Child support and the father.

[Kal'Stang]

I can't count the number of times I have seen a man loose a custody battle for his children to the mother. Often despite evidence that the man would make a better father than the woman would make a mother. Then for quite a few ex-wives they either take the children to another state completely knowing that the man cannot follow due to other obligations (such as military) or convincing a judge that the father should be completely restrained from ever seeing the kids. And then, after the woman achieves custody they go after the father for every penny that they can squeeze out of them for child support. And lets face it/admit it, we've all heard examples of some mother using the kids to get revenge on the father.

And that I think is completely wrong. If the mother refuses or arranges it so that the father cannot at the very least see and spend a little time with his children then why should the father be forced to pay child support? It IS his children also after all.

Note: This is NOT about making it to where fathers do not have to pay child support. This is about making it to where vengeful ex-wives cannot use their children as a weapon.

Note 2: I am quite aware that there are men that do this also. I don't think that it is any more right than the ex-wives doing it. But I am focusing on the mens side more due to the fact that women seem to do it far more than the men do. Perhaps that is just a product of the way our system is in that it is disproportionately in favor of women when it comes to child custody battles. Either way, lets discuss it from the mans point of view to simplify this and while this might not accomplish anything beyond a simple debate here at DP we can assume that any law enacted regarding this would include both men and women equally.

 

[Celebrity]

There comes a point in the lives of these fathers when they only have one choice remaining. That choice is to move on with their lives, regardless of any contact they may have had with their child, or any contact their child might have had with them (or both). Regardless of what cruel levy is imposed on him. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding his child's life. You can't let a woman shove her boot so far up your ass that it makes your lips flap. If you can't help it, put it in a box in the back of your closet underneath some unsorted laundry. Michael Jackson said the same thing about libido.

 

[rocket88]

There comes a point in the lives of these fathers when they only have one choice remaining. That choice is to move on with their lives, regardless of any contact they may have had with their child, or any contact their child might have had with them (or both). Regardless of what cruel levy is imposed on him. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding his child's life. You can't let a woman shove her boot so far up your ass that it makes your lips flap. If you can't help it, put it in a box in the back of your closet underneath some unsorted laundry. Michael Jackson said the same thing about libido.

Any father worthy of the title would never give up on his children.

 

[Celebrity]

Any father worthy of the title would never give up on his children.

What a joke. Are you a Father in Name Only?

 

[rocket88]

What a joke. Are you a Father in Name Only?

No, I'm a real father whose rights to his kids are limited by a court system that doesn't respect men. Despite that, walking away from my children is not an option.

 

[Patrickt]

I suppose if the mother lost custody people who say, "Oh, well, she has to move on." In a pig's eye. My ex-wife joined a religious cult where the minister was caught screwing a fourteen-year old girl. The congregation decided the 49-year old minister was innocent of any wrong doing and the girl was possessed of demons. And, somebody thinks it's best for the father to just move on.

I used to volunteer to work at the police department on Christmas Day so I could explain to fathers who came in waving the court ordered visitation papers that they were absolutely, totally meaningless. The order for him to pay child support and maintenance, which used to be called alimony, was binding and he could be sent to jail but if the wife ignored the visitation orders, no problem.

I hated getting divorced and my ex-wife made it as bad as she could. Jesus was on her side.

 

[Fishking]

Unfortunately, due to flawed (and growing) concepts such as Male Privilege, the rights of men are seen as subservient to that of women, in the eyes of the law. This means that they will see things favoring women, like this, is just tipping the scales back in balance.

So I don't think we're likely to see much of a change here. Just my take on it.

 

[Renae]

I can't count the number of times I have seen a man loose a custody battle for his children to the mother. Often despite evidence that the man would make a better father than the woman would make a mother. Then for quite a few ex-wives they either take the children to another state completely knowing that the man cannot follow due to other obligations (such as military) or convincing a judge that the father should be completely restrained from ever seeing the kids. And then, after the woman achieves custody they go after the father for every penny that they can squeeze out of them for child support. And lets face it/admit it, we've all heard examples of some mother using the kids to get revenge on the father.

And that I think is completely wrong. If the mother refuses or arranges it so that the father cannot at the very least see and spend a little time with his children then why should the father be forced to pay child support? It IS his children also after all.

Note: This is NOT about making it to where fathers do not have to pay child support. This is about making it to where vengeful ex-wives cannot use their children as a weapon.

Note 2: I am quite aware that there are men that do this also. I don't think that it is any more right than the ex-wives doing it. But I am focusing on the mens side more due to the fact that women seem to do it far more than the men do. Perhaps that is just a product of the way our system is in that it is disproportionately in favor of women when it comes to child custody battles. Either way, lets discuss it from the mans point of view to simplify this and while this might not accomplish anything beyond a simple debate here at DP we can assume that any law enacted regarding this would include both men and women equally.

Gee, been there, done that, got the freaking T-Shirt.

 

[Henrin]

Any father worthy of the title would never give up on his children.

No woman worth the title would abort their children, but abortion is still legal.

 

[Your Star]

Unfortunately, due to flawed (and growing) concepts such as Male Privilege, the rights of men are seen as subservient to that of women, in the eyes of the law. This means that they will see things favoring women, like this, is just tipping the scales back in balance.

So I don't think we're likely to see much of a change here. Just my take on it.

This post is so flawed and stupid, it hurts.

 

[Henrin]

Btw OP, you really can't talk about male rights and child support without talking about the mandate for men to pay child support. Just sayin'.

 

[Celebrity]

Btw OP, you really can't talk about male rights and child support without talking about the mandate for men to pay child support. Just sayin'.

That's true.

Same concept with price floors and the free market economy. Did you ever hear of a minimum price for bread? Well, no one says that there has to be a charge for it, but because we live in a capitalist society, sometimes you see the wheat bread on the shelf for half off.

 

[trouble13]

The child support courts are so screwed up im not even sure where to begin. It is not desighned to help children that is a complete farse. It is designed to assist mothers at the fathers ecpense.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Fishking]

This post is so flawed and stupid, it hurts.

I would care more but you didn't provide anything of substance so I don't.

 

[TheGoverness]

This post is so flawed and stupid, it hurts.

Could you explain why it's flawed and stupid?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Btw OP, you really can't talk about male rights and child support without talking about the mandate for men to pay child support. Just sayin'.

Go for it. This thread is about both of them combined.

 

[Fishking]

Could you explain why it's flawed and stupid?

Yeah...I mean, say it's flawed and stupid all you want if you actually post something of substance. I'm down with that.

 

[Celebrity]

A woman is legally permitted to capitalize on a situation that a father has no control over. Even when she holds all the cards and he has none, she can lead him down a path (which began at childbirth) to incarceration and/or force his hand according to the will of the state. If you go by the argument that sexual intercourse implies the involvement of the father, or that consent to become a parent is not necessary from men, then it is not a stretch to say that birth implies the incarceration. Any blaming of the victim is on you, not the victim. The state will incarcerate men who do not pay child support ordered according to the mother's wishes.

Some will say that women do not have privilege and men do. In this case, that's simply not true.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

There comes a point in the lives of these fathers when they only have one choice remaining. That choice is to move on with their lives, regardless of any contact they may have had with their child, or any contact their child might have had with them (or both). Regardless of what cruel levy is imposed on him. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding his child's life. You can't let a woman shove her boot so far up your ass that it makes your lips flap. If you can't help it, put it in a box in the back of your closet underneath some unsorted laundry. Michael Jackson said the same thing about libido.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Obviously being pushed around by an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend sucks. But are you saying it is better to abandon your relationship with your children than to put up with crap from such a woman?

 

[Celebrity]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Obviously being pushed around by an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend sucks. But are you saying it is better to abandon your relationship with your children than to put up with crap from such a woman?

I'm saying that it is better to not want. I have no real relationship with my biological son. I have been excommunicated from him for unknown reasons in a scenario similar to the one outlined in the OP.

 

[radcen]

I can't count the number of times I have seen a man loose a custody battle for his children to the mother. Often despite evidence that the man would make a better father than the woman would make a mother. Then for quite a few ex-wives they either take the children to another state completely knowing that the man cannot follow due to other obligations (such as military) or convincing a judge that the father should be completely restrained from ever seeing the kids. And then, after the woman achieves custody they go after the father for every penny that they can squeeze out of them for child support. And lets face it/admit it, we've all heard examples of some mother using the kids to get revenge on the father.

And that I think is completely wrong. If the mother refuses or arranges it so that the father cannot at the very least see and spend a little time with his children then why should the father be forced to pay child support? It IS his children also after all.

Note: This is NOT about making it to where fathers do not have to pay child support. This is about making it to where vengeful ex-wives cannot use their children as a weapon.

Note 2: I am quite aware that there are men that do this also. I don't think that it is any more right than the ex-wives doing it. But I am focusing on the mens side more due to the fact that women seem to do it far more than the men do. Perhaps that is just a product of the way our system is in that it is disproportionately in favor of women when it comes to child custody battles. Either way, lets discuss it from the mans point of view to simplify this and while this might not accomplish anything beyond a simple debate here at DP we can assume that any law enacted regarding this would include both men and women equally.

I agree. It's not *as bad* as it was in the 1970s and 80s, but it's still heavily biased.

I don't say this easily, but I believe that custodial parents should be legally prohibited from moving more than 50 miles away from the non-custodial parent until the kid is 18 or graduates high school. I don't care if the custodial parent has family elsewhere, or meets someone new, or gets a new job, or whatever. Presuming the non-custodial parent is in good standing and not an abuser or whatever. If the custodial parent does move anyway, they forfeit all child support. Not quite willing to go for jail time, but I'm opening to hearing a case for it.

 

[beerftw]

I can't count the number of times I have seen a man loose a custody battle for his children to the mother. Often despite evidence that the man would make a better father than the woman would make a mother. Then for quite a few ex-wives they either take the children to another state completely knowing that the man cannot follow due to other obligations (such as military) or convincing a judge that the father should be completely restrained from ever seeing the kids. And then, after the woman achieves custody they go after the father for every penny that they can squeeze out of them for child support. And lets face it/admit it, we've all heard examples of some mother using the kids to get revenge on the father.

And that I think is completely wrong. If the mother refuses or arranges it so that the father cannot at the very least see and spend a little time with his children then why should the father be forced to pay child support? It IS his children also after all.

Note: This is NOT about making it to where fathers do not have to pay child support. This is about making it to where vengeful ex-wives cannot use their children as a weapon.

Note 2: I am quite aware that there are men that do this also. I don't think that it is any more right than the ex-wives doing it. But I am focusing on the mens side more due to the fact that women seem to do it far more than the men do. Perhaps that is just a product of the way our system is in that it is disproportionately in favor of women when it comes to child custody battles. Either way, lets discuss it from the mans point of view to simplify this and while this might not accomplish anything beyond a simple debate here at DP we can assume that any law enacted regarding this would include both men and women equally.

In the military things like this were quite common, but by default the womans side is automatically taken in the miitary, and women married to soldiers have locals lawyers who even tell them how to ue blackmail to drain them of every penny. For example domestic abuse used to mean barred from military service, since they would be banned from owning a gun. The military was later exempted from this because of blackmail.

Lawyers would tell them to lie and blackmail their husbands, claiming they would turn them in and end their military carreer unless they agree to x outrageous demands for child support/allimoney. The other one was some states by default if someone can not appear in court, they surrender to the demands of the other. This was often used where the husband was overseas, and the wife would demand everything and get it in the divorce by setting a court date knowing he could not make it being deployed.

The state and federal govt also takes womens side by default. I know someone who has the cops threaten to arrest him any time he is even 1 month behind on child support, even though he constantly contacts them and makes every effort to pay it back. His ex wife owes him 60k in back child support, the state and the county flat out refuse to even contact her over it, let alone prosecute over it, despite the fact he is dirt poor and she makes almost 100k a year.

 

[trouble13]

I agree. It's not *as bad* as it was in the 1970s and 80s, but it's still heavily biased.

I don't say this easily, but I believe that custodial parents should be legally prohibited from moving more than 50 miles away from the non-custodial parent until the kid is 18 or graduates high school. I don't care if the custodial parent has family elsewhere, or meets someone new, or gets a new job, or whatever. Presuming the non-custodial parent is in good standing and not an abuser or whatever. If the custodial parent does move anyway, they forfeit all child support. Not quite willing to go for jail time, but I'm opening to hearing a case for it.

I would take that a step further i would obligate the custodial parent to assume the finacial burden associated with the noncustodial parent maintaining a relationship with their child and i also would not allow them with the noncustodials consent.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Celebrity]

I agree. It's not *as bad* as it was in the 1970s and 80s, but it's still heavily biased.

I don't say this easily, but I believe that custodial parents should be legally prohibited from moving more than 50 miles away from the non-custodial parent until the kid is 18 or graduates high school. I don't care if the custodial parent has family elsewhere, or meets someone new, or gets a new job, or whatever. Presuming the non-custodial parent is in good standing and not an abuser or whatever. If the custodial parent does move anyway, they forfeit all child support. Not quite willing to go for jail time, but I'm opening to hearing a case for it.

It amazes me the extent that you would sacrifice others' personal liberties for "the benefit of the child."

No, this is not the best solution. This is far from the best solution for sexual interludes that are not meant to continue beyond a day or two.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It amazes me the extent that you would sacrifice others' personal liberties for "the benefit of the child."

No, this is not the best solution. This is far from the best solution for sexual interludes that are not meant to continue beyond a day or two.

When adults voluntarily have children, and keep them, they automatically give up a lot of the freedoms they had before they had children. We give up our privacy. And we give up the freedom to go where we want, when we want. It is the price we pay as parents. Any responsible and loving parent gladly does it also.