Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

Meldon Fens wrote:
"pandora" wrote in message
news:17SdnQd9hKhllG_ZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Meldon Fens" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02...


..

Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? I believe I
have told you mine and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd like

to

sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the

carpet,

at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."

- Ron ^*^


Just see how effective that argument is for a father driven into

poverty.

The best he can hope for is a bunch of grunts followed by a bunch of
laughter. We're all catching on though. That laughter is strained at

best

and is a thinly veiled disguise for a fear that the truth will be

uncovered

and all that funding dries up. What will the fat, gold-digging whores do
then?


They'll stop marrying your asses and spewing out your brats.

Marg





It appears you've acknowledged the true relationship between government
funding and procreation.

LOL she spoke truer than she intended...

- Ron ^*^

Hyerdahl wrote:

Werebat wrote:

Hyerdahl wrote:

Werebat wrote:

Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience?


Why would that be pertinent to my OPINION based on the FACTS as
mentioned above?

So, you aren't going to answer my question?


No. I don't consider it any of your business. My facts are true,
regardless, or you would have been able to rufute them regardless of
your self aggrandizement.

Suit yourself. I'll be left to fill in the blanks, then.


Do you _really_ think you must have litigation or
judicial experience in family court to debate these issues?

No, of course not, but IME the vast majority of people who choose to
comment on the present family court situation have had some experience
with it, or a group connected to it in some way.


If you don't find my comments worthy of debate you are free to address
them or not. It's up to you, but I have no intention of listing a
resume here. :-)

Suit yourself.


Or are you just self-aggrandizing, here?

You've made it clear that that's what you think.


No, not really. I simply don't find it reasonable to debate based on
your alleged title.

What title? I have never claimed to be a barrister, as you hint below.


I prefer debate on the facts or some kind of provable opinons.

Uh-huh.


I have no need to tell you my experience in order to tell you the facts that I have placed above.

Let's examine those fact, shall we?

You claim:

1. Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children.

No problem with this one as stated, but the devil is in the details.
First, this statement -- like the federal forms that need to be signed
when a child is born out of wedlock in order to get the father's name on
the birth certificate -- makes no mention of the *mother's* obligation
to support her children. Do you think that mothers should also be
obligated to support their children?


Actually, both parents are equally obligated to support their children.

Ahh... So, you must be opposed to the laws that allow women to
"drop-off" their unwanted babies at fire stations, then (nevermind
abortion, I won't bother opening that can of worms). Because these laws
establish different sets of obligations for men and women.


Mothers often take over the primary care because they have done so
prior to divorce, and judges like to maintain what the couple
themselves put into action. If a mother is already providing support,
in terms of her primary care, that leaves the other parent to do some
of the child support.

This may work in the context of a marriage, but once the marriage ends,
things change. I support the movement for rebuttable presumption of
joint physical custody.


Also, the Devil's detail is the definition of "support" and the extent
of "support" that a father and mother is obligated to provide for their
child.


Well, if both the father and mother work outside the home, the judge
can certainly take that into consideration.

Yeah, they can. Who is going to hold them responsible for doing so?


I think almost everyone on these forums would agree that parents should
support their children. I agree with that broad statement. That
doesn't mean that I think the current family court and CS system isn't
horribly flawed.


I don't think it is flawed from what I have observed.

Well, this doesn't say much since you have refused to tell me exactly
what it is that you have observed. But suit yourself.


It appears to
me that judges like to support what the parents have put into action
wherever possible. Courts assume that parents intend to do right by
their kids, unless there are issues of abuse or neglect.

Parents may have put into action a situation where one cares and the
other works, in cases where they are both married and living in the same
house. The rules obviously change when the marriage and living
arrangement come to an end. At the moment, courts fail to consider this.

I'd like to see some proof of your statement that "courts assume that
parents intend to do right by their kids" in light of the way NCPs
(read: fathers) are treated by the family court and CS system. The very
assessment of an obligation and establishment of wage garnishing
(automatic in my state) exhibits an inherent distrust on the part of the
court in the intent of the NCP to do right by their kids.


Your third claimed fact:

3. A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care.

A father who works full-time and then cares for the kids 30% of the
time, which is the standard for NCP awards, may well have less free time
than a mother who doesn't work and has the kids 70% of the time. He
also won't often have free time on the weekends like she will.


You're assuming things.

Yeah, I'm assuming that Dad was the breadwinner and Mom stayed home with
the kids (the same assumptions you are making above), and that the
courts award the standard visitation schedule and that said schedule is
followed. In other words, I'm assuming the "standard" arrangement.

You list some other possibilities below, which no doubt do happen. but
they aren't the standard arrangement.


First, most fathers who are not paying child
support at all, also don't spend much (if any) time with their kids.
Many fathers abandon kids and don't see them at all. I guess those
fathers have lots more free time. Secondly, many mothers also work, at
least part time, so when you couple that with child rearing, it doesn't
leave much time. And let's not forget that if you have little ones at
home, that isn't a 9-5 job. It's 24-7.
Some fathers ONLY take the kids on weekends. Other fathers only take
the kids every other weekend.

Some fathers have their kids 50% of the time, and still pay the full
standard child support (this is the situation I would be in if my ex got
back on welfare, according to the lawyers I have spoken to). Some
fathers have their kids 100% of the time. Some mothers murder their
kids. So what? You're listing all sorts of possibilities but what
difference do they make? I'm using the standard formulaic visitation
here -- what are you using? Whatever you want to pull out of your ass
at the moment? If you use that system, I guarantee you will always
"win" every argument. For what it's worth.


If you mean a father who never sees his kids, well, sure. That doesn't
mean that the family courts are just or treat anyone in a fair way, though.


Life is not always fair, and adults tend to understand that.

You know, that's a lovely argument for a lot of things, like slavery and
racial discrimination.


In the
case of best interests of kids, courts seem to try to do what's best
for them whether or not it works well for the parents.

The problem is that the phrase, "the best interest of the kids" can be
twisted and perverted to mean almost anything the courts want it to
mean. It can be used, for example, to force good fathers out of their
kids' lives and make them pay and pay and pay, for the betterment of
their ex-wives and the state, of course... Oh, yeah, and of course for
the kids too. Can't forget them.


Your fourth claimed fact:

4. Such a father could even get a part time job or educate himself to
get better paid work. Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not
the answer here.

I didn't see anyone trying to blame arrearages on the children. Where
did this come from? Looks like your playing a weasel-word game here.


Well, who ARE you blaming then?

Depends on the situation.


Whose fault is it when daddy gets
behind?

Depends on the situation. Did daddy lose his job or get in an accident,
and the courts refused to lower his obligation? Then I don't blame him.
Sorry.


How do the kids eat when dad doesn't do his part, and why
shouldn't he pay for it?

I have little sympathy for NCPs of either sex who shirk their
responsibilities as parents, not if they were given opportunities to
fulfill them. But this is not always the reason why payments aren't
made -- if you refuse to see this, you are just lost (willfully or
otherwise).


Your fifth claimed fact:

5. Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.

It is indeed the court's responsbility to assess income and hardships,
and indeed that isn't likely to change. That doesn't mean that the
court is doing its job adequately, however, now does it?


You have offered NOTHING to make us think otherwise tho...you have
provided no evidence or support for any of your claims here, just
bellyaching.

I'll give you an example from my own life, yet again, which you simply
didn't respond to last time.

Through our 3 year marriage, I worked to put my wife through medical
school. I worked, she studied, we both made meals. Her mental health
deteriorated and she got depressed. The routine became that I worked,
she took out loans and then didn't make it to class. She seemed to
recover for about half a year, we got pregnant, and then suddenly she
relapsed very badly, cutting herself, needing electric shock treatments,
etc.

We mutually agreed that the relationship wasn't working and that it
would be best if we parted ways. From the begining, we agreed to share
responsibility and care of our son 50/50, and this is what we wrote into
our mediation and divorce decree. I have always had our son exactly 50%
of the hours of any given week, although we are flexible when we need to
be (for example she is recovering from surgery this week and I have him
tonight, when I usually would not).

Initially we agreed upon an amount of child support in mediation, which
the court altered without telling us and neither one of us noticed.
Some time later we were summoned to court to adjust our child support,
which neither one of us understood and both chalked up to a mistake. We
actually forgot about the court date, remembered a few days afterward,
and got nervous because we had not been to court when ordered. We
called the family court and were told that the hearing was just a
formality to inform me that because my ex had gotten on public
assistance (I had not know this had happened) I was to send the CS
checks to the court instead of to her. No problem, I got the
information and sent the checks to the court as I was told.

A few months later my ex told me that she had gotten off public
assistance and that I should start giving the checks to her again. I
called the court, just to verify, and they told me that she had in fact
gotten off of public assistance and that I should give her the checks
directly. OK, no problem.

Some time later, my ex told me that she had gotten back on public
assistance and that I should begin sending the checks to the court
again. No problem, I still had the address, I began sending the checks
to the court.

Months later, my ex told me that she had gotten off of public assistance
again, and that I should start giving her the checks directly again. At
this point I just took her word for it and began giving her the checks
directly.

Except that she was still on public assistance.

Exactly one year to the month after this, I was arrested while driving
home from a friend's house. I was told that I owed money for child
support, although this made no sense to me because I had never missed a
payment. This was late on a Saturday night, and since the courts
weren't open on Sunday I had to wait the night in a cell before being
transferred to the ACI the next morning (when I was supposed to have my
son in my care). From prison, I called my ex, who told the police that
I wasn't behind on my payments, but they said there was nothing they
could do because it was a federal offense. Family members offered to
post bail for me but again the police said there was nothing they could
do because it was a federal offense. A man who was taken in the same
night as I was, who had been involved in a knife fight, was allowed to
post bail and leave, but not me. I was a REAL criminal.

I'll pass over the experience in jail and at the ACI; suffice to say
that it is traumatic to be imprisoned for something that you know you
didn't do (I had made all of my CS payments and no one had ever
explained to me otherwise). When I finally got into court on Monday
morning, I was told that I owed a years worth of CS payments and that my
ex had been on welfare the whole time. CSE's lawyer was also there and
demanded that my obligation was not high enough, and should be raised to
match my salary (she quoted an amount higher than what I actually
earned). Someone had gotten me a lawyer who quickly asked for more time
to discuss my case with me, and they set a new date for a few weeks later.

I got to go home and shower. That was nice.

My lawyer (and later CSE's lawyer) informed me that since my ex was on
welfare, the state was taking over the case and would be demanding "a
fair amount" of obligation instead of the amount my ex and I had agreed
to. According to these lawyers, when my having my son 50% of the time
was taken into consideration, I would be required to pay 90% of the
standard CS obligation. They did some funny math to arrive at this
figure. I asked them if this sounded fair to either of them, and they
both laughed out loud and said, "No, no it doesn't, but that's how it is!"

While this was going on, CSE fabricated an amount of money that I owed
(around $600) and I received a letter ordering me to pay by a date that
just "happened" to be the day before my court date. My lawyer told me
to just pay the money, although no one I have spoken to in the years
since has ever been able to explain where the amount came from -- two
clerks at CSE has told me that it looked like someone just entered an
amount into the records on the computer there.

Oh, and they also began garnishing my wages a month before they were
supposed to, taking money after I had already paid the CS for the month.
Luckily someone in payroll was able to help me out (she had seen them
monkey with her brother's money and altered their account when I showed
her the cancelled check I had mailed earlier in the month). If she
hadn't helped me, I would have paid CS double for the same month. Nice.

When my ex agreed to get off welfare, allowing her to set her own CS
amount (because by this point I had no further illusions that my input
meant anything to any of these people), she magnanimously agreed to
demand only a little more than half of the standard CS award. She then
demanded that CSE get cut out of the loop because apparently they were
WITHHOLDING MONEY FROM HER as well as trying to collect more than what
was ordered from me. Their lawyer really looked crestfallen at that,
and the judge said he regretted her decision but "unfortunately" the law
forced him to comply with her wishes. The fact is that she knew I never
failed to make payments on time, but these crooks were delaying payments
and keeping money that was supposed to go to her. As it stands the $600
they bullied me into paying never went to her, our son, or anyone but
themselves.

Then their lawyer really outdid himself. He discretely added in a $100
per month obligation to be paid to the state DCSE, in addition to the
money me ex agreed to in court! It took me three months of wrangling
with this crook before he finally fixed the court order. In the end I
had to threaten to report him to the state bar -- I actually got the
complaint form, filled it out, and faxed it to him, telling him he had
one week to fix the problem or I was going to mail it to the bar. That
apparently lit a fire under his ass and he corrected the illegal
alteration to the court order that he had made.

And then the DCSE had the gall to demand the $300 plus interest that had
accumulated over the three months that I had been wrangling with their
lawyer to correct his falsification! The money was never supposed to be
owed in the first place! In the end they "magnanimously" agreed to drop
the $300 but not the interest for some reason. Did that money ever make
it to my son, even through his mother? Nope -- right to the state coffers!

That's not the whole story but it's enough for you to get the idea. In
my experience, the state DCSE is not honest, it is looking to make a
buck by shearing a class of people (divorced dads) that no one wants to
bother helping or listening to because "everyone knows" that they're all
"deadbeats". They know they can get away with it so they do, just like
states abusing Blacks with Jim Crow laws in years gone by (because they
knew no one who mattered would bother intervening).

Now -- joy of joys -- my ex has deteriorated to the point where her
apartment reeks of cat ****. Our poor son smells like cat urine when he
returns from there, it permeates his clothes and I have to give him
baths when he gets here just to get the smell out. When I went into her
apartment to tell her that my mother had died, there was dog **** on the
carpet that had been sitting there for God knows how long. There is
debris all over the house -- blankets, dirty clothes, etc -- the cat box
is always full of cat ****, flies are breeding in the toilet and in the
kitchen "stink", you name it. I've talked to two lawyers, both shake
their heads and say that it's a shame but since her depression was a
"pre-existing condition" from the original divorce decree, and since she
keeps going to therapy every week, there is no grounds for a change in
custody. Meanwhile I live in fear that someone will report her to DCYF
because they will yank him and put him in a foster home before they'll
go to me and ask if I want him full-time. This could happen even if *I*
report her, which I won't do for fear that she will retaliate by
demanding full custody, which after experiencing the shunning and
maltreatment I have seen in family court so far I have no doubt they
would grant her. The judge didn't even look at me, he looked at her, he
asked her what SHE wanted.

And don't mouth off about how I don't really want my kid full-time. I
took him for the entire month of October last year because her house was
such a wreck. She agreed that it was no place for a small child to live
in. "Gimme a week", she said, which morphed into two weeks, and then
just another week, and then maybe one more...

What I'd REALLY like is to share equal time with my son's mother, her
house clean and smelling nice, me secure that I don't have to walk on
eggshells with her or risk her blowing her stack and hauling me into
court for the full amount of CS (or just getting on welfare and letting
the state thugs do it for her).


Your sixth claimed fact:

6. Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by
case basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category.

Yep. I agree with you. But when the courts abuse their power and
remove men who have NOT been abusive or negligent from the lives of
their kids, the courts are harming both fathers and children.


Can you name a father who should not have been denied? Do you have a
case we can review, because you have failed to offer any substantive
evidence for your position.

Not a perfect example, but Sadia Loeliger should not have custody of her
kid. If you want I'm sure I can research others -- this isn't info that
I keep at the tip of my tongue.


You are making statements that are impossible for rational people to
disagree with, but the statements don't really contradict anything that
the OP says.


My statements rely on FACT, yours only on emotion. I prefer logic to
emotion every time.

Yeah, but your statements don't actually say anything substantial. And
you're really walking on thin ice in claiming that what I say is based
only on emotion.

- Ron ^*^

"Hyerdahl" wrote
.......................
Courts assume that parents intend to do right by
their kids, unless there are issues of abuse or neglect.
==
Really? If this were true, there would be no need for the court, would
there?

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:AGvIg.4360$_q4.1359@dukeread09...


Meldon Fens wrote:
"pandora" wrote in message
news:17SdnQd9hKhllG_ZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Meldon Fens" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02...


..

Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? I believe I
have told you mine and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd like

to

sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the

carpet,

at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."

- Ron ^*^


Just see how effective that argument is for a father driven into

poverty.

The best he can hope for is a bunch of grunts followed by a bunch of
laughter. We're all catching on though. That laughter is strained at

best

and is a thinly veiled disguise for a fear that the truth will be

uncovered

and all that funding dries up. What will the fat, gold-digging whores
do
then?


They'll stop marrying your asses and spewing out your brats.

Marg





It appears you've acknowledged the true relationship between government
funding and procreation.

LOL she spoke truer than she intended...

- Ron ^*^


Mothers are paid handsomely by the government for their labour in the form
of funding in various forms seemingly based on their economic disadvantage
after marriage breakdown. Even if we assume the larger percentage of mothers
experience this phenomenon, it's not 100% nor do 100% of fathers experience
economic advantage after marriage breakdown. Economic disadvantage is
recognized for 100% of mothers nonetheless which include those mothers who
do not experience economic disadvantage and the percentage of fathers who do
experience economic disadvantage as a result of marriage breakdown are left
to pay for the gaps in the legislation of which there are numerous and large
gaps indeed.

In other words, economic hardship after marriage breakdown is recognized for
one gender but not the other. Recognition for economic hardship is based on
the premise that the bearer of the womb will experience the economic
disadvantage and the bearer of the testis will not; a biological difference
based on gender. Discrimination of this sort based on any other biological
difference in most societies is reviled.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Werebat wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:
Werebat wrote:

Hyerdahl wrote:


Meldon Fens wrote:


In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into
poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their
kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the
very least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government
funding and
for employment.


[Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children.
And
govt. funding tends to go TO children who are not being supported by
fathers. ]



Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic
oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per
month per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed
in most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up
to but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the
equivalent of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.

[A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even
get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work.
Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.]


Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must
show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support
is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to
court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact,
any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of
domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into
abject
poverty.


[Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess
both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.]



Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support
and to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be
contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for
these low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all
with few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their
fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income
fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.


Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by
case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.

Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience?


Why would that be pertinent to my OPINION based on the FACTS as
mentioned above?

So, you aren't going to answer my question?

No. I don't consider it any of your business. My facts are true,
regardless, or you would have been able to rufute them regardless of
your self aggrandizement.


Do you _really_ think you must have litigation or
judicial experience in family court to debate these issues?

No, of course not, but IME the vast majority of people who choose to
comment on the present family court situation have had some experience
with it, or a group connected to it in some way.

If you don't find my comments worthy of debate you are free to address
them or not. It's up to you, but I have no intention of listing a
resume here. :-)

Or are you just self-aggrandizing, here?

You've made it clear that that's what you think.

No, not really. I simply don't find it reasonable to debate based on
your alleged title.
I prefer debate on the facts or some kind of provable opinons.

I have no need to tell you my experience in order to tell you the
facts that I have placed above.

Let's examine those fact, shall we?

You claim:

1. Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children.

No problem with this one as stated, but the devil is in the details.
First, this statement -- like the federal forms that need to be signed
when a child is born out of wedlock in order to get the father's name on
the birth certificate -- makes no mention of the *mother's* obligation
to support her children. Do you think that mothers should also be
obligated to support their children?

Actually, both parents are equally obligated to support their children.
Mothers often take over the primary care because they have done so
prior to divorce, and judges like to maintain what the couple
themselves put into action. If a mother is already providing support,
in terms of her primary care, that leaves the other parent to do some
of the child support.

Also, the Devil's detail is the definition of "support" and the extent
of "support" that a father and mother is obligated to provide for their
child.

Well, if both the father and mother work outside the home, the judge
can certainly take that into consideration.

I think almost everyone on these forums would agree that parents should
support their children. I agree with that broad statement. That
doesn't mean that I think the current family court and CS system isn't
horribly flawed.

I don't think it is flawed from what I have observed. It appears to
me that judges like to support what the parents have put into action
wherever possible. Courts assume that parents intend to do right by
their kids, unless there are issues of abuse or neglect.

You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he WAS a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of abuse or
neglect.




Another fact you claim:

2. Govt. funding tends to go TO children who are not being supported by
fathers.

OK. I have no reason to argue about this.

Indeed, and it would seem that there's not even enough of that funding
to meet obligations.

GOOD! And the less the better.


Your third claimed fact:

3. A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care.

A father who works full-time and then cares for the kids 30% of the
time, which is the standard for NCP awards, may well have less free time
than a mother who doesn't work and has the kids 70% of the time. He
also won't often have free time on the weekends like she will.

You're assuming things. First, most fathers who are not paying child
support at all, also don't spend much (if any) time with their kids.
Many fathers abandon kids and don't see them at all. I guess those
fathers have lots more free time. Secondly, many mothers also work, at
least part time, so when you couple that with child rearing, it doesn't
leave much time. And let's not forget that if you have little ones at
home, that isn't a 9-5 job. It's 24-7.

Perhaps the woman should have considered that BEFORE she made the sole
choice to bring forth children.........

Some fathers ONLY take the kids on weekends. Other fathers only take
the kids every other weekend.

Thanks to good ole' family kourt.


If you mean a father who never sees his kids, well, sure. That doesn't
mean that the family courts are just or treat anyone in a fair way,
though.

Life is not always fair, and adults tend to understand that. In the
case of best interests of kids, courts seem to try to do what's best
for them whether or not it works well for the parents.

There's an old saying "fool me once, shame on you......". Do your homework,
and then see if you are fooled again.


Your fourth claimed fact:

4. Such a father could even get a part time job or educate himself to
get better paid work. Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not
the answer here.

I didn't see anyone trying to blame arrearages on the children. Where
did this come from? Looks like your playing a weasel-word game here.

Well, who ARE you blaming then? Whose fault is it when daddy gets
behind? How do the kids eat when dad doesn't do his part, and why
shouldn't he pay for it?

The kids eat because their mother gives them food. Consider: Proverbs 31


Your fifth claimed fact:

5. Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.

It is indeed the court's responsbility to assess income and hardships,
and indeed that isn't likely to change. That doesn't mean that the
court is doing its job adequately, however, now does it?

You have offered NOTHING to make us think otherwise tho...you have
provided no evidence or support for any of your claims here, just
bellyaching.

Your sixth claimed fact:

6. Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by
case basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category.

Yep. I agree with you. But when the courts abuse their power and
remove men who have NOT been abusive or negligent from the lives of
their kids, the courts are harming both fathers and children.

Can you name a father who should not have been denied? Do you have a
case we can review, because you have failed to offer any substantive
evidence for your position.

Go sit in ANY family kourt and there you will have your evidence.


You are making statements that are impossible for rational people to
disagree with, but the statements don't really contradict anything that
the OP says.

My statements rely on FACT, yours only on emotion. I prefer logic to
emotion every time.

Facts are facts whether a judge gives them or even a humble pizza
delivery person. :-)

I believe I have told you mine and you never comment on it; I
suspect you'd like to

Again, I don't remember who you say you are, but I do recall a poster
named Steve Imparl who had no logical fact or debate who used to like
to tell me he was a barrister.

sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the
carpet,
at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."

Again, I don't recall what experience you say you have, but those
things that I have mentioned above are FACTS about family law and not
mere stories about some fathers.

Facts that don't actually have much to do with the very real complaints
that many fathers have about their treatment in the family courts.

I prefer fact to fiction.

But you have to look at the WHOLE truth, Hyerdahl.

You haven't me given any provable "truth" to look at, tho. Jesus, if
what you offered here was a meal, I'd be a starving person.


- Ron ^*^

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...
(edit)


You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he WAS a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of abuse or
neglect.

The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father,
Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of children.
In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and the
father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court
will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring FOR
that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the same
page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no
legal obligation to let you know you're a father. Secondly, if she
pursues child support for her child, she can go to court to get support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child. If the newly
named father can show why the child's interests would be better served
a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him. Courts don't
assume; they simply look at existing facts. If you don't offer any,
don't expect to change custody arrangements.

"Avenger" wrote in message
news:ygsIg.36435$NF3.4904@trnddc05...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

Meldon Fens wrote:

In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into
poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their
kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very
least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government
funding
and
for employment.

[Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. And
govt. funding tends
to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ]

Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic
oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month
per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in
most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up
to
but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent
of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.

[A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even
get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work.
Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.]

Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must
show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to
court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of
domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into
abject
poverty.

[Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.]


Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and
to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these
low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all
with
few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their
fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.

Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.

Heck, Hy, *everyone* gets money before fathers do. Illegal aliens and
foreign interests get money before fathers do!

Illegal aliens, their kids and as many relatives that they can get into
the
country. The kids get free schooling at $10k per year per head, medicaid
and
a hundred other benefits. You owe no loyalty to this government or it's
kangaroo courts because they are not operating in YOUR interest.

If I ever get into an automobile accident, I pray it is with a U.S. citizen
as opposed to an illegal alien. At least with the citizen I have equal
rights. The treasonous politicians just LOVE foreign invaders!

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...
(edit)


You MUST be living on planet Hollywood! Judges don't give a RIP the
arrangements made prior to divorce. What arrangements existed before the
child was born in cases where the father was not even aware that he WAS a
father? Slight correction to your above statement: Courts assume that
MOTHERS intend to do right by their kids, IN SPITE of issues of abuse or
neglect.

The courts cannot wave a magic wand to let you know you're a father,
Chris. All they can do is to preserve the best interests of children.
In that regard, if the mother has been taking care of a child, and the
father is named, after the fact, he is still the father and the court
will preserve the child's interest by having the same parent caring FOR
that child continue to do so. Just to make sure we're both on the same
page here, let me make it a bit more clear. First, a woman has no
legal obligation to let you know you're a father.

How about a moral obligation, Hy? Don't you think a child deserves both a
mother and a father? Don't you think a man deserves to know he is a father?

Secondly, if she
pursues child support for her child,

How far back do you think child support should be awarded, Hy? A year? 2
years? Back to the birth of the child? What if the mother doesn't name the
father until the child is 17? Should the father owe 17 years of back
support? Should his current family be financially devastated at the whim of
a woman who was tooo selfish and self centered to even tell the man he had a
child? How, pray tell, is that in the best interests of the child? Seems
to me it is only in the best interests of the woman who has made sure that
both the child and the man's money belong only to her.

she can go to court to get support
from the father of the child, who may demand a DNA test. Third, the
judge still has a history of mother and child, and if the mother has
been caring for the child, the court will support her desire to
continue that....in the best interests of the child.

Do you really think it is in the best interests of a child to be raised by a
mother who is so selfish that she robbed her own child of its father?

If the newly
named father can show why the child's interests would be better served
a different way, the burden of pursuasion is up to him. Courts don't
assume; they simply look at existing facts.

Some of the existing facts--obviously not all.

If you don't offer any,
don't expect to change custody arrangements.

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02...

Carol Ann as "Hyerdahl" brayed...
Actually [...]

Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience?

You haven't learned that when a feminist like
Carol Ann/Pargeon brays "actually" she's just
signalling that she about to start a story about
something not "actually" true. She lies for her
hive.

--
So-called "child support" is based on the theory
that a father's care can be measured solely in cold cash
but a mother's care cannot. Feminists call that "equality."

"Meldon Fens" wrote in message
...

Werebat noted for the record...

Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE
experience? I believe I have told you mine
and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd
like to sweep the real stories of government
abuse of fathers under the carpet, at best giving
them a dimissive nod and a comment like,
"well, sure, every system has it's occasional
problems..."

Just see how effective that argument is for a father
driven into poverty. The best he can hope for
is a bunch of grunts followed by a bunch of
laughter. We're all catching on though.
That laughter is strained at best and is a
thinly veiled disguise for a fear that the truth
will be uncovered and all that funding dries up.
What will the fat, gold-digging whores do then?

The "fat, gold-digging whores" will do what an
earlier generation of "liberated" women did: start
finding Arab Muslims to be very, very shiek -- or
_chic_ if you prefer the French spelling. Back
in the 1920s when the Votes Without Responsibilities
for Women fad was at its peak in the US, those
women who were the epitome of modernity,
flapper girls, were all ga-ga over the idea of being
taken by a desert sheik. Today, the thought of
an oil-rich sheik wets the pants of their grand-
daughters and great-granddaughters even more.

--
The constant complaint that women are powerless victims
of a male dominated world is not and never has been true.

Just look at history. The strict Victorian middle class
moral code was imposed by women on both sexes. That code
was designed to protect women's social power which comes
from controlling male access to sex. Never mind that women
could not vote and held no political office. They could
still induce male politicians to enact laws or support
customs which protected women's power and control
over the social agenda.

_Memsahib Power_ by Bill McDonald
published in _The Backlash!_, July 1996
http://www.backlash.com/content/gend.../memsahib.html