meerkat stew Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Like I said somewhere else, our society is whacked QFT, as a child of the 60s-70s, public schooled until the last two years of HS, no uniforms, etc., there's no way my parents spent more than 5% of my dad's middling income on BOTH my sister and me. No way. Of course we didn't require a $500 stroller and $5000 worth of other "necessities" I see parents spending on babies these days. Our clothes were new and cheap, because we outgrew them, my folks could have saved even more via handmedowns. We ate well and lacked for nothing. My braces cost $1500 which was the only extraordinary expenditure on me until late HS. Truth is that "child support" decoded is really "child + caretaking parent support." Single motherhood is a cottage industry where I live (rural/suburban South) and coincidentally, the county jails around here have tripled in size over the last 15 years to house all the so-called "deadbeat dads" in debtor's prison as they work during the day and sleep in a jail cell at night to keep their 300 pound ex wives in beer, cigs, 200 channel cable tv and lottery tickets. Things are indeed whack today.
dreamergrl Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 My dad never paid a cent of child support. For a while I got birthday and Christmas presents. However his two step daughters and the two daughters he had after me lacked nothing. They got what they asked for. New cars for the 16th birthday. Brand new clothes. I think there might have been a boob job in there too. My dad probably shelled out a whole $150 a year on presents for me. Didn't help out with doctor bills, normal clothing funding, the basics. I shared a car with my mom when I became old enough. She'd word crappy jobs just to try to give me what my dad wasn't. She never pushed for money, she pushed for him to be a part of my life. He failed at that too but that's besides the point. I hated watching my mom struggle and I hated my dad not being there. It also irritated me that he couldn't help out with me, but when it came to his new family they had whatever their hearts desired.
meerkat stew Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 My dad never paid a cent of child support.. Genuinely sorry for your misfortune, and could recite a similar story of misfortune involving one or two of my thousands of acquaintances, but it is statistically irrelevant. Could take you to the Walmart right now (together with a few other choice locations), though, and then to the county jail, and show you 1000 examples of the phenomenon I'm describing, without breaking a sweat, in a single day.
dreamergrl Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 If a person has a child, they should be responsible for that kid. Cased closed.
meerkat stew Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 If a person has a child, they should be responsible for that kid. Cased closed. Keep banging that drum, and ignoring the grim realities that exist behind your admittedly true statement, and be sure to also enjoy living in the equally grim future that follows.
Author b52s Posted December 22, 2009 Author Posted December 22, 2009 QFT, as a child of the 60s-70s, public schooled until the last two years of HS, no uniforms, etc., there's no way my parents spent more than 5% of my dad's middling income on BOTH my sister and me. No way. Of course we didn't require a $500 stroller and $5000 worth of other "necessities" I see parents spending on babies these days. Our clothes were new and cheap, because we outgrew them, my folks could have saved even more via handmedowns. We ate well and lacked for nothing. My braces cost $1500 which was the only extraordinary expenditure on me until late HS. Truth is that "child support" decoded is really "child + caretaking parent support." Single motherhood is a cottage industry where I live (rural/suburban South) and coincidentally, the county jails around here have tripled in size over the last 15 years to house all the so-called "deadbeat dads" in debtor's prison as they work during the day and sleep in a jail cell at night to keep their 300 pound ex wives in beer, cigs, 200 channel cable tv and lottery tickets. Things are indeed whack today. Why should someone spend time in jail for not being able to afford child support?
dreamergrl Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Why should someone spend time in jail for not being able to afford child support? There's a difference between not being able to afford it and just not paying it. The people in jail are the ones just not paying it. I know of people the went self employed just to get out of having their wages garnishes. It's like saying why should a person go to jail for not affording the taxes they owe. Why should one parent get stuck with all the expenses when they didn't have the baby alone?
meerkat stew Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Why should someone spend time in jail for not being able to afford child support? No one should spend time -in jail- for any merely monetary debt, regardless of its source. That such is allowed in a country that supposedly abhors the concept of "debtor's prison" is just amazing. But lots of -amazing- things are possible in our current political climate. Here's how this breach of basic civil rights is accomplished: Low income divorce >> man gets strapped with a support payment so high that he can't live independently, can barely afford a car, car insurance and food, let alone pay rent (he moves in with family or friends and lives like a dog). He pays for awhile admittedly resentfully, but falls behind, loses his job in a bad economy, is afraid of court, can't afford a lawyer (his ex wife's lawyer bills are tacked onto what he owes, so she is well-represented, usually by lawyers expert at milking men dry to the bone). He may or may not successfully get a modification (but probably not), doesn't go to court anyway, gets arrested and charged by the judge for "civil contempt" and has to do work-release until his debt is paid. In effect he lives in jail until his debt is paid = de facto debtor's prison. This is the truth of the vast majority of cases, not the propaganda you hear about men quitting their jobs to avoid paying. I have an acquaintance who just got out of a nearby county's jail (two weeks for stupid kid stuff) last week, and he said that well over half the inmates were civil contempt child support cases. The jail in question is one familiar to me, and has grown in size by 300% over the last ten years in a rural Southern county with little real crime. Most men want to pay for their children's support, not the other way around as feminist political interests claim. The loophole is that the guy is in jail for civil contempt technically, not the debt. There are lots of ways to punish people who don't pay child support. Introducing hordes of ignorant, already disadvantaged men into the correctional system is the grand stinker of all bad ideas and a defacto violation of civil rights to boot. No one cares, though. Voters have been politically manipulated to "crack down on deadbeat dads" and the result is nauseatingly stupid and counterproductive.
dreamergrl Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Why should a child go without? Why should only one parent have to be the one working two jobs? Male or female, it's not right for one not to hold the same amount as responsibility as the other. It took two people to make the baby, not just one.
meerkat stew Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Why should a child go without? Why should only one parent have to be the one working two jobs? Male or female, it's not right for one not to hold the same amount as responsibility as the other. It took two people to make the baby, not just one. Despite that the support payments are generally too high, as contrary to received wisdom, it just doesn't take all that much money to healthily feed and adequately clothe a child when the mother is buying and -cooking- food as opposed to driving through the nearest fast food joint, and where she is -frugally- buying durable clothing as opposed to what I see in these parts, the point I'm really trying to make here though is: These men are in jail, j...a....i...l. I don't think a lot of women in this country understand just exactly what that means (unless they are campaigning for a murderer on death row or an animal rights criminal), or hell they just don't care, and that is a travesty in a country that supposedly abhors debtors prison. This "solution" is far, far worse than the problem.
SoulSearch_CO Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Guess it just goes to show - don't dip your wick in it until you're damn sure who you're dealing with. It's not the state that screws you - it's your freaking hormones. Waa, waa.
Lucky_One Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Well, maybe not now...but the documentation was for back in like the 70's or 80's I think. Really? So he's paying back support for a 35 year old?? Sounds more like his "documention" should be from the 1990's? Your buddy isn't telling the whole truth here. And you are believing it, just like he wants you to - so he can be one more downtrodden man from the system of man-hating women who are out to screw an undeserving father out of everything he will ever own.
Woggle Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 This happens yet my friend who has been raising a child who her mother abandoned to run off with a convicted rapist might lose custody and end up paying child support. He has been raising his daughter for the past seven years and because the mother all of sudden has a change of heart he might lose custody and have to fork over his money. Where is the justice in this? The family court system in this country is very misandrist and many women want to keep it that way.
Woggle Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 I also find it funny how child support is the only area where feminists think fathers actually matter. All other times they are sperm donors who don't matter to the family but miss one cent and be one day late and they want to lynch him and call him a deadbeat dad. When a women purposely keeps a father out of his children's lives they nowhere to be found.
Art_Critic Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 No, if a guy doesn't want the child, he shouldn't have to pay for it. It's only fair that way. The current system gives all the power to the mothers and none to the fathers. Potential babies belong to the mother and father equally. Dad wants an abortion, mom wants to keep it. The happy medium is that the mom can keep it BUT the dad doesn't have to pay for it. THAT is fair. ..... That has to be one of the most self serving and NonParental things I've read... Please make sure you always use a condom when having sex.. I don't want my tax dollars to pay for your dead beat dad future.
Art_Critic Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) Despite that the support payments are generally too high, as contrary to received wisdom, it just doesn't take all that much money to healthily feed and adequately clothe a child when the mother is buying and -cooking- food as opposed to driving through the nearest fast food joint, and where she is -frugally- buying durable clothing as opposed to what I see in these parts, the point I'm really trying to make here though is: You obviously have never had to be responsible for putting food, shelter and clothing on a child.. It has always been my experience that that amount it takes to raise a child is well over the amount that the father/mother should pay. The parents usually have to do without some things or prioritize things in order to make sure their children and in a home they can grow up in . Copays on insurance alone can cost 100's if not 1000's of dollars a year if you have even a remotely sickly child that has to go to the Dr. a lot. A good father would want his children to be taken care of and raised in a home where they were able to flourish rather than just get by.. The princes of the Dad's I've seen are the ones that pay more child support than they should and give the children things that are not part of the deal.. Those are the men that are taking their responsibility as a father seriously. Edited December 22, 2009 by Art_Critic
calizaggy Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Funny how it is the "father's child" when it comes down to money.. Let's say 2 people have a one night stand or are dating and a child is conceived. Before sex the woman can be on the pill.. During sex she can insist on condoms.. After sex she has the day after pill or abortion.. After the child is born she can put it up for adoption, move 10,000 miles away with that child, or find a new dad for that child the next week. The man has no rights or choice over that child at all. Men only have a choice during sex. All the rest is up to the woman, and if they did not plan on having a child, one could say she went back on the agreement, which was to "just have sex". I have seen the above happen all the time.. Girl is about 30-35, single, wants a kid, picks a guy to have sex with, tells him she cannot get pregnant, then has the baby and uses the court system to try and get enough money to live off of from the man. I wonder how women would view this if they were being thrown in prison for not shelling out 700-1000 a month every month for the next 18 years because they chose to have sex, while the father gives the baby a new mom and spends that money on anything he wants. .
Sam Spade Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 I also find it funny how child support is the only area where feminists think fathers actually matter. All other times they are sperm donors who don't matter to the family but miss one cent and be one day late and they want to lynch him and call him a deadbeat dad. When a women purposely keeps a father out of his children's lives they nowhere to be found. Actually, it's pretty consistent - being a man absolves you from any of the rights, but none of the responsibility .
hotgurl Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Funny how it is the "father's child" when it comes down to money.. Let's say 2 people have a one night stand or are dating and a child is conceived. Before sex the woman can be on the pill.. During sex she can insist on condoms.. After sex she has the day after pill or abortion.. After the child is born she can put it up for adoption, move 10,000 miles away with that child, or find a new dad for that child the next week. The man has no rights or choice over that child at all. Men only have a choice during sex. All the rest is up to the woman, and if they did not plan on having a child, one could say she went back on the agreement, which was to "just have sex". I have seen the above happen all the time.. Girl is about 30-35, single, wants a kid, picks a guy to have sex with, tells him she cannot get pregnant, then has the baby and uses the court system to try and get enough money to live off of from the man. I wonder how women would view this if they were being thrown in prison for not shelling out 700-1000 a month every month for the next 18 years because they chose to have sex, while the father gives the baby a new mom and spends that money on anything he wants. . But the choice a guy has. to put a condom on is 98% effective. so wrap it if you don't want kids. and $700-$1000 a month please. my ex was supposed to pay $200 a month and he won't even do that! Braces for kids' now are 5 grand. plus sports, camps, enrichment programs college. It sucks that my daughter has to do with out somet hings because he dad is an a$$. he owes me over 35 grand in back support. Also usually it is the dads that choose to be only a sperm donoer. My ex could have been present, he could have utilized his visitation but he choose not to because a baby is work. It is not fun all the time. I am so sicks of listening to these women hating men on this forum. It disgusts me that you think nothing of abandoning your child. Also the guy in the OP was married to this woman so it wasn't like he knocked her up in a one night stand. You ever wonder how the kid must feel growing up knowing the dad could give a crap.
Sam Spade Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Funny how it is the "father's child" when it comes down to money.. Let's say 2 people have a one night stand or are dating and a child is conceived. Before sex the woman can be on the pill.. During sex she can insist on condoms.. After sex she has the day after pill or abortion.. After the child is born she can put it up for adoption, move 10,000 miles away with that child, or find a new dad for that child the next week. The man has no rights or choice over that child at all. Men only have a choice during sex. All the rest is up to the woman, and if they did not plan on having a child, one could say she went back on the agreement, which was to "just have sex". I have seen the above happen all the time.. Girl is about 30-35, single, wants a kid, picks a guy to have sex with, tells him she cannot get pregnant, then has the baby and uses the court system to try and get enough money to live off of from the man. I wonder how women would view this if they were being thrown in prison for not shelling out 700-1000 a month every month for the next 18 years because they chose to have sex, while the father gives the baby a new mom and spends that money on anything he wants. . With power comes responsibility. The responsibility is mutual only if both parents desire the kid. There are so MANY contraceptive options, so there is simply no excuse for getting knocked up by accident. If she wants the accidental kid and I don't - that's great, but I shouldn't have to pay for it. Getting knocked up is not a badge of honor. More importantly, how would you feel if the father wanted the kid but the mother didn't, so she was forced to give birth anyway even though she didn't want to??? Exactly. A man is violated in much the same way in getting stuck with a kid he did not want.
meerkat stew Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) It has always been my experience that that amount it takes to raise a child is well over the amount that the father/mother should pay. You reference this "experience" yet do not describe it in any way other than as a bald conclusion. No, I haven't raised children, but have been fairly close to the process having once been a child, and being involved in dozens of friends' child-raising both in the past and currently. Children just aren't that expensive to raise unless someone has an axe to grind or money is wasted. Beer, cigarettes and fast food are OTOH quite expensive. Copays on insurance alone can cost 100's if not 1000's of dollars a year if you have even a remotely sickly child that has to go to the Dr. a lot. "Remotely sickly" nice obvious slant. Most children are neither "remotely sickly," nor "very sickly," but lots of divorcees are indeed bitter and use any excuse to cause drama and stress in the life of their ex, thus fabricating all kinds of ailments in the child. Have seen this hundreds of times. Connect the dots. A good father would want his children to be taken care of and raised in a home where they were able to flourish rather than just get by... When fed properly and stimulated intellectually, which requires no money whatsoever, children pretty much "flourish" naturally, so your statement is disingenuous. Can imagine a child saying "My family couldn't afford those new Nikes, had to settle for non brand name sneakers to wear for the next 6 months until I outgrow them, guess I'm... just 'gettin by'." The princes of the Dad's I've seen are the ones that pay more child support than they should and give the children things that are not part of the deal.. Those are the men that are taking their responsibility as a father seriously. Pay more than they should? What, as a penance? What I see out and about are a sea of spoiled, vapid over-indulged children who have been given too much, and who will grow up to be spoiled, over-indulged Americans. Perhaps time, imposing discipline, instilling values and careful attention (none of which costs much money) are more important than raw cash outlay in becoming a "prince" of a dad. Edited December 22, 2009 by meerkat stew
Lizzie60 Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 I haven't read the thread.. but my question: Did she signed anything saying he didn't owe her anything and she wouldn't ask for money later? How many years since this 'arrangement'? Thanks
Lizzie60 Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 No, if a guy doesn't want the child, he shouldn't have to pay for it. It's only fair that way. The current system gives all the power to the mothers and none to the fathers. Potential babies belong to the mother and father equally. Dad wants an abortion, mom wants to keep it. The happy medium is that the mom can keep it BUT the dad doesn't have to pay for it. THAT is fair. If you don't want a child.. then make sure you're taking all possible measures to prevent a pregnancy...
carhill Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 I haven't read the thread.. but my question: Did she signed anything saying he didn't owe her anything and she wouldn't ask for money later? How many years since this 'arrangement'? Thanks Lizzie, I read the mother in question did sign documents upon their divorce, and the OP said the child was a result of a marriage in his 'young adult years'. The man in question is about your age.
theBrokenMuse Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 More importantly, how would you feel if the father wanted the kid but the mother didn't, so she was forced to give birth anyway even though she didn't want to??? Exactly. A man is violated in much the same way in getting stuck with a kid he did not want. Unless the man in your scenario is the one that is actually carrying the child then your comparison is completely inept. There is a big difference of having something invade your body and shelling out cash. It's apples and oranges.
Recommended Posts