do it!
DU generally shows more sympathy for robbers, rapists and murderers.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)economies. So for my part I see no reason to presume the courts did wrong. They could have, but courts have appeals systems. Whereas the bitterness of divorced people can be pretty strong - family court stuff brings out the ugliest in a lot of people.
Noncustodial parents always think the child support laws are unfair to them; custodial parents always think they child support laws are unfair to them. No one thinks family court is fair, precisely because it is.
dkf
(37,305 posts)From this man's potential success. He could have become a business owner, with employees, who could have better supported his children.
We need to invest in people so they can do better instead of adding obstacles.
REP
(21,691 posts)Aw, his wife left him and prevented him from working because he had a sad. Thousands if not millions of people deal with far, far worse every day yet still do their goddamned jobs.
(Plus he's a moron for "saving" money for trying to "fix" an engine himself as a first-time project after the timing belt breaks - fucking idiot.)
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)This guy wasn't a moron. He was human, trying to cope just like other humans do.
One of these days you're going to run afoul of a misfortune because of something you may have overlooked, and someone will be saying the same things about you. You're human, and as such you're bound to make a "stupid" mistake. Let's just hope that the consequences are something you can laugh at the day after.
But for the grace of God, and all that.
REP
(21,691 posts)Impressive.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)showing empathy.
Does that mean all 14K posts are equally devoid of empathy? No, not conclusively, that would take reading them all, I have read perhaps a few thousand by now so I can see a trend that would support such a guess however.
I am not a big fan of your posts so I will decline the arduous task to prove it either way, just remember, people remember the tone of posters.
I for example, am a sarcastic fringe leftist prick in the eyes of some. A peer to others, but even my friends know my tone is usually dripping with some sarcasm, just as I know yours will have a tone lacking empathy.
Get how it works?
REP
(21,691 posts)I have no idea who you are.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)I'll edit.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)And would have made all the right choices.
He gets what he deserves for screwing up and not doing what perfect you would have done.
Are you sure you're in the right place?
I also noticed that like some of the other uber-righteous folks here, you have also made shit up about what is in the post. Not a very good reflection on your cognitive powers. Ignorance of the explanations he gave for having to fix the engine himself really demonstrates that you've prioritized admonition and self-righteousness far above understanding.
Where did he say he 'saved' money for trying to fix it himself, and how does fixing it himself make him a 'fucking idiot'?
I know, I know, you're a big, strong, tough person to whom such setbacks are a trifle. Good for you. Go have a cookie.
REP
(21,691 posts)And when the timing gears went on my car, years ago, I made the choice to to have someone else tear it down to the short block. If it had been chain-driven rather than gear-driven, I would've had the engine replaced.
As for the rest of your assumptions, like most of what you write, they're hilarious, but not intentionally so, I'm sure.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)This is just fascinating that you can believe that so long as everyone makes the same choices you did, they will enjoy the same fate. That indicates a severe lack of imagination. Throw in the deliberate ignorance of his very reasonable explanation for not being able to bring the car to someone else as 'you chose to do' only compounds your apparent small-mindedness.
You really think all the choices that were available to you must be available to everyone?
You might want to tuck that tea bag back under your hat while you're here.
REP
(21,691 posts)Your very feeble attempt to insult me was duly noted. I laughed, as I usually do when I slog through your Word Salads of Fury.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)
Mason Dixon
(82 posts)is not a luxury
its just takes a discipline and careful, critical thinking.
pnwmom
(110,185 posts)In cases where men actually attempt to gain full custody (most don't), they win more than half of the time.
randome
(34,845 posts)
sendero
(28,552 posts)... in TX I was told point blank that if the mother is not an alcoholic or drug abuser or some other blatantly "unfit" mother, there was ZERO chance of getting custody.
Overall, I think men do get screwed in family court and to prove me wrong find me a case where a woman is going to jail for not paying child support.
I'm waiting.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)http://rn-t.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Police-+Jailed+woman+behind+on+child+support-%20&id=16224838
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19781020&id=5xFPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hQIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3219,2745463
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)pnwmom
(110,185 posts)If it was a judge, you should report him or her.
Horse with no Name
(34,204 posts)If custody goes to court in a full-fledged custody battle, it heavily favors the male.
Did you know Texas is the only state where a jury can be called to dictate custody of a child? This is written as a rich-man's law to out-leverage a woman.
We went through a lengthy custody battle that cost us close to $50k after all was said and done...and that included multiple motion hearings, home studies, depositions, etc. It wasn't easy but was a tactic formulated by a shady "father's rights" attorney--specifically designed to run my daughter out of money so that she couldn't fight back and they would win by default.
And during our MANY family court appearances during this process, we saw a few women go to jail for non-payment of child support. They don't play with it in our county--from either parent.
Horse with no Name
(34,204 posts)NONE of them were called by our side and were all for frivolous and irrelevant items.
We won EVERY single motion hearing...and they continued to bring them...over and over and over and over and over.
In the end, this bully tactic pissed off the Judge...because it was very evident that it was solely intended to run my daughter out of money.
In fact...one of the last motion hearings was so ridiculous that the Judge ordered his side to pay all court costs associated with it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)An Ohio study published in Family Advocate found that fathers seeking sole custody obtain it in less than 10% of cases, and a Utah study conducted over 23 years found similar results. According to the 2000 Census Bureau report, mothers comprise 85% of all custodial parents.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If the father has custody, then the mother pays child support, based on the same formula.
Oddly, a lot of fathers have this pride thing going and say they don't want it!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)And win.
Doesn't look all that "gender-neutral" to me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And men can and do win custody.
Mariana
(15,613 posts)of his daughter. Fortunately, his lawyer made him see sense.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)that won full custody of his 4 yr. old daughter just recently. I only know bits of the story (as I said 'acquaintance') but it seemed to me that the woman really didn't want the child around. Also the people she surrounded herself with weren't any damn good.
There are both genders that suck at parenting.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)95% of the people awarded custody are women. Many states have statutes that say that gender should not be taken into account but that has no effect on the courts. Judges award custody to women in overwhelming numbers. It's one of the worst and most widespread issues of gender bias in our society.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)The vast majority of law guardians have the preconception that younger children must spend more time with their mother in order to develop properly. It is an archaic and sexist doctrine, but since it makes life so much easier and proceedings so much shorter, they just go with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)Tender years doctrine was also frequently used in the 20th century being gradually replaced towards the end of the century, in the legislation of most states, by the "best interests of the child" doctrine of custody.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)which was news to me, that fathers who ask for custody get it half the time. I doubt that very much.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The only possibility I see where it could be true is that lawyers may simply be telling their male clients, dude, dont do it, you wont get custody and it will just make your soon to be ex mad and will cost you elsewhere in the settlement, use it as a bargaining chip since you have no chance anyway.
95% of non-custodial parents are men, 95% of custodial parents are women. That is way beyond a statistically significant figure.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)children and gets child support. He says so right in his OP.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)So how did said custody come about? What's the story?
I'd really love to know so that I may sit with you in judgment rather than ignorance of the facts.
I'll wait...
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)to argue that getting custody of children if your a man is impossible,you probably should not mention that you have custody of one of your children. I love how you're pretending to be completely without judgment,you've pretty much taken this man's word for everything,including believing that his ex wife is some kind of cartoon villain without an iota of proof.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)He didn't say it was "Impossible".
My oldest lives with me because his stepfather kicked him out. Even so, the 'law guardian' still tried to keep him at his mother's for no other reason than I was male.
No addictions, no job issues, fine home, but male.
As far as I'm concerned it's laughable when silly people pretend that someone is wrong about something because of circumstances they refuse to apply their imaginations to... assuming they have one. The fact that he had the balls to give his name is probably an indication that he's prepared to prove whatever.
But I know your history well, and I've never seen you give any man the BOTD when it comes to situations like these. The handful of you are just so very predictable.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)What the hell are you talking about?? God, talk about creepy, I think we're done here.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
LASlibinSC
(269 posts)Yes he was a RW hottie. And yes I picked him. Ahh love! Anyway, he couldn't hold down a job for love nor money. But he always made his CS payments. He did yard work, painted houses, hauled trash anything. Granted, he didn't start a physical 'business' have plans for books, develop inventions, or business models. He did sign up for food stamps, work fast food and flat out hustle. We fed and provided for the kids. Sounds like this is just wallowing to me. Well written though, don't ya think? I laughed, I cried.....
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I've seen some pretty ugly divorces. Very often, one or the other partner gets the better lawyer or more sympathy from the judge -- and the result can be very troubling.
Compassion guys. You never know when you may be needing some from someone else.
TBF
(35,555 posts)having been through a divorce once myself (sans kids thank goodness) I have to say there are always two sides. Even if there is some pretty ugly behavior on one side there is often enabling behavior on the other side that kept it going.
That said, I don't like the idea of folks going to jail for lack of child support. Garnishing wages - absolutely. If he is really working fast food and trying to make some sort of payment - as the judge I'd take that and work with it if I could. I'm not sure of the law in this case - if there is minimum sentencing or lee-way.
Sad situation (and keeping in mind that the ex-wife's story may cast a different light) - I still think we incarcerate too many people in this country.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Yes. Things go wrong.
But all too often couples impoverish themselves through divorce. The process is way too expensive. Going back to court to get a review of a child support order can be prohibitive, and a lot of parents don't have the time or the education to prepare the papers.
Two households are, virtually always, more expensive to maintain than is one.
Child support is a big problem. Always has been. But now that jobs are hard to get, I don't know how divorced couples are managing to care for their children.
This is a national problem. California's laws are way ahead of those in some other states, I suspect. The non-custodial parent's child support is decreased by in proportion to the time the parent spends caring for the children. That encourages the non-custodial parent to be a real parent to his/her children. Overall that policy has been very positive for children in California. Also, of course, it isn't just dads who pay child support although, to my knowledge, a stepfather's income is not figured in to reduce the natural father's obligation. I could be wrong about this because some of these laws may have changed in the past few years.
But it is still tough here.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)If you don't agree that he should go to prison for failure to pay the child support he owes, then maybe we need a serious discussion in this country about what exactly child support should entail.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)and how does the interruption in work help you pay child support when you get out of jail and must try to start all over?
Might as well have the state pay the child support -- it will cost taxpayers $15,000 to jail the parent for six months. Put the dad to work doing municipal landscaping and pay the custodial parent for it.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)However, personally, I think if the person is financially unable to pay the child support, the state should step in and help the parent take care of the child and then hand back responsibility once the person is financially able to continue paying support. It'd be a better outcome than simply letting the parent go at it alone, financially speaking.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)A compassionate and logical plan such as you suggest is not what happens.
Family courts are a racket, and they are often abused by embittered parents. The child's best interests are not the first concern.
treestar
(82,383 posts)For that very reason, but some obligors are so recalcitrant, they aren't going to pay anyway, so jail is society's way of punishing them for their refusal.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's the only debt that lands you in jail.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)The writer of the passage attempts to mask his irresponsibility by taking on a worthy mantle. No one deserves to live in poverty. But I do know that courts ask parents that pay child support to pay what they can pay. Alimony payments are means tested, parents that have few assets don't have to pay much, parents that have wealth have to pay more.
Irresponsibily should never be allowed to take on the mask of the hard working and oppressed.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)I knew without reading this was about child support. Hopefully all the deadbeat parents are also hardcore socialists, because that's the only thing that will fix this.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)The children no longer need to be fed, clothed and sheltered. Or they don't care.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)The court should have never ordered him to pay in the first place. $7800 a year is fucking outrageous, who has that kind of money?
To all those with moral poutrage because it is child support. When is a child EVER better off having their parent imprisoned for being unable to pay? It just makes it impossible for the children to ever receive any support.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)to raise a child, annually? An idea at all?
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)It doesn't matter what it costs to raise a child if the parent physically doesn't have the money to support themselves and pay child support.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)He could live under an overpass and dive in dumpsters. Live like a king, man!
What real man would keep that remaining $2,200 for himself?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)but would have a hard time coming up with it.
male median income today is the same as it was in 1968, in constant 2010 dollars.
so a lot of kids are getting raised on that or worse.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)...the court-appointed guardians at litem, the social workers, the mental health evaluators, the case workers, etc.
It's an industry.
And sometimes the fines the courts impose are higher than the support owed! The fines don't go to the custodial parent. They go to the court system.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The courts would make no money at all if people paid. Some people pay voluntarily without going to court. And since it is done in most states by formula, the people could just figure it out and not go to court over it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Courts take a commission on the support they order. There's a strong financial motive to order the highest award possible.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are decided by the law.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The federal government has guidelines for state formulas for figuring out child support. Just taking a figure that would be outrageous for you (your child support if you had to owe it might be less) is silly since what if the guys makes a lot of money? The children are to share his lifestyle.
Every obligor in his state had their support figured by the same formula, so why shouldn't he have to pay what the formula calls for?
check out the concept of "imputed" income.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If there is imputed income, it means that the person is thought to be able to earn more. I believe that doctrine came about to prevent people from doing vengeful things like quitting a high paying job just to spite the ex.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....but in an economy like we have today, the concept of imputed income is sometimes just a battering ram used by greedy courts and embittered spouses. The embittered spouse wants to ruin/destroy the non-custodial parent; the greedy court is an accessory to that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)in the determination of whether or not they are really capable of making more. Not everyone is unemployed or unemployable in this economy, and quitting a job to spite your ex is not a lay off.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)It is outrageous to expect someone who is already below the poverty line to give 1/4 to 1/2 of their yearly income away. The formula CAUSES this to happen. There is a formula and it CAUSES the imprisonment of poor people.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's going to their children.
Are there any groups out there trying to change the formulas?
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)This is America, no one gives a shit about the poor. They would rather demonize them than actually help them or their children.
Life is too short to wade though all of what can only be described as his verbal diarrhea.
But I see he is okay with someone paying him $60 a week in child support for one child he has custody of, but $150 a week for kids plural that the wife has custody of is somehow unreal?
Let's say the wife has custody of 2 kids. That's $10 a day for each kid. Food, clothes, medical care, school stuff, that's not remotely enough.
And other posters are correct, courts decide support based on the non-custodial parents earnings and assets. This guy has messed up his life like he messed up the lease. Now the piper is at the door.
quakerboy
(14,701 posts)Seems like a moderately fair trade off to me. Especially since, if his story is true, He had the option NOT to go to jail, and instead chose to go to jail.
Granted his story is sad. Sounds like things could have gone differently with a few small changes in what happened to him. But many many people have setbacks in life. Divorce is not uncommon. business attempts failing is not uncommon. Unemployment and being underemployed and in dire financial straits are not uncommon.
But it all rests on one thing. If his story is true, he is potentially going to jail for being an idiot. If its true, the mother is a terrible person. Terrible people do not make great parents. If its true, he has a heart of gold. If its true, he would make a far better parent. And if its true "Through all of the perjury she committed (you can bet your life I can prove it), I never decided to have it brought up", He chose to let his children be raised by a criminal, in order for them not to see their mother sent to jail. He chose to go to jail in order to let his children be raised by a criminal. That was his poor choice.
If he was raising his kids, making them his priority, and he was struggling to pay the bills to do that, I would be all sympathy. Although, if he was fiddling with starting a business while they went hungry, I would struggle with that. But as is, he has a story with a built in get out of jail free card, and is refusing to use it. Which sounds flat improbable, and makes me doubt the veracity of the whole story.
My aunt left her abusive husband, and got an order for child support. He rarely paid anything. But he did manage to fund his drug habit, as well as providing great Christmas gifts to the kids in order to have his moment of" what a great dad". But My aunt received regular assistance with the kids from my grandparents. And I know for a fact he told his family, as well as every social worker involved over the years that his wife(a woman so traumatized she still sleeps in her shoes decades later) was physically abusing him(a woman who refused to spank even the most deserving child) and otherwise a horrible person. I guess that makes it ok for him to have skipped out on all but 5 months of 16 years of payments.
It would be curious to see the objective facts.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It's a simple question, really... where does the support come from then?
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Just how did he 'choose' to go to jail?
quakerboy
(14,701 posts)You have an agenda. I like how you accuse me of not reading, when you clearly did not read what I wrote.
The writer of the article specifically states that his ex wife committed perjury in order to win in various court cases involving him. He also specifically states that he has proof of this.
If she perjured herself to win, and he can prove it, all he had/has to do is do so. You think a judge would throw him in jail for not supporting his children if he was their main caregiver because his ex is in jail(which is what he states would be the result of him bringing out his proof).
Problem solved. The horrible woman portrayed goes to jail, and his kids get to come live with him, the father with a heart of gold.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)He explains quite precisely why he did not push the perjury issue.
Try reading it this time.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)Just because it's posted on the internet doesn't mean it's true.
We are not told how many kids he did have with his former wife. He mentions a 9 and 10 year old.
"$60/week I receive in child support for my son from before my marriage"
Where is this son? Does he live with his father?
From what I gather, he was able to keep everything from the divorce but the kids and the requirement to pay $150.00 to support an unkown number of children.
It also looks like the first decent job he had during his marriage was right before his wife left him.
"My wife of 7 years left in late 2008. If I had known why she was leaving, I would never have let her take the children with her. I'd just landed a great job doing home performance auditing."
Would be interesting know what he did during the first 6 years of marriage.
"I have book projects I haven't the stability or guarantee of income to finish, inventions I haven't the money to patent, and business models I haven't the resources to realize."
Apparently he had the time to work on books, inventions and create business models.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/07/1089502/-I-May-be-Going-to-Debtor-s-Prison
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)What's funny is how you doubt the favorable that is not in enough evidence for you, then turn around and make assumptions that are not supported. Liiiiiiiitle hypocritical there.
Apparently he didn't have time to work on those things because he was too busy trying to get by. You assume that he never had a good job until she left without any indication that is so, but can't make the logical leap that if he receives support for his son, the son has to live with him?
You don't see how transparent that is, do you?
For all of your questions, you could try asking him.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)over to DK. That is a bannable offense on DK even if it is available on the internet. To search out through google personal information, even if it is public. Ask Armando what he thinks of this. This was a huge issue on DK a few years ago and many people were banned for doing exactly what was done here. The diarist did not include that information in his diary because it was not relevant to his case. I can't believe someone would do such a thing. Makes me very leery of posting here frankly. And that is why it became a bannable offense on DK. Many people were outraged when someone searched on Google and easily found information on Armando who was a FPer there at the time. The fact that it was available was not accepted as an excuse for posting on DK.
quakerboy
(14,701 posts)And you proved you didn't read what I wrote, because I specifically addressed that.
I refuse to jump on this bandwagon just because it fits a narrative I believe if you skim the story. It doesn't smell right. He *chose* not to push the perjury issue. But if his story is accurate, his reason is to make sure that the children can continue to live in the care of a criminal(and all around terrible person). He does not want them to see mom go to jail, but in this case, its him or her. Is it any less traumatic to see such a purportedly great father go to jail, than to see their Purportedly all around horrible gold digging criminal mother go to jail? It is somewhat un-creditible, and entirely un-sympathetic reason, in my opinion.
To boil it down, he is not potentially going to jail for being poor, but rather for refusing to defend himself in court.
All of that said, rereading the article again, I think I have figured out what was sticking in my mind the first time through. The way the story is laid out sounds exactly like every Bipolar person I have known talking about their life. The decision making process and choices lay out just about right. Which does raise some sympathy from me. But bipolar people can easily demolish lives of all those around them, and in my experience are rarely able to accept any fault from their own actions. Which means I also feel sympathy for his wife and kids.
If I am correct, This is a social problem, but not the one its purported to be. We do not do right by those of our fellow citizens who need help with mental health.
pacalo
(24,845 posts)Especially when children are involved, women who leave their husbands for wealthy men have no integrity & aren't worth having. This woman proves that point when she's aware of her ex's hardships, yet she's willing to let the father of her children go to jail; she won't even imagine how that is going to affect her own children. His going to jail will only further hamper his future prospects for employment.
Women like this are selfish opportunists. I suspect she despises her ex not because he deserves it, but because he's a constant reminder of what she considered an "empty" life that lacked the riches she secretly wanted for herself.
I know of a man who had a similar experience. He was married to a beautiful woman with the ugliest, self-centered personality I've ever met. She still holds the record. They had five young sons when they divorced -- poor guy.
He went out of town on business, called his wife in the early afternoon, asked her what she was doing, & she said she was in bed. In the middle of the afternoon, he asked. She callously told him that she was "entertaining". She was in bed with one of the managers of the company at which we all worked. He left his middle-aged wife & family, she took her 5 young sons away from their father, & these two scoundrels were married.
There should be a law to protect men from women like this.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Women like that truly sicken me. They make the rest of us look bad.
Julie
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)based solely on what a man has told them.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)"If this is true..."
Sadly I have known some cases where such behavior is the reality of it. I don't get it myself, such spitefulness doesn't come naturally to me. I am divorced, got the short end of the stick and moved on. So far Karma seems to be handling things without any help from me.
And, if true, the woman in question is not doing her children any favors.
Does that sicken you further?
Julie
Horse with no Name
(34,204 posts)This man has an obvious agenda.
I have a friend right now who is going through the same hell we have finished.
Her ex-husband psychologically abused the kids--so much the judge slapped a restraining order on him so fast it made his head spin...then is $3k behind on his child support AND $2k on his part of the medical expenses. He won't carry insurance so the burden fell on my friend because she has a chronically ill child.
You want to know what his new "calling" is?
Mentoring other poor unfortunate men who are caught up in the unfairness of divorce.
What REALLY is unfair is that my friend has to have all of her children in counseling and has to pay for that, has to pay legal fees to protect her children from their father, has to pay their insurance and medication, food, shelter....and he just bemoans the fact of how unfair the system is and how much this process cost HIM...yet SHE is the one that is shouldering the financial burden.
Hell I am not sure he isn't the one that wrote the above post.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)I can't imagine being married to him was a picnic.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Look, I did family law for a long time. I don't do it anymore, but it took me about 5 paragraphs into Mr. Croft's screed to know what was what---the only $600 a month for two kids was another tip off.
The 'wife is a b-word' routine is a very common denial mechanism male addicts use when trying to explain why they don't see their kids, why their lives are dysfunctional, and why the court system is shitting on them......
It's never them, or their addictions.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)I'm a member of Daily Kos and I'm going to go over there and ask about his DWI.
Edit: Good work in finding this! When I read his post at the Kos, alot of questions popped into my head.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I read in the blurb that he refused a breathalyzer...that usually doesn't happen until you've had a few run ins.
That screed is not the writing of someone who has reflected upon their wrongs and made amends.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Kaleva
(40,145 posts)I'd like to ask him as to what his work history was prior to his wife leaving him. I suspect it'll be pretty much the same as it was after she left. Bouncing from one job to another. If he has a drinking problem, as his arrest for DWI strongly suggests, that would pretty much explain his erratic work history and why his wife left him.
He talks about the books he can't finish for lack of money. His inventions that he can't get patented for the same reason. The business models he cannot get going.
"I have book projects I haven't the stability or guarantee of income to finish, inventions I haven't the money to patent, and business models I haven't the resources to realize."
The way I read his article, if he didn't have to pay the $600.00 a month child support to his ex wife who he says doesn't need it (because she has a rich boyfriend), he'd be a pretty successful guy.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)the most satisfying justifications made to oneself are along the lines of "oppressive government caused all my woes", "the man" or "the system" or "society" is the problem, and of course everyone around them who finally loses interest in the BS becomes one of the asshole oppressors.
I wish Mr. Croft well, but too many years around that stuff leads me to expect nothing at all. You can always say the addictions are the effect, not the cause, but you can't lift yourself out of the smallest puddle, you can't even begin to put the simplest thing back together, until you lose the addictions.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)You should really be working at Fox 'News'.
Meanwhile, the article states nothing of the sort as you 'read it'. It would seem that people here have proven his point rather soundly.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)Look it up in the DSM IV. It's all there.
When the narcissist is not stroked and validated, he lashes out. Nothing is ever his fault; people simply fail to live up to his expectations.
I also find some of the defenses of the writer posted here...bizarre, to say the least. Curiouser and curiouser.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)He may be an addict, addiction is an illness which should be treated like any other illness, but then we could not fill up the private, for-profit jails if addicts were to be cured rather than made worse.
Not sure what this has to do with the case. He is not going to jail for this, but for not being able to pay child support.
Of course if he was a wealthy man, like a Hollywood star, or a big CEO of a major Corp, he could have a string of DWIs and it would not relate to his child support case. So long as they pay. Which is not hard for wealthy people to do no matter what kind of addicts they are.
Do you judge the rich who are addicts the same way you judge the poor btw? Would you drag this non-related issue into a case where the father is an addict with many DWI arrests, but who pays his child support because he can?
If it doesn't matter in such a case, it doesn't matter here either.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)It's a tick in the box against his whole story of wronged victim. He did nothing wrong, see. She's the evil woman who left him for the rich guy. Innocent victim wronged by the evil witch going after him for child support.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)There are evil, scheming, money-grubbing women. There are also dads who evade responsibility to their children. And there is a court system that is rigged to make money off the bitter disputes.
It's really an ugly flaw in America. Almost Dickensian.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)But it really isn't an outrage that there is a system that holds people accountable to their obligations to their children.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)with this case? Many people have traffic violations on their records. If he has a string of them, that would mean he is most likely an addicts. Addicts need treatment, not jail. But one DWI does not mean someone is an addict, it means they got a ticket once like millions of other Americans.
And as I said, if he were wealthy, that would not even be brought up because if he had the money, he would pay. His problem is he doesn't have the money. Not that he once got a DWI unless the court has made that part of the case against him. Iow, people with money and people without money get DWIs. But hey, let's use it against the poor people, and leave those rich guys alone.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)Most people have some traffic violations. But most people don't have DUIs. He has. At least one. That he didn't mention in all those paragraphs. Certain details paint a picture. They really do. Edited to add I'm not saying I think he necessarily deserves to go to jail. All I'm saying is I dont' think this paints the picture of "This is an outrage! Ovrhaul the system now!" the way others seem to. Edit to add again, I also can't help but think that if SHE had a DUI, he would have mentioned it, in all those paragraphs, probably more than once.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)and hold a steady job.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)I figure I'll just sign in to Kos and ask him.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)I try not to talk about my ex because I KNOW I am biased, and I will reflect worse on me in the end if I say what I really think, and which probably is only partially true. I don't want my daughter to think ill of her father, so I say little.
That article was nothing more than an appeal to emotion--badly written--with a political point tacked on at the end. Boo hoo, I'm going to debtor's prison, but none of it was my fault.
I'm sure he has a very fine explanation of his DUI also. They usually do.
What is your interest in protecting/defending this man? Why deny that his story is full of holes?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)To say 'it might' have some effect is mere speculation. Lots of people have DWIs on their records. Unless the court has ruled that that DWI is the cause of his current inability to pay child support, it has zero relevance to this case.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)He has said he's struggled to keep up with payments and was going deeper into dept. Was he convicted of the offense? If so, how much did the fines, court costs and increase in insurance payments affect his ability to pay child support.
I agree that 'it might' have some effect as being mere speculation. As neither of us know the full facts and are really only getting one side of the story, we are both reduced to speculation.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)DWI fines in NY are very steep. You are also required to pay for your "drinking driver re-education class" (not optional), the "victim impact panel" (not optional). If you have any hope of having your charge reduced (not a certainty by any means), you need a specialty DWI lawyer, whose fees are usually in the $2k range.
It is estimated (casually) that every drink you drank on the day you were arrested for DWI cost you on average about $2,000.00.
That is not chump change for anyone, cash or bank check only, please.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I wrote that his addiction might be the reason the wife left, and declined to opine on his other legal issues.
I am sorry I made you so upset.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a fallacy in your raising an issue that, from what I have read, has nothing to do with his inability to pay child support. To make such a comment does not translate to 'being upset'. It is merely a statement, nothing more or less. If a court has decided it did, then it would be relevant. Otherwise it is merely an underhanded tactic to smear him with irrelevant information. One DWI does not make an addict for one thing.
I don't have much faith in speculation, it is often wrong. As you were when you speculated that I am upset by your comment. I would think that someone who claims to know so much about the law would refrain from non-provable speculation. If he is an addict, then he needs treatment, not jail. But in the land of the free lately, jail is the solution for everything. And look how far that has taken us as a society, solved all of our problems! No more addicts, no more non-supporting parents, jail fixed all that, right?
Maybe one day we will take a look at more successful societies and learn from them. Meanwhile the Republican Law and Order society has landed us pretty low on the scale of successful societies.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)support?
Okay.
Again, I am sorry I upset you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as anyone suffering from an illness would be affected.
But one DWI does not make an addict.
Interesting projection on your part btw. If I were you I would only talk to people who agreed with me all the time. Probably less stressful for you.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Kaleva
(40,145 posts)"There was no finding of BAC, and the officer stated in court that my driving was not at all erratic, but because I admitted I was dehydrated, hadn't slept in days, and had a single drink, I wound up with a DWAI."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/07/1089502/-I-May-be-Going-to-Debtor-s-Prison
According to one site, in NY, the minimum fine is $300.00 for the 1st offense, a maximum of 15 days in jail, and a suspended license for 90 days. He probably didn't get any jail time but he got at least a $300.00 fine and couldn't drive for 3 months.
http://www.ithacadwi.com/Difference_Between_DWAI_vs_DWI.html
According to the arrest report, he had refused a Breathalyzer test.
"Finally, in New York anyone who refuses to take a chemical test can receive a driver license revocation of at least one year and must pay a $500 civil penalty ($550 for a driver of commercial vehicles with a CDL) to apply for a new driver license."
http://www.drunkdrivinglawyers.com/refusing-breathalyzer-test-dui.htm
He didn't say what his punishment was but considering his situation, it was probably hefty.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Would have confirmed that he only had 1 drink. Then apparently he took a plea. And when this was brought out he declared he was gonna sue......
Denial is a powerful thing.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)Last edited Wed May 9, 2012, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)
He was also cited for speeding which is probably why he was pulled over in the first place. His behavior must have been suspicious enough to give the cop reason enough to ask him to take the test. As he refused, he was arrested. Then as there was no finding of BAC, he was able to cop it down to DWAI.
Edit: While it appears he was able to get jobs after his wife left him, it also appears he had trouble holding them. I'd like to know what his work history was before his wife left. Was it the same as it has been the past few years?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to this case and second, did you know that it is a bannable offense on DK to google someone personal information even if it is easily available? He obviously did not post it meaning no one else had the right to do so. What a really shitty thing to do, regardless though. The guy is clearly in a bad place right now, and all you can do is try to make his situation worse.
Why is this important to you? Why is it important to turn someone who has not committed any crime other than being poor, into a really, really bad guy? He isn't, he's poor. Is that so horrible to you, so disgusting, that you have to criminalize it?
I should go over to DK and alert them to the violation, but I'm not the [b]informer type fortunately for you. I hope the lack of compassion doesn't put him in an even worse place, emotionally, than he is already.
At least he knows his children love him and that is more important than everything else, enough to keep him from maybe giving up altogether, as he hinted at.
What a truly rotten society this is sometimes. And yet we have the means to make it a better one.
I don't understand why you did what you did on DK, I never understood deliberate actions people take that can only hurt another person, but I surely would love to understand. It might help make this a better society if we understood the reasons why it is not.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)I explained that in one of my posts over at DK. I did tell him how it was done and if he were to come here and read this thread, he'd see who did google him.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)matter who did it here, it was brought over there and it served no purpose to do that imo, otherwise anyone there would have done it, possibly they did, but refrained from adding it to the discussion because he did not.
Millions of Americans have traffic violations on their records, some people have as many as ten or more DWIs, according to an attorney I know who handles traffic violations. If this person has only one, it is hardly worthy of mentioning as even doctors and lawyers I know have been pulled over after going out to dinner and received a DWI. They in most cases get a first DWI reduced to a far lesser charge, because they have money to pay good lawyers.
But this had zero to do with what the diarist wrote about. And all it did for many of us is to make people very wary about writing anything that is even remotely personal on blogs like DK or here because someone is going to go searching your background to see what they can come up with.
I hope his children never get to read the comments of some of the people here and there. Clearly they love their father, and hopefully their wishes will be considered since everyone is pretending it's all about the children. Used to be we could count on some compassion at least on the 'left'. But not anymore. The far right, law and order gang have truly won.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)First though, I have nothing against the guy and I do hope things work out for him. I'm not hoping he goes to jail as I think that won't do anyone any good. If you read some of comments here, I'm quite open to the idea that everything he has said is true. I myself do not know.
That being said, I do think red flags were raised by his comments in own diary so I make comments here and ask questions at DK.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)drunk.....and they are in a jurisdiction where they know the cops aren't going to take the time to get bloodwork and a full hospital workup.
And as for his claim of 'there was no finding of BAC' well, that's a misstatement of the law--there's a presumptive finding of BAC lower than .08 if you have a DWAI.
I found his replies at Kos off the rails....typical behavior.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)He won't say or hasn't yet that he actually did refuse to take the test.
"There was no finding of refusal. (0+ / 0-)
Nor was there a fine or suspension related to such refusal."
He might be coy about it for legal reasons and is just sticking to what he was convicted of and not willing to give out any info on what he actually did.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)hard to make it but has run into problems while weighed down with obligations and no way to meet them. He is representative of millions of people in this country, where one illness, or one major car problem can be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I see nothing in his diary that would lead me to believe he is an addict. You are speculating. Being poor can cause exactly the kind of situations he has described.
Not everyone who has a run of really bad luck, especially after a shattering blow such as a betrayal by someone they love, is an addict. An emotional blow can render someone helpless for a while, and if they have no buffer, no big savings account to fall back on, which few of the working class have, that period of time can send them on a downward spiral which it is hard to recover from.
The children should be the first consideration. No judge has the right to take a father away from his children, no matter what biases he has. He sounds like a Republican to me frankly.
The diarist has a good relationship with his children. They don't want him to go to jail. THEY will be deprived of the time they get to spend with him if he goes to jail. But no one is representing the children.
One person in the comment section advised him to apply, on behalf of the children, for legal representation for THEM. Everyone is making decisions FOR them which could have long-lasting, disastrous effects on their lives, just so this cold, heartless society we have become, can get revenge on someone for being poor.
That was the best advice he got so far and I hope he is able to do it. For a child to see a father they love sent to jail by their mother, can cause them intense pain and huge resentment of their mother. None of which will improve their lives at all. And this is supposed to be about them.
Les Miserables. If he had money, he could be the shittiest father in the world, one who never bothers to even see his kids and nothing would happen to him.
The author of the diary spends time with his children. But the court doesn't value that. How sad that our 'justice' system places so little value on the most valuable asset a father has to give his children, his love and his time.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Denial is a powerful thing.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)But that was apparently long after she left. Also, I took a look over there and he's apparently responded.
This guy is either crazy or fearless. Given that he said he was aware there'd be scrutiny, It's looking like the latter. Real nice of kaleva to post his home address too. Didn't know we had Fox 'News' employees around here.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)he's going to one his choices built.
As a father who won custody of his child 25 years ago in a state where such was by far the exception, I never saw a dime of the 15 dollars a week ordered, or my state notifying the state in which she's dwelt since as is required by law -- so I have my own "injustice" issues to whine about. And to make things even worse, after he reached the age of majority I sued and got a judgement based on that figure with the help of the state, under the Fed Title IV as I recall (which all this stuff falls under), only to have the state subsequently close the case and collection efforts contrary to the law as well, since that can only be done by either them collecting it, or my signing off on it. Of course these "closings" are what underlie the awarding of more "block grants" from feds to the state, so it is really a fraud being perpetrated in cases like this, which I'd love to pursue as a Qui Tam action, but haven't for reasons I won't bore you with here.
So for those here calling it a "racket", I wholeheartedly agree.
Having said that, of course the burden the court imposed on my ex is in no way comparable to that imposed upon him, but as a parent, his first duty and responsibility is to his children. Granting they were apparently not wanting of anything, assuming his stuff about his ex and her good fortune of finding a provider are true, that in no way eliminates his responsibility any more than my ability to provide for my son without the assistance of my ex eliminated hers.
Furthermore, given that he likely had at some point in time, legal counsel that informed him of the ramifications of his actions -- or inaction in this case -- the whole thing it would seem, rests upon whether he was making what the court would see as a good faith effort to follow its edicts. Without having the court record at our disposal to weigh and judge the facts in the matter, this isn't a matter of a "he said/she said" thing between him and his wife, but rather between him and the state/court.
As much as I'm inclined to as a victim of state/court chicanery (albeit of a different kind -- no punishment for my deadbeat ex) to offer sympathy and empathy for his plight, I'm also as a victim of a deadbeat parent who knows intimately the BS they spew in defense of themselves while excluding any sense of duty or responsibility to the child, inclined to say say in the absence of a full airing and therefore knowledge of all the facts, that it is totally legitimate for those who think it stinks under a "smell test" here, to call his big emotional appeal stinky.
As a result of all of this, imo you and the rest here that are basing your stuff and outrage based solely on his "version" of facts in the matter are on no better footing to defend it than those who're promoting the opposing "deadbeat dad getting what he deserves" pov, and it's hardly worth the measure of interpersonal conflict and discord I see resulting from what is in the final analysis, a "We really don't KNOW" situation.
But by all means, have at it. Reading the fights is much more entertaining than "dittos"..lol
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)looking for vindication and validation under the shroud of "there's no justice for the poor", and likely got the idea from recent efforts in the news regarding those who've been sent to jail for contempt over not appearing where debt issues are involved. What an inventive genius.
I could of course be wrong, but then, that's his fault too for not making all the information available so as to end all the speculation. It's silly imo to believe that he wasn't aware of what would happen if he failed to satisfy the court, and if that meant sacrificing the long term goals of being a Ronco master, etc, (delusions of grandeur as an entrepeneur) and taking a minimum wage job and a half or so, then so be it.
As it stands, all he's been successful at with this effort, which, other than impregnating a woman, may be his only success, is pitting people against each other with a shit storm of the "Woe is me!" kind.
The statute of limitations at the fed level and in most states as I understand it, is 3 years. Even if he could make that case and reap the probative value of it, and see her in jail as a result, I don't see how that has any bearing on or would mitigate his guilt for non-payment.
I just gave the entire post a scan, but waht was most damning to me was provided by the TPer here, which was this
After I explain, I know how easy it will be to tell me I 'could have made better choices'. Believe me, I know that. But the choices I made at the time were reasonable choices. Many people have made many of the same choices I have made and managed to do well by them. So the choices I made were reasonable, but things just didn't work out. In retrospect, I could have done things differently of course, but I did not have the luxury of foresight at the time.
Of course many mighta made that choice, but I'd ask how many did so with his set of circumstances hanging over their head. What may have been reasonable for them since they had no Sword of Damocles hanging over their head this whiner either stupidly didn't fear, or chose to ignore, doesn't make his inaction on the matter while under the Sword reasonable. This is like saying that just because he had 10K to make a bet with as did the millionaire beside him at the crap table, that it was an equally reasonable bet for both of them. A lot of things seem reasonable when you ignore some of the relevant facts in a particular matter, like the unaffordability of the bets for him, he made.
and then the verdict/sword fell
boo hoo
When I read his diary at Daily Kos, I saw red flags. One could condense it down to "If it wasn't for my mean, felony committing ex wife who can easily afford to care for the children without my help and whose betrayal of me has caused me to behave in such a way that I can't hold down a steady job, I could finish the books I've started, patent the inventions I've made and start a business.".
Unca Jim
(579 posts)The responses to this thread just made me think: "Damn! The people on DU are all judgmental, persnickety, absolutist assholes who can never look at the other person's perspective for five fucking minutes!"
I thought this site was for liberals.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)"They're all just making excuses!"
"They blame everyone else for their situation!"
Fascinating to see what happens when people have the opportunity to recognize that poverty is not a choice, but still use every excuse they can come up with to blame the poor.
Any question about how different some of these responses would be if this were a woman telling the same exact story?
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)People under the age of 18. Children. Single families are the poorest in this country.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'll save you the effort, it is a trick question.
You don't consider them part of that group because for all intents and purposes, the state has taken away anything that resembles parenthood from them. But unlike a married couple addicted to crack who has had the child taken away, that non-custodial parent still has to pay for the child. The state and custodial parent has it both ways, but yet you dont consider that person a part of a single parent family that involves the child.
They are no longer a parent, but yet, for money purposes, and only for money purposes, you and the state consider that they are.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)If they aren't contributing financially to that household, that household may suffer. A single income isn't enough anymore, unless that income is in the upper bracket. What does it matter if I consider that individual a part of the family? Fine. They'r part of the family. They don't contribute, that family plunges into poverty. They're still poor. IT doesn't matter. It may make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it doesn't matter.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They no longer are one. And you can see what logically flows from that and that is why you do not want to address it.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)You didn't ask me that. You asked me if I saw them as a member of the family (in the context of financial functioning household, single family household). Way to move goal posts, there. They are a parent. They don't cease to be a parent because the relationship broke up. Sorry.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)When you think of "Single parent families" until I pointed it out, you didnt think of non-custodial parents as part of that group. You were trying to gain sympathy for single parent families who in your mind consist of custodial parents and their children. You were definitely NOT trying to push for sympathy for the non-custodial parent.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)Because a single income doesn't cut it anymore. Thus, the need for child support. I thought that was pretty clear, in the context of the discussion of child support.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If they are a parent, they are a single parent, right? Yet you did not think of them at all when talking about "single parents".
That is exactly my point. They are NOT parents in any way that matters and no one really thinks of them as a parent.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)Wrong! I have no idea where you're getting that from.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Look, I have had this debate dozens of times before and so this is really not fair, but I think it is important for you and others to see what has been obvious to me for some time. You excluded non-custodial parents from the group 'single parents'.
Why would you do that? The answer is, you were trying to get sympathy for custodial parents who live with the children. It did not even occur to you that if non-custodial parents are still parents, they would be also 'single parents' and thus their households would be 'single parent households'.
But you dont think of them as parents and because of that, they dont deserve the sympathy you reserve for the custodial parent.
And you are absolutely right on one point, even though you are having trouble admitting it. Non custodial parents are no longer parents. They have had their children taken away.
If I get married tomorrow, have a child with my spouse, and my spouse dies of cancer and I am left with the child and then I get addicted to crack, when children's services takes the child away from me, do I pay child support? Of course not. Do you feel less sympathy for children in those circumstances? They now have zero parents in their lives. Dont they deserve someone to pay for them? Lets extend the analogy. Lets say I get my act back together and the state gives me my child back. Do I pay the state for back child support? In any way that mattered, was I a parent during the time the state took the child away?
Would you feel sorry for a parent in that situation?
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)So that those of you who have an agenda can't further that agenda to keep that group poor. That's why. Heaven forbid I mention the fact there is a group where there's only one parent in the household living on one income! Don't dare mention them!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I think my point is made. Non-custodial parents are the untermenschen of our society. No one cares if they dont get to see their kids, no one cares if they are thrown in jail, no one considers them parents.
Thank providence this is going to all come to an end with fully equal and shared custody. It cannot come too soon.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)It's just unheard of.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Here is an Arizona bill that moves toward equal and shared parenting http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1127&Session_ID=107 . Britain also has an equal and shared parenting bill going through parliament and several other states in the US have bills pending.
Here is the Massachusetts bill currnetly moving through committee http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2011/03/27/update-ma-shared-parenting-bill-moved-to-more-favorable-committee/
New Jersey has implemented a plan where children who spend more than 108 days a year with the 'non-custodial parent' results in a requirement for less child support since, as I always say, if the child is spending close to equal time with both parents, child support should not apply.
Support is growing and things are moving in this direction.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)Pithlet
(25,089 posts)It isn't that I have no sympathy for non custodial parents. It's that my sympathy lies further for children. They had no say in any of this. They come first.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... telling the exact same story?"
There certainly seems to a a very vocal contingent that takes delight in bashing men using very broad brushes.
Sad and discouraging to those of us that have taken up their causes for so many decades.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)As usual, the story in the OP paints the woman in a negative light, as it does 99% of the time.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Ridiculous.
You actually prove the point of what the post I was responding to was making. Thanks.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)I'm pretty confident that a large percent of the time, these posts are about women as opposed to a man seeking child support. THe usual suspects show up in the threads, in fact. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. it doesn't make a nickles difference if you've "been on DU" since 1901. You said 99% of the time. That is an exact quote of YOUR words. Patently false on it's face.
Ridiculous is still ridiculous.
I raised my children without so much as a penny of child support from my ex-spouse, a woman. So save your pity party for someone else, ok?
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)If you can claim with a straight face that there aren't a contingency of people on DU with an agenda against women. Then you can save it.
RedRocco
(454 posts)lapislzi
(5,762 posts)While I agree with you that these threads are often barometric in nature, I think that the more thoughtful, critical responses to the thread are about the writer and his situation.
Not that poor people deserve their condition. As I said upthread, I'm not in the judging business. I am genuinely sorry for the man's troubles.
Were it a woman telling the same story, I would be asking exactly the same questions, and pointing out the same glaring holes.
This man is responsible for a great deal of his own misfortune. Even so, that is beside the point.
He is going to jail for failing to pay child support. Regardless of what I think of that law, it is a law.
It is a very different scenario from, say, a person disabled in an accident and unable to get help and carted off to "debtors' prison" for failure to pay his Bank of America bill from his hospital bed. Very different. And I think the responses would be different if it were.
You didn't answer my earlier question as to what your investment is in this man and his story?
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)You are of the opinion that the man 'brought his circumstances upon himself'.
Forget that many people who have made the same sorts of decisions have had no such misfortune. Forget that he had actually realized the dream of financial security to have it swept from him. Ignore the fact that he has made very real efforts to rectify his situation.
No, you are possessed of the same sickness that so many in this nation are. You believe that lack of success is a moral or mental failing.
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You've insulted both our intelligence.
As for my 'investment', his story resonated with me as I have been through similar issues. But now that I'm relatively solvent, society doesn't treat me like shit as it used to despite the fact that I'm the same person I was when I was in poverty.
People like you, who justify their revulsion to the poor by claiming it is a choice or character flaw make me sick. The really, truly sick part is that you have yourself convinced you haven't said exactly what you have.
So what are these 'glaring holes'?
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)Last edited Thu May 10, 2012, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)
He says his ex called him a deadbeat but offers no info on his work history prior to his wife leaving him that would counter that.
He started having financial difficulties when his wife left and well before he was ordered to pay child support. It gives the impression he was dependent on his wife for financial security.
He says he landed his first good job shortly before his wife left. What did he do before that?
It's unclear if he provided financial support for his children from the time his wife left till the time he was ordered to pay child support over a year later.
He says he fought for custody of the children but he gives no evidence that he would have been able to provide for them on his own. He already was going into debt and having trouble making ends meet by this time.
He apparently had time to write books, make inventions and create business models but blames his ex for his not having the financial security to finish the books, patent the inventions or start the businesses. Again, gives the impression he was dependent on his wife for his own financial well being.
He's held numerous jobs from the time his wife left. He only talks about why three of them didn't work out along with the failed business ventures. What happened in the rest of them?
He says his arrest (months after his wife left with the children) didn't impact his ability to pay child support because he says he wasn't paying support at the time. The divorce wasn't finalized yet. He was arrested for DWI, refusing to take a breathalyzer test and speeding. He says he was convicted of DWAI and there was no finding of BAC or of refusing to take the test. As I understand it, in NY the minimum penalty for a 1st offense DWAI is a $300.00 fine and a 90 suspended license. As he was already having financial problems at that time, this would have had serious impact on him.
There's more but those are at the top of my head.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)He constructed a very visually appealing cross to martyr himself on rather than accept the financial obligations of his past choices.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Shit, he doesn't live that far from me, I know his address now thanks to Kaleva, he's apparently gone through something similar to what I have, I may have to drop by and tell him to stop beating himself up for failing because the whole world is more than happy to do it for him.
Meanwhile, he seems to have really nailed you 'poverty is a choice' people down pretty good.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"nailed you 'poverty is a choice' people down pretty good."
Less that (best back-handed implication you can come up with, or are you merely a binary thinker?), and more that I don't suffer deadbeat dads.
"stop beating himself up for failing..."
Again, less that, and more for failing to meet his responsibility. I didn't imply success or failure was a choice (although you inferred it-- it's on you), although I do realize that having children is a choice, as is not providing for them.
Interpret that anyway you need to better validate your own POV...
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Your point is crystal clear. It doesn't matter if a PERSON (IOW; women too) can't pay because their circumstances are intractable or they have the money and simply refuse to pay. They should all be treated the same under the law.
Either way, you're calling it a 'choice' not to pay whether one is capable or not.
Yes, he nailed the 'sickness' of blaming the poor down. It's obviously alive and well in people like yourself, the Tea Party, and the Koch brothers™.
No 'interpretation' necessary.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Who cares that there is a much more simple and more fair solution. Fully shared and equal parenting.
Its much more fun and lucrative to beat up on non-custodial parents and call them the scum of the earth.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)the state does not have the right to choose to give a parent to one parent over the other if both meet the standard of not being a threat to the child. Every single time it does, the choice is arbitrary and subjective.
If a parent is a threat to a child, just like if a married couple is a threat to the child, the child should be taken away from such parents and those parents should lose all rights AND obligations to that child.
If the parent is not a threat, then that parent deserves all the rights that the other parent does after divorce. That means equal time. If both parents have equal time with the child living with them, and of course paying for the childs needs as any parent does with a child living with them, then it follows that no one should pay anyone.
Taking care of a child living with you is being a parent and providing support.
"Non-custodial parent" is a made up status where the state claims you are still a parent and makes you pay money (from which the state of course takes its cut) even though you are really no longer a parent at that point. The state has taken away anything that resembles being a parent. The state and custodial parent basically are having it both ways. You take parenthood away from the 'Non custodial parent' but make them pay as if they are still a parent. And of course, the family court system and family lawyers happily make their money off both parents while all this is all being sorted out. Family practice is where lawyers who could not get real lawyer jobs go. Its welfare for weak lawyers.
Money is not speech, it is not support, and it is not being a parent.
The trend is toward fully equal custody. All of what I suggest here is going to be reality within 20 years and people will look back at the whole 'Non Custodial Parent' part of our history and wonder why more people didn't see the reality of the injustice of it sooner.
Horse with no Name
(34,204 posts)let me interject.
No divorce is the same. None of them.
How would you take it if a NCP refused to give medications to a child and put that child in harm's way each and every time he had possession... left this same child at the hands of his drug addict girlfriend--the same one that he cheated on his unknowing spouse with and hid the fact that they had children together who in turn left the child with HER married lovers in another town and previously with her own drug addicted sister who went to jail and lost her own children? A man who is worth a million dollars...yet withholds child support each and every month for 60 days...because he can...drops insurance on child every chance he gets...starts shit every single time he can and then tape records the results of this...tries to have mother thrown in jail because she dared ask about health insurance (he was laughed out of sheriff office)...and 3 years worth of emotional abuse directed to the mother of his child?
The groundwork has been laid for this man to have court supervised visits...but we aren't there yet....BUT should his financial assets be withheld from the child if the courts decide that this child is in too much danger from being in his presence? How is that fair?
The mother did nothing wrong except choose a sociopath for a husband--and it was hidden very well. So...according to you, if he ends up losing his rights because he is an idiot and a danger to the child...the child loses out. Never mind the money it took the Mother to fight for the safety of her child or the lasting damage that has been done to this child from the visits that have already transpired. It is TRAUMATIC for this child to go, but she is too young to have a voice in the process yet.
And IF a man is able to act like this and loses full parental rights because of his actions--then WHY shouldn't he still pay for the child? For crying out loud...he just paid an attorney close to $250k to fight us and even his shady attorney thought he was nuts and fired him immediately after the proceedings...at the same time we were providing ours with an additional retainer for Round 2.
There would be an EPIDEMIC of NCP's doing children harm to keep from having to pay support.
Now, in our situation, if this loser would just sign over rights and move on down the road...we'd welcome that in a heartbeat. But if we have to go through the courts to get the same outcome, he'll pay to the fullest extent that the court allows AND we will gladly make sure he goes to jail at each and every opportunity that is available to us.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)taken away. Just like two bad parents or a widow or widower who are threats to their children.
You dont need an unfair system with 'non-custodial parents' to deal with this.
Horse with no Name
(34,204 posts)in reality, it isn't.
There are many things that have to occur before the rights can be taken away. It is endless.
There is NO doubt in my mind that this process is about preserving the rights of the parents rather than doing the right thing for the child.
I've seen injustices on both sides....but at the end of the day, the only ones I feel truly sorry for are the kids.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)My lawyer said my spouse would have to be a convicted pedophile for me to get even sole custody, and even then he would probably be allowed supervised visits. Trying to get rights taken away is pretty near impossible.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)The state or county should just give him a job picking up trash on the side of the highway. It will be cheaper than putting him in jail. Then dock his paycheck for the child support. Save the jail cell for someone who really needs to be taken off the streets, like a rapist, or a hedge fund manager.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If money for the child was the point, there are many ways to make that happen as you suggested.
The point is to pound the non-custodial parent into the ground in every way imaginable. They want to satisfy the custodial parent's desire for revenge, using the child as a weapon, and they want to justify the need for family lawyers and family courts by unending measures of hearings and litigations like this one for contempt. That way, everyone wins except the non-custodial parent whom nobody cares about. You can see it in the responses to this OP. How many folks care about this guy at all?
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)I care about the guy, especially since he seems mentally unstable, for which I hope he can get some support. Perhaps that could be used as a defense in court. But that doesn't mean he has carte blanche when it comes to supporting his kids.
Children require things, like their own rooms and decent, stable living conditions, which all cost money.
The children did not ask to be born into this world, so it's the parent's responsibility to make them comfortable.
It's not his ex's new husband's responsibility to support his kids.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Sure, kids require things. And when they live with you half the time, you provide them.
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)Just because a parent has been denied access to their kids doesn't negate their financial responsibility.
If anything the custodial parent should pay less, because they need to spend time attending to the needs of the children. That means the custodial parent has less time to work and make money.
They are still the parent's kids, no matter what.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)1. A Widow who is an unfit parent. What happens? Children's services takes the kid away and does the Widow pay child support? No.
2. A Widower who is an unfit parent. What happens? Children's services takes the kid away and does the widower pay child support?
No.
3. Two living parents who are unfit. What happens? Children's services takes the kid away. Do the parents pay child support?
No.
Only in the case of divorce do we have a situation where the courts arbitrarily and subjectively declare one parent better than the other and then order what the courts consider the 'worse' parent to pay the other parent.
There is zero need for this. Its unfair and subjective. If one of the parents is unfit, take their parental rights away. If both parents are unfit, take their parental rights away. If both parents are fit, have them share custody. No custody fight, no child support, no lawyers. Simple, easy and fair.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)Parents do pay child support when their children are taken from them and placed outside the home. Yes, indeed. Federal and state law require it. It isn't just in cased of divorce.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And in practice, most of those parents arent required to pay even during foster care.
and that is the point. You arent required to pay when you are no longer a parent.
Pithlet
(25,089 posts)A lot of them aren't, mainly because they don't meet the financial requirements because they're too poor. It follows the same guidelines as non-custodial parents, see.
But see, non-custodial parents are parents. Just because you say they aren't doesn't make it so. There isn't some stevenleser magic wand, where you waive your opinion wand and it becomes fact.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Pithlet
(25,089 posts)DaveJ
(5,023 posts)...someone is too unfit be required to support their kids.
I do not think you are talking about mentally unfit parents though. You seem to be saying even parents who are mentally stable, but denied access, should not be required to support their kids. A lot of parents might be unfit as parents but perfectly able to work.
Again, parenting is a job too, with no days off or vacations. It's not like the custodial parent is getting money for nothing.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)should not defacto have their children taken away in a divorce. We should instead opt for fairness.
If you think shared custody works, that's fair. I'll give you that. It is wrong that the courts do not give shared custody the consideration it deserves.
But nc parents should still pay regardless. I have the upmost respect for parents who support their children. And I'm sure that the children appreciate the money, if not when they are young, when they grow up and learn how the world works. If it were up to me, in some situations I think the nc parent should be allowed to put the money into a fund for later in the kid's life, in situations where they do not trust the custodial parent. My main problem, though, is when the nc thinks the wife's new husband is suddenly responsible to pay. Or when they think somehow their obligations have vaporized. I can understand having kids when one isn't ready yet, but continuing to refute one's responsibilities is not the same Anyway, that's all I got. Good night!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)abuses in human history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_interests_(rhetoric)
"Think of the children" or "its for the children" is such a powerful appeal to emotion that it allows people to justify and rationalize all kinds of injustice.
Custodial situations involving a parent forced into non-custodial status is injustice. If we were not using the 'its for the children' rationalization, I have no doubt that everyone would see it.
Horse with no Name
(34,204 posts)You have been through this.
From experience, I will commiserate that NOBODY understands a custody battle unless they have been through one.
That being said...have you ever talked to the kids of parents who got shared custody? I have...and NONE of them recommend it.
Biggest complaint is that they never feel like they have their own space.
One in particular...both respective parents remarried spouses who had other children. While she was swapping homes every week...she never had her "own" space. There was tremendous jealousy between her and the step-siblings. By the time this child reached the age to decide where she wanted to live, she chose her Mother. Then, her Dad out of spite filed for custody because her Mom was using drugs. After a brief stint of living with her Dad solely, they went back to the here one week, there one week, etc.
She didn't fit in anywhere...and with two families in close proximity...she ended up living with MY family during her Senior year of High School after she turned 18.
As a young adult...she has trouble forming relationships, is very unstable, and generally just an unhappy person.
Kids NEED stability. In places where abuse isn't a factor...people don't try hard enough to salvage marriages that could be salvaged. So...IMHO, when people make choices to make themselves happier at the expense of their children's well being, then they really find themselves in a mess of their own making and the children shouldn't be responsible to hold together the lives of two adults who couldn't get along for the greater good. The best interests of the child should be preserved at whatever cost...even if it makes the NCP unhappy.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I can provide you links if you like later.
Horse with no Name
(34,204 posts)I've talked to kids who have lived it. I've worked with kids for years and most of them wouldn't give up their secrets to random strangers doing a study.
I've known ONE family that shared custody worked. The reason it worked was because the home was given to the children and the parents just swapped out every two weeks. The kids NEVER left--only the parents.
This was a plan that was designed by the parents...not the courts.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Horse with no Name
(34,204 posts)that refute it as that support it so I am going to go by what I know as opposed to father's rights propaganda.
We became very educated during this process...and even joined father's rights groups and purchased materials to see what "the other side" was doing when they hired a father's rights attorney.
Much of what I have read from men on this thread is directly from the information that is given to them from these groups.
It appears that this legislation that is cropping up seems to be coming in the same states that are seeking to limit women's rights.
It is all part of an agenda...no doubt.
tru
(237 posts)If he runs his life like he writes, I'm surprised he's made it this far.
Lucky for his wife she got out in time.
kag
(4,189 posts)Yeah, she's so lucky that she broke all her promises to him and threw him into such miserable circumstances!
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)You're assuming that everything he says is true. I don't know if it is or not.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)you'll see that he's a very articulate and highly educated man.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)(the transformation started a while back and is nearly complete) So you can console yourself with that thought. It may be better to be on the outside, physically, than the inside of where you're going, but everyone but the top half of the top one percent is going to be inside in one way or another.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)that person's story was little more than a big pity party with a political point tacked on at the end.
There are better ways to illustrate this than that man's questionable story.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...not to the poster here, but the the poster at DK. Eliciting sympathy by throwing in the phase "Debtor's Prison", when the story has nothing to do with "poverty" or "poverty by choice". This entire diatribe is about his relationship with his ex-wife.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)From what he says, without the background the circumstances would have seemed incredible until he answered enough questions to fill in the backstory anyhow.
So I tried to run it through my head without the backstory, and sure enough, none of it made sense until the questions, most of them beginning with "Why", were answered.
If you have a modicum of imagination, you can try the exercise too.
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)His diary at DK
Mon May 07, 2012 at 01:11 PM PDT
Your OP here
Mon May 7, 2012, 05:24 PM (EST)
Looking at the posts here and at DK, and the time of the posts, you were defending his story well before he answered many questions and provided more backstory yet you say:
"So I tried to run it through my head without the backstory, and sure enough, none of it made sense until the questions, most of them beginning with "Why", were answered. "
None of it made sense? Yet you were jumping on people here early in the thread 'cause they had the audacity to question it.
Your comment:
"If you have a modicum of imagination, you can try the exercise too."
An exercise you could try is look at the times he was answering "why" questions and providing background and compare them to the times you made comments here.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)This dude can stick his whiny bullshit up his ass.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)I raised two children without a cent from my ex-husband. He disappeared after the divorce. And when I did locate him, I had a lawyer contact him and I received a big $20 check.