"Dead beats" list

My analysis of one of these lists is posted he
http://pueblonative.wordpress.com/20...to-dead-beats/


Point being, the state has a fundamental honesty problem when it comes
to publication humiliation of non custodial parents.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
My analysis of one of these lists is posted he
http://pueblonative.wordpress.com/20...to-dead-beats/


Point being, the state has a fundamental honesty problem when it comes
to publication humiliation of non custodial parents.

I haven't checked any of these state deadbeat lists for a while, but the
last time I looked one thing was very evident. To all intents and purposes,
the deadbeats were all of the male persuasion. In other words, this huge
enforcement mechanism -- including Draconian techniques not used for the
collection of ANY other debt -- serves only to force men to pay tax-free
money to women. Every effort is made by the state CS agencies to conceal
this most obvious point. That's the reason why they are so insistent on
talking about "custodial parents" instead of mothers, and vice versa. The
glass ceiling on paternal custody is alive and well. If women were paying
money to men in any significant numbers, the characteristics of the CS
system would be ENTIRELY different.

The other thing that is never mentioned is that the vast majority of the
mothers who receive (or don't receive) so-called "child support" became
eligible to get the money because of their own decisions--decisions that,
for the most part, were opposed by the men who are supposed to pay the
money. These women are dunning men for money to support decisions that the
women themselves made unilaterally. In the case of divorced women, the
great majority of divorces in the U.S. today are initiated by wives over
their husbands' objections. In the case of never-married women, the law
gave them post-conception reproductive choices that are denied to men.

The truth is that the most important purpose of the so-called "child
support" system is to enlarge the options available to women, including the
option to establish fatherless families over the objections of their men.
You can see that very clearly when anyone suggests that more attention
should be paid to PREVENTING fatherless families, instead of subsidizing
their creation. If anyone proposes that, immediately the feminists start
giving reasons why women must not be denied the option of breaking up their
families or having illegitimate children. The feminists try to link the
interests of children with those of the mothers -- even though all the
research shows that the interests of children are best served by growing up
in two-parent families.

John Meyer wrote:
My analysis of one of these lists is posted he
http://pueblonative.wordpress.com/20...to-dead-beats/


Point being, the state has a fundamental honesty problem when it comes
to publication humiliation of non custodial parents.

Not to suggest John Vines was or wasn't ordered to pay an excessive
amount, however, the real deadbeat parents also have to meet other
criteria:

For a parent to be named a Most Wanted Child Support Evader,
court-ordered delinquent support must be in excess of $5,000 and an
arrest warrant must have been issued. The location of the parent must
be unknown, and no child support payments made in the last six months.
The parent must not be involved in bankruptcy proceedings or receiving
welfare benefits. The parent with custody of the children must sign a
confidentiality waiver before the Evader can be added to the list.

http://www.ntxe-news.com/artman/publ...le_39305.shtml

John Meyer wrote in
:

My analysis of one of these lists is posted he
http://pueblonative.wordpress.com/20...cal-approach-t
o-dead-beats/


Point being, the state has a fundamental honesty problem when it comes
to publication humiliation of non custodial parents.

Great blog!

The problem with the system is that it feeds on the extremes. It tells the
general public that almost every dad out there is refusing to pay a mere
$50 a month and that poor Billy cannot go to University. And to "stand up
and be a parent". The shame and shock of it all.

Yet, they never discuss that dad lost little Billy to a hefty and brutal
custody and access battle that probably put him in debt to 30K. Then, since
he is now the NCP, he is hit with not $50 per month, but $500 in tax free,
unaccountable CS. Plus daycare. Plus medical. Plus extra expenses. Plus
education fes. Plus day-to-day. Oh, and most likely spousal support. So
much cash goes one way that mom usualy does not have to work (my ex does't
- after I paid for her education).

There is a real perception issue out there. As soon as you discuss reform,
everyone states "How can you do that to those poor children".

H.

"CasualObserver" wrote in message
ups.com...

John Meyer wrote:
My analysis of one of these lists is posted he
http://pueblonative.wordpress.com/20...to-dead-beats/


Point being, the state has a fundamental honesty problem when it comes
to publication humiliation of non custodial parents.

Not to suggest John Vines was or wasn't ordered to pay an excessive
amount, however, the real deadbeat parents also have to meet other
criteria:

For a parent to be named a Most Wanted Child Support Evader,
court-ordered delinquent support must be in excess of $5,000 and an
arrest warrant must have been issued. The location of the parent must
be unknown, and no child support payments made in the last six months.
The parent must not be involved in bankruptcy proceedings or receiving
welfare benefits. The parent with custody of the children must sign a
confidentiality waiver before the Evader can be added to the list.

http://www.ntxe-news.com/artman/publ...le_39305.shtml

Is the above comment by "Casual Observer" supposed to be a defense of
the current practices of state CS enforcement agencies, notably their lists
of deadbeat dads, which are designed to humiliate and demonize these men?
If so, it doesn't seem like much of a defense to me.

I looked at the Texas list, and I know nothing of the circumstances of
the men shown there. However, they ARE all men -- thus illustrating once
again the grotesque anti-male bias of the child custody and child support
system. No one ever comments on this. Contrast what happens when men
appear to be over-represented among the ranks of any group of people, such
as members of legislatures or the upper ranks of business. Also contrast
what happens when any ethnic group, e.g. blacks, appear to be
over-represented in the prison population.

Some time back I looked at my own state's list of deadbeats. It was
perfectly obvious that the men involved could never pay off the amounts that
they owed the mothers of their children. One was listed as a "chicken
catcher" and another as "works with dogs."

At least the Texas list is honest to the extent that it does acknowledge
that the money is owed to the adult women involved, and does not pretend
that the money is owed to the children.

However, the plain fact remains that lists of deadbeats -- like every
other aspect of the so-called "child support" system would be COMPLETELY
different if any significant number of women were under an obligation to pay
money to the fathers of their children, because the fathers had custody.

And upon receiving a news article about the Texas A.G. (who appears to
be making political hay of the deadbroke dads, like his Michigan
counterpart), I emailed the Texas A.G.'s Office and essentially asked
them why, if Texas is the largest state in the lower 48, could they not
even find ONE woman to go on their most-wanted lists...

I'm still waiting for an answer.


Kenneth S. wrote:

I looked at the Texas list, and I know nothing of the circumstances of
the men shown there. However, they ARE all men -- thus illustrating once
again the grotesque anti-male bias of the child custody and child support
system. No one ever comments on this. Contrast what happens when men
appear to be over-represented among the ranks of any group of people, such
as members of legislatures or the upper ranks of business. Also contrast
what happens when any ethnic group, e.g. blacks, appear to be
over-represented in the prison population.

This point reeks of privacy violations.
If the parents are still married, than one is violating the bounds of
wife-husband confidentiality. If they are not, then one parent is
agreeing to violate the custody of another person they have no control
over (I don't see the financial situation of the CPs being listed).
Either way, it's a clear invasion of privacy.
And as far as the arrest warrant being issued, that still does not make
the people criminals. Absent the parent fleeing after an arrest has
been made and an applicable statute being in place, they cannot be tried
in absentia. Therefore, the station is still defaming these people by
calling them criminals.

CasualObserver wrote:
The parent with custody of the children must sign a
confidentiality waiver before the Evader can be added to the list.

Kenneth S. wrote:
"CasualObserver" wrote in message
ups.com...

John Meyer wrote:
My analysis of one of these lists is posted he
http://pueblonative.wordpress.com/20...to-dead-beats/


Point being, the state has a fundamental honesty problem when it comes
to publication humiliation of non custodial parents.

Not to suggest John Vines was or wasn't ordered to pay an excessive
amount, however, the real deadbeat parents also have to meet other
criteria:

For a parent to be named a Most Wanted Child Support Evader,
court-ordered delinquent support must be in excess of $5,000 and an
arrest warrant must have been issued. The location of the parent must
be unknown, and no child support payments made in the last six months.
The parent must not be involved in bankruptcy proceedings or receiving
welfare benefits. The parent with custody of the children must sign a
confidentiality waiver before the Evader can be added to the list.

http://www.ntxe-news.com/artman/publ...le_39305.shtml

Is the above comment by "Casual Observer" supposed to be a defense of
the current practices of state CS enforcement agencies, notably their lists
of deadbeat dads, which are designed to humiliate and demonize these men?
If so, it doesn't seem like much of a defense to me.

I looked at the Texas list, and I know nothing of the circumstances of
the men shown there. However, they ARE all men -- thus illustrating once
again the grotesque anti-male bias of the child custody and child support
system. No one ever comments on this. Contrast what happens when men
appear to be over-represented among the ranks of any group of people, such
as members of legislatures or the upper ranks of business. Also contrast
what happens when any ethnic group, e.g. blacks, appear to be
over-represented in the prison population.

Some time back I looked at my own state's list of deadbeats. It was
perfectly obvious that the men involved could never pay off the amounts that
they owed the mothers of their children. One was listed as a "chicken
catcher" and another as "works with dogs."

At least the Texas list is honest to the extent that it does acknowledge
that the money is owed to the adult women involved, and does not pretend
that the money is owed to the children.

However, the plain fact remains that lists of deadbeats -- like every
other aspect of the so-called "child support" system would be COMPLETELY
different if any significant number of women were under an obligation to pay
money to the fathers of their children, because the fathers had custody.

Obviously you are acutely aware of the bias against males. The bias is
in the child support system, sitcoms, movies, and magazines etc. It is
ubiquitous.

Generally women seek males that have greater earnings. So when it's
time to calculate child support, males pay more than females, which
explains why the most extreme of the non-payers on the list are males.
What we don't know is the particulars of the 10 most wanted on the
deadbeat list. The lowest amount owed-even if you subtract for a
possible excessive amount awarded or usury child support fees added on
- would still be well above the 5k minimum to be on the list. And to
top it off, they hadn't made any payments
for over 6 months.

I too know what it feels like to pay child support. It very much
resembles being chained to the back of a pickup truck, knowing that if
I could not keep up, I would be dragged. So when I read in this very
news group about fathers paying more than what my wife and I live on,
I'm very sympathetic.

Nearly all men, including myself, agree that paying child support is
the right thing to do. Those fathers that flagrantly avoid paying are
indefensible.

Just a "Casual Observation".

wrote in message
oups.com...
And upon receiving a news article about the Texas A.G. (who appears to
be making political hay of the deadbroke dads, like his Michigan
counterpart), I emailed the Texas A.G.'s Office and essentially asked
them why, if Texas is the largest state in the lower 48, could they not
even find ONE woman to go on their most-wanted lists...

I'm still waiting for an answer.


Kenneth S. wrote:

I looked at the Texas list, and I know nothing of the circumstances
of
the men shown there. However, they ARE all men -- thus illustrating once
again the grotesque anti-male bias of the child custody and child support
system. No one ever comments on this. Contrast what happens when men
appear to be over-represented among the ranks of any group of people,
such
as members of legislatures or the upper ranks of business. Also contrast
what happens when any ethnic group, e.g. blacks, appear to be
over-represented in the prison population.

State CS agencies are, of course, very well aware of the anti-male
prejudice that permeates the so-called "child support" system. However, the
politicians, judges, and bureaucrats who run the system will go to some
lengths to conceal this prejudice. That's one reason why they habitually
talk about noncustodial and custodial parents, instead of fathers and
mothers.

So there's a definite danger in calling the attention of the CS people
to the absence of women on their lists of the most wanted. The danger is
that these people will adopt an affirmative action technique to get some
women onto their lists. They're certainly not going to address the
underlying problem, which is the glass ceiling on paternal custody.

No doubt there ARE some women who are supposed to be paying CS, but
don't -- although I doubt whether more than a tiny handful are supposed to
be paying the fathers of their children, as distinct from paying someone
else, such as a government agency because their children are in some form of
foster care. A few years ago, a fathers' group in the Midwest (Ohio, I
think) induced the CS agency to find a mother to put on their list.
However, in my view all this did was help the CS bureaucrats to conceal the
anti-father nature of the system. Similarly, a while back, when the
Virginia DCSE was introducing the withdrawal of drivers' licenses as an
enforcement technique, they managed to find a woman to make the first
target, and got a good blast of publicity from this.

In my view, the best thing for fathers to do is to call public attention
to the absence of any women from these lists, and the other ways in which
the CS is riddled with anti-male features. However, fathers should not help
CS agencies to camouflage these features. If the CS bureaucrats adopt an
affirmative action program to get some women on their lists, fathers should
note this as yet another confirmation of the way the whole system is so
grossly distorted, but the system's functionaries will go to endless lengths
to conceal the facts, instead of adopting any remedies to the underlying
problem.

The thing to do is to continually call attention to the fact that 50
percent of parents are fathers. So why aren't 50 percent of those who are
supposed to receive "child support" fathers?

"John Meyer" wrote in

in absentia. Therefore, the station is still defaming these people by
calling them criminals.

Yes, it should only be a social issue, not a criminal issue!
Many of these fathers simply do not earn enough money to pay the staggering
debt that was placed on them by the very politicians that were supposed to
represent them.