Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I May be Going to Debtor's Prison [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)210. Sure it does. Its only in the situation of a divorce when it doesnt. Consider
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
330 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
what is going to happen when the jails are run over with people like this? Where are they going
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#44
What can you do if that is all that is out there. Lets face it if your in your 40s, 50s,60s you
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#47
I bet like 98% would love living in squalor just to get back at their x wives, he chose to be poor
Dragonfli
May 2012
#191
I'm always guilty of that -- thanks for the reminder. And for those who are cautioning against
gateley
May 2012
#171
it's almost a "cool story bro" type of story, don't know what to believe on this one.
dionysus
May 2012
#280
I did not say it wasn't true, I said it wasn't the whole truth, and lacks any real owning of his
Lionessa
May 2012
#23
He reminds me of a man I know with bipolar disease, who flits from one job to another
pnwmom
May 2012
#41
One line summary - In the US you may be sent to jail if you can't pay your child support. n/t
PoliticAverse
May 2012
#7
if you can't, you go back to court. Like not paying your taxes, it doesn't just "go away".
crazyjoe
May 2012
#39
Collective punishment is wrong. And laws should not be written based on what 'some people did'
sabrina 1
May 2012
#131
What is better for children is not being raised in struggling single parent households
Pithlet
May 2012
#134
And having a parent thrown in jail benefits children, in what way? For most children it is
sabrina 1
May 2012
#244
Really? If someone simply cannot pay, sending them to jail will solve that? How?
sabrina 1
May 2012
#257
I get that jail isn't the solution for everything. I'm not a law and order type.
Pithlet
May 2012
#260
"Most fathers who are not paying child support are not paying because they CAN'T"
WinniSkipper
May 2012
#262
Feel free, not sure why it should be a problem. I have been to fathers groups with friends who
sabrina 1
May 2012
#268
No, I did not initiate this discussion. The obligation for proof is on those who made the initial
sabrina 1
May 2012
#294
Now you've really gone way off the tracks regarding this discussion. What a gigantic, humongous
sabrina 1
May 2012
#300
Since when do people on the left give a crap about what the Right, who are wrong about
sabrina 1
May 2012
#306
He never tried to petition the court to adjust his payment to a level he could afford.
Kaleva
May 2012
#266
First, thank you for your post. I wish you and your children all the best. I am sure it is not easy
sabrina 1
May 2012
#273
Courts often decide people can pay when in fact they cannot. Ever attend a father's rights group?
sabrina 1
May 2012
#259
True enough, but semantics, much like fabreeze seeks to take away the bad odor /nt
Dragonfli
May 2012
#194
OP needs to edit this to include that it is due to failure to pay child support...
Earth_First
May 2012
#28
Yep, Non-Custodial Parents are one of the untermenschen of modern society. No one cares about them
stevenleser
May 2012
#195
I can't argue with providing for your kids, but it seems to me that society could have benefited
dkf
May 2012
#329
Poorly-written "poor me" screed. He's facing jail for missing child support payments, not cc debt
REP
May 2012
#32
You are right, absolutes are seldom true. I can say though, that I have yet to see a post of yours
Dragonfli
May 2012
#196
I'm sorry; thought I was responding to someone else. I don't recognize you at all.
REP
May 2012
#223
Also, here's what a family lawyer in Texas says about father's chances in Texas:
Pithlet
May 2012
#67
They don't request support ecause if they demand mom's support for the kids, she'll demand custody.
lumberjack_jeff
May 2012
#88
He's not wrong as the only person responding to you with a link pointed out.
stevenleser
May 2012
#197
Thank you, that's what I thought. I have asked for some links to prove what has been said here,
sabrina 1
May 2012
#265
I'm assuming he's serving jail time in lieu of failure to pay past child support.
Selatius
May 2012
#51
Imprisoning poor people after assigning them debts they could never pay is wrong
Taitertots
May 2012
#55
It doesn't matter what it costs. The only thing that matters is what he can pay. n/t
lumberjack_jeff
May 2012
#68
$7800 = 1/4 of male median income. which suggests that there's a lot of men who are working
HiPointDem
May 2012
#74
It amazes me how so many can form such strong opinions over something they didn't bother to read.
The Doctor.
May 2012
#101
That is NOT a reason for his problems. Millions of people get DWIs. Btw, I see this was brought
sabrina 1
May 2012
#270
I suspect this item on the POLICE BLOTTER might explain why the wife left....
msanthrope
May 2012
#116
Well, that makes it alright to lock him up and throw away the key. He was pulled over for a DWI.
sabrina 1
May 2012
#133
How many DWIs does she have? Do we know? And suppose she does, what has that got to do
sabrina 1
May 2012
#241
And it might not. But don't let doubt get in the way of a nice character assasination.
The Doctor.
May 2012
#162
Well, the writer had no problem assassinating the character of his former wife.
lapislzi
May 2012
#298
And it might not. And if he was a wealthy Corporate CEO, the issue of DWIs would not even be raised.
sabrina 1
May 2012
#238
You really think having an addiction has nothing to do with the ability to pay child
msanthrope
May 2012
#251
Who said he is an addict? But if he is, of cours it would affect his ability to pay support. Just
sabrina 1
May 2012
#255
I think his letter very clearly spells out his problems. Denial is a powerful thing. nt
msanthrope
May 2012
#258
Well, anyone in that thread at DK could have googled him, possibly they did. It doesn't
sabrina 1
May 2012
#290
Well, I will tell you why most criminal defendants refuse a breathalyzer...it's because they are
msanthrope
May 2012
#301
No, it doesn't. It spells out a very common story in this country of someone who has been trying
sabrina 1
May 2012
#269
Well, they say the first step is admitting that everyone else has a problem.
msanthrope
May 2012
#275
Lol, I know that things like 'chronology' aren't important when trying to lambaste someone...
The Doctor.
May 2012
#157
I don't think he helped his case by giving his name and publicly accusing his ex of perjury.
Kaleva
May 2012
#143
... are indicative of the nation's attitude toward the poor and unfortunate.
The Doctor.
May 2012
#150
Do you consider 'non-custodial parents' part of those single parent families?
stevenleser
May 2012
#173
It's not irrelevant. You dont see the non-custodial parent as a parent and you are right.
stevenleser
May 2012
#177
Then you misunderstood what I was asking (maybe I didnt phrase it well), but my point remains.
stevenleser
May 2012
#179
Yes. I was tying to explain that families run by a single parent are the poorest.
Pithlet
May 2012
#180
You WERE clear, hence my point. You dont think of the non custodial parent as a parent.
stevenleser
May 2012
#182
You excluded them, I am just pointing out what is apparent from your own phraseology
stevenleser
May 2012
#184
I'm not sure what question you are answering since I asked about a dozen or more, but...
stevenleser
May 2012
#186
"Any question about how different some of these responses would be if this were a woman...
99Forever
May 2012
#166
Right, he tried, he failed, he should be punished for failing to make enough money.
The Doctor.
May 2012
#193
Yep, we care about the 99%... unless they are a non-custodial parent. NCP's can go to hell.
stevenleser
May 2012
#198
This is an easy question to answer. The bad parents you describe should have their parental rights
stevenleser
May 2012
#208
It would cost more to keep him in prison than to give him a job on a road crew or something.
limpyhobbler
May 2012
#174
You would be surprised how many people become less mentally stable when you take their kids away
stevenleser
May 2012
#205
Sure it does. Its only in the situation of a divorce when it doesnt. Consider
stevenleser
May 2012
#210
Nope, if they are then it is temporary during foster care. Once adopted, the payments stop.
stevenleser
May 2012
#224
That distinction isnt relevant to the divorce/custody situation, is it? nt
stevenleser
May 2012
#231
Nope, I am saying that parents who would not have their children taken away if they were alone
stevenleser
May 2012
#228
Its important to remember that "Its for the children" has been used to justify some of the worst
stevenleser
May 2012
#272
The actual studies on the subject say the exact opposite. Everyone is happier in shared situations
stevenleser
May 2012
#212