Deadbeat Dad's = Death Sentence

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I was thinking purely monetary, bunge, but good point.



    Jail? No. But when you become a parent you move your priorities, your child's well being trumps your happiness. Legal enforcement of that is iffy, but as far as morally you gave up your right to be a granola-eating hippie protesting in a tree for 2 years with no income when you divorced your wife and left your child(ren).
  • Reply 22 of 47
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Going to jail? No.



    He's still responsible for providing for his child and if his lowered pay does adversely affect the child then he has shirked his responsibility as a father.



    Also, how many threads have you started on this subject? 90?




    Actually, the lowered pay adversely affects the mother because then she might have to work a little harder to make the payments for her Benz. There is NO accountability in the child support system. Anyone who receives child support should have to account for EVERY SINGLE PENNY through receipts.
  • Reply 23 of 47
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    BR, trumptman, and I arguing on the same side of an issue together? If FCiB joins in in agreement, it will surely be a Sign of the End Times.



    It'd be a damn shame if the world has to end before we get to hear the Stevenote on Monday.
  • Reply 24 of 47
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    BR:



    Quote:

    Actually, the lowered pay adversely affects the mother because then she might have to work a little harder to make the payments for her Benz. There is NO accountability in the child support system. Anyone who receives child support should have to account for EVERY SINGLE PENNY through receipts.



    Benz payments? Are you freaking insane.



    Have you ever met a single mother receiving child support?
  • Reply 25 of 47
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Benz payments? Are you freaking insane.



    Have you ever met a single mother receiving child support?




    I don't know about BR, but I have -- my sister.



    There are women who (A) need support badly for their children, like my sister did at one time -- and there also are a few women who (B) would spend their child support money on a Mercedes. Both cases exist. They aren't mutually exclusive. Even if you think A is 100 times more common than B, that doesn't mean it's wrong to complain about B when it happens.



    No one is saying that there aren't true deadbeat dads, that there aren't mothers and children who deserve all, if not more, of the child support payments that they receive, that father's don't have moral obligations to their children, etc.



    Why are so many people having this big emotional reaction as if that is what's being said?
  • Reply 26 of 47
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Why are so many people having this big emotional reaction as if that is what's being said?



    Look at the title of the thread.
  • Reply 27 of 47
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    BR, trumptman, and I arguing on the same side of an issue together? If FCiB joins in in agreement, it will surely be a Sign of the End Times.



    It'd be a damn shame if the world has to end before we get to hear the Stevenote on Monday.




    Would you believe it I join in as well......





    WATCH OUT FOR THE FALLING ROCKS!!!!!!!!!





    Fellows
  • Reply 28 of 47
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Look at the title of the thread.



    For my own part, I did say that I thought the title and the suicide stats were overstating trumptman's case more than a bit -- but when you cut through the hyperbole, he still has a point.



    The law often shows a tendency to treat divorced fathers as deadbeats who simply haven't been caught yet, and often overcompensates in an effort to prevent or punish real abuses by fathers by taking it out too hard on honest men who are willing to live up to their responsibilities.
  • Reply 29 of 47
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    I'm not sure I understand all of the hostility against trumptman on this issue.



    Sure, I think the case is a little overstated with all that talk about a "death penalty", and that there's not anywhere near enough context or comparison for the suicide statistic for it to mean much. Still, I think there's a good case to be made that men often get a raw deal when it comes to divorce and child support.



    Speaking for myself, I have nothing to complain about: I've been divorced once, there were no children involved, and my ex-wife and I worked it all out without lawyers. We're still on such good terms that I let her move back in with me when she lost her job last year.



    But many of the things I've heard about from other people's divorces and child support situations are very alarming. In particular, it bothers me that a divorced father doesn't have just as much flexibility and leeway as a married father when it comes to supporting his kids.



    If you're married and lose your job, no one's going to throw you in jail because your kids don't receive some fixed dollar amount from you every month. You'd be allowed to work it out on your own, and as long as you weren't starving your kids to death or sending them to school in rags, your children would be expected to ride out the tough times with you.



    I certainly reject the notion that if you're well-off when you get divorced, that your kids are somehow entitled to be "maintained in the manner to which they have become accustomed." If I stayed married and decided my high-pressure job as a VP of sales was just too much for me, the law isn't going to be on my case about how I'm supporting my kids if I decide to quit and take a job at Walmart stocking shelves instead -- that would be my choice, and my choice alone. Why should it be any different after divorce?






    These are some of the best arguments I have ever read with this issue.



    I am single and have no children. But I agree with the above 100%



    Fellowship
  • Reply 30 of 47
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    BR, trumptman, and I arguing on the same side of an issue together? If FCiB joins in in agreement, it will surely be a Sign of the End Times.



    It'd be a damn shame if the world has to end before we get to hear the Stevenote on Monday.




    It's a sign of the second coming... of Macdom....



    Actually BR and I start out agreeing on a lot of issues. About 40 posts from now he'll say "And here is where we depart." I draw my inclusion circle pretty wide, but the radius of BR's is infinity.



    Nick
  • Reply 31 of 47
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Look at the title of the thread.



    Oh come now grove, surely you realize good headline writing and salemanship when you see it. How many people would peak in on the thread titled "Contemporary Child Support Issues."



    What is this? NPR all the sudden?



    Nick
  • Reply 32 of 47
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Nice to be invited to this Promise Keepers rally. I feel the white man's burden coming on strong.



    Quote:

    For my own part, I did say that I thought the title and the suicide stats were overstating trumptman's case more than a bit -- but when you cut through the hyperbole, he still has a point.



    Men shouldn't go to jail for switching jobs, yeah that's a good point. The first words I uttered in the thread, too.



    Quote:

    The law often shows a tendency to treat divorced fathers as deadbeats who simply haven't been caught yet, and often overcompensates in an effort to prevent or punish real abuses by fathers by taking it out too hard on honest men who are willing to live up to their responsibilities.



    It's not too hard to pay child support, especially when you're not the one responsible for the child you helped create. If we didn't have this sort of legislation what percentage of divorced or absentee fathers would just forget it and move on providing no help at all?
  • Reply 33 of 47
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    If the father has more time to spend with the child, it will benefit the child. That is, if you're talking about taking a job with lower pay.



    Welcome to the public forum.




    I....(come on...you can do this).... a...a...a..gree..... with.....B..bb..b....Bunge.



    Uh...wait. I mentioned that my brother changed jobs to spend more time with his children earlier. Does that mean he agreed with me first?



    Of course I always like Bunge's posts when they are the equivelent of "Here's a sharp stick, and here's your eye." Even when I disagree with them.



    Nick
  • Reply 34 of 47
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    It's not too hard to pay child support, especially when you're not the one responsible for the child you helped create. If we didn't have this sort of legislation what percentage of divorced or absentee fathers would just forget it and move on providing no help at all?



    No one is saying we should do away with child support. What we are saying is that a certain measure of accountability has to exist. True deadbeat dads should be hunted down and castrated. Ex-wives who bilk their ex-husbands for thousands of child support per month and spend even a fraction of the money on themselves rather the child should be equally punished.
  • Reply 35 of 47
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    so write your congressmen/senator about changine the law regarding changing jobs. other than that i don't really see this conversation going anywhere. i think most people agree that switching jobs to something lower paying shouldn't be a jailable offense, but there's really only one way to fix that.
  • Reply 36 of 47
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I....(come on...you can do this).... a...a...a..gree..... with.....B..bb..b....Bunge.



    *faints*
  • Reply 37 of 47
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    BR:



    Quote:

    What we are saying is that a certain measure of accountability has to exist.



    I think the scrutiny should be harsher on the father, without a doubt. Even if the mother spends some of the money "on herself" she's still the one taking care of their child.



    The laws can be screwed up, absolutely, but so can *all* laws.
  • Reply 38 of 47
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Nice to be invited to this Promise Keepers rally. I feel the white man's burden coming on strong.



    Men shouldn't go to jail for switching jobs, yeah that's a good point. The first words I uttered in the thread, too.



    It's not too hard to pay child support, especially when you're not the one responsible for the child you helped create. If we didn't have this sort of legislation what percentage of divorced or absentee fathers would just forget it and move on providing no help at all?




    Actually it can be quite hard to pay child support. As I mentioned the support decisions are based off what you make. If anything changes about that, it can take months for the court to review your petition to change the amount you owe. It just piles up with penalties and interest in the meantime.



    Ever been laid off (I haven't) and then gotten a new job that will get you back to your old pay level in a few months or perhaps never? Ever been underemployed for a period of time? Courts do not and often are barred by law from forgiving back/owed child support even when you have proven you could not have paid that amount during that period of time. If you are making $5000 a month (gross, not net) and owe $2000 of child support, it will still rack up at that rate even if you are only earning $1800 a month consulting for three months while you find another job. You still give what you can (say $900 a month while living with a friend/family for free percentage-wise an even larger amount of your income) but in the end, the law still declares you a criminal with possibility of jail. You are $3300 dollars behind on your child support! The court can order your new support to be $720 a month to match your present salary however they cannot dismiss the owed child support.



    So now you are so glad you can pay your child support and perhaps get caught back up. You grab some overtime/sidework to try to get good with the law (you are a deadbeat you understand). You are working 60 hours a week, paying $1200 a month toward your child support which is catching up your back support to the tune of $480 a month. However your ex files a petition to review child support. (Seems she isn't too happy with $720 when she was getting $2 grand a month before) You've been earning $2400 a month, but it has been taking you 50-60 hours a week to earn it. However the court doesn't care, income is income. You have managed in three months to pay back $1440 of your back support which was $3300 (only $1860 left). Now the court orders you to pay $960 a month (same 40% of gross) but wait...two catches.



    Catch 1) You have been working 50-60 hours a week to earn that amount to try to get CAUGHT UP! Now you have to work it to just STAY EVEN, or else you become an even worse deadbeat! God forbid you only work 40 hours because you would only take home $840 a month to live on, oh and BTW you are still a deadbeat. That $840 will not pay a cent on what you owe and the amount owed grows with interest and penalties. (Now 6 months worth you understand)



    Catch 2) Seems when you were working like a dog to get good with the law (50-60 hours a week) you missed a few of your visitations. You explained it to your ex and she seemed fine with it at the time because hey, more money for her right?($1200 vs. $720) Instead of taking the kids every Friday to Sunday evening, you have been taking them for every other Friday to Sunday evening.



    The judge looks at your record. You look like an a$$hole. You missed half your visitations. (your honor she said it was okay and I was doing it to payback my owed child support) and you have been a deadbeat for over half a year.



    The judge grants your wifes request to change the physical custody agreement to every other weekend. (Seems to be what you were doing anyway sir) Since you now have less physical custody you now owe more what.... you guessed it... child support. Instead of 40% of your gross, it is raised to 50% of your gross. The gross that consisted of you working 50-60 hours a week. Your support is now $1200 a month and you better pray for overtime because if you don't get it you will have $600 a month to live on.



    What if you can't get overtime? (You fall behind)

    What if you can't live on $600 a month (You fall behind)

    What if you become unemployed, underemployed or laid off again? (You are screwed)



    I have personally witnessed scenarios like this happen about half a dozen times. I know someone who wanted so desperately to get caught up on his back support that he took out a home equity line of credit on his house to pay it back. The DA called the loan income (About $5000) and got the judge to raise his child support $100 a month.



    Of course he doesn't get to pay back the HELOC with that $100 either.



    It is easier to become a deadbeat than you think. I've never been divorced or had a child support issue, but I have friends who have had this happen to them. The pattern is quite clear.



    Nick
  • Reply 39 of 47
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    BR:

    I think the scrutiny should be harsher on the father, without a doubt. Even if the mother spends some of the money "on herself" she's still the one taking care of their child.




    The money is not for her. The money is for the child. She may not spend a single penny of it on herself unless it DIRECTLY benefits the child (i.e. going to Disneyland and buying a ticket for her and the child is OK but going to Disneyland and buying a ticket for her, her boyfriend, and the child is not). A Benz is not going to help the child any more than a VW.



    The other thing you forget is that fathers sometimes want custody of the children and don't get it because the system is biased towards mothers. Sure, she's taking care of the child usually because she fought for that privelege in court. It doesn't necessarily mean it was thrust upon her unwillingly. You act as if it has been. She chose to fight for full custody so she chose the responsibility of raising the child. The father should not have to compensate her extra for that. The money belongs to the ****ing child.
  • Reply 40 of 47
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    This is just another in a long line of attempts by Trumptman to show how us men are getting shafted by the Law and by those rascally women . . . twisting logic like red licorice so as to make men the target of an invisible legal conspiracy born out of 'PC' feminism . . (a conspiracy which is probably being controlled by lesbian 'feminazis' hell bent on castrating him in his sleep . . . and/or stealing his preciouse buildings and money)

    . . . us poor towntrodden white men . . . .
Sign In or Register to comment.