If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WXYZ Detroit)   Not your child? Fark you, pay ongoing support anyways. Child's an adult? Fark you, pay ongoing support anyways. Child's been dead for 20 years? Fark you, pay ongoing support anyways   (wxyz.com) divider line 259
    More: Obvious, child support, Action News  
•       •       •

17704 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2013 at 7:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



259 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-16 09:06:33 PM
Child support laws do need to be changed as they are unfair to everyone, including the kid.

In personal experience news...


....I constantly have to fight with the local DA about stuff pertaining to mine. The local DA seems to think that creating a second order to enforce under MN law is the way to go instead of just enforcing the original order from Oregon, which in turn is enforced by the Department of Justice because Oregon does things that way, and everything remains under Oregon law for enforcement.

(And don't let that word kid you; I pay to hopefully make my child's life better. I wouldn't know; ex moved years ago and never told anybody where she is... but she still collects the support through direct deposit to her account, of course.)

I'm still trying to get the local DA to rescind varied orders because they are essentially collecting for two children, not the ONLY ONE I have, and they have so many tentacles for places to collect from that each one is a separate order.

Example:

Work has one order
Unemployment (seasonal employee who works 10 out of 12) has a different order
Now new orders are being put out for the healthcare portion of the support. Both the Oregon AND MN ones are being forced by MN, trying to double up. (Nevermind that by law I don't have to get insurance because it takes another 1/4 of my paycheck, which is well above the 4% threshold for undue burden where it concerns healthcare.)

It's a mess and thankfully the Oregon DA I deal with is nice, knows what she's doing, and understands the frustration and idiocy I have to deal with and sends new orders to MN each time telling them to rescind theirs.
 
2013-02-16 09:08:32 PM

studebaker hoch: I moved to a small town college, and my dorm roomate warned me directly:

"You look like you're from the big city.  The girls in this town are going to see you as their one shot at escaping this place. They will stop at nothing to get you to impregnate them.  They'll lie that they're on the pill, they'll poke a hole in the condom, they will do whatever it takes.  Don't trust anything they tell you"

The friend was cool, he'd had to fend off these succubi for years and felt the need to warn me away from disaster.


I had a few friends that played professional baseball. They all said that on the first day that they reported to Rookie Ball that the first thing the owners and managers of the teams they were on told them was that they are likely the wealthiest people in the towns they were in, and because of that they would have every female in town from 14 to 49 throwing pussy at them in an attempt to get pregnant and escape podunk. They all said that they got the exact same speech almost word for word. And now one of them is a Rookie Ball manager, and he has been giving the same speech for the last 3 years. He says that despite his warning, there is always 2 or 3 guys every year that ends up getting one of the towns known baseball tramps pregnant.
 
2013-02-16 09:09:45 PM

TommyymmoT: Why wasn't the mother arrested for fraud?


Because she wasn't getting any of the money.

My understanding of how it works in most states is this: mom goes on welfare, and gets money from welfare.  The state files gets a judgment against the father to reimburse the state for the cost of welfare.  The state sells the judgment to a collection agency.  The collection agency does the normal collection agency thing where they keep tacking on late charges and interest so that the father owes them money forever and ever and ever and ever.

In most of these cases, the moms and kids never see a dime of the child support. Instead, the child support is supposed to go to the state to reimburse them for the cost of welfare.  But in actual practice, most of the money goes to fees collected by the owners of the collection agency, who provides generous kickbacks to the politicians involved in the scam.
 
2013-02-16 09:10:39 PM
Anyone who knows anything about this system knows it was set up to screw men over every way possible.
 
2013-02-16 09:11:33 PM
i1172.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-16 09:12:23 PM
Havering dealt with the MI FOC I'm not surprised. Never have I found an entire group of people so unbelievably bad at their jobs. These clowns make Congress look like a well oiled machine.
 
2013-02-16 09:21:57 PM
Spotty employment history, two children of significantly varying ages with an ex-wife, it didn't occur to him that you don't pay child support on a 34 year old until just now and he has a backlog of surcharges meaning he hasn't been paying it reliably anyway....

This sounds suspiciously like one of those situations where a certain party in this debacle could have avoided a significant amount or all of the hassle through a complicated process I call "not being a an actively irresponsible farktard". As a result I'm having a hard time finding a reason I should allocate any portion of my limited quota of "give a fark" for this guy's seemingly self-inflicted plight.
 
2013-02-16 09:23:49 PM

tom baker's scarf: Havering dealt with the MI FOC I'm not surprised. Never have I found an entire group of people so unbelievably bad at their jobs. These clowns make Congress look like a well oiled machine.


A long time ago I started asking myself, what kind of person would take that job?  Do that and you won't be surprised by much.
 
2013-02-16 09:24:19 PM

spidermann: In personal experience news...


Holy shiat man, get your daughter back and sever ties with mom. It sounds like they are after you because she is getting state assistance, if the state has to pay for your seed's healthcare premiums the state want's its damn money. Is it Gopher care in Minnesota?
 
2013-02-16 09:32:34 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: This sounds suspiciously like one of those situations where a certain party in this debacle could have avoided a significant amount or all of the hassle through a complicated process I call "not being a an actively irresponsible farktard".


Well, keep in mind that the collection agency can't even figure out how much money this guy owes. It's pretty clear that they were planning on just sending bills forever.

And why not? At least most collection agencies are capitalists who recognize that you only spend money to collect if the expected cost of collection is less than the expected money retrieved. For example, most collection agencies stop trying to collect when the deadbeat dies. But the collection agency in this case is a government agency; they don't even have to make a profit. Half their employees probably spend all day shuffling around pieces of paper related to debtors who don't even exist on this mortal plane anymore.
 
2013-02-16 09:35:00 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Jesda: GAT_00: antidisestablishmentarianism: GAT_00: Oh look, supposed personal experience used to condemn the system as a whole.

I got a bit off topic but the main problem is that a father is a father after conception whether he want's to be or not. After conception a mother has the choice to abort the baby or give it up for adoption.

Which is in fact still completely off topic.

Topics can expand and diverge if they want. Whiner.

Exactly. Not to call GAT_00 out but I know he is pro choice for women. In an endlessly gray area like this how can you not be pro-choice for men too?

Having to take responsibility for a child changed my life, it's hard to wonder what would have happened if I had the choice not to be forced to take responsibility for a child I wasn't ready for and didn't want to raise with that person.


In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women.  And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.
 
2013-02-16 09:36:38 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: spidermann: In personal experience news...

Holy shiat man, get your daughter back and sever ties with mom.


I'd love to but the amount I have to pay leaves me very little to be able to afford a lawyer. Working on it, working on it...


It sounds like they are after you because she is getting state assistance, if the state has to pay for your seed's healthcare premiums the state want's its damn money. Is it Gopher care in Minnesota?

It would be under Oregon last I know (her last known address). Since I work for the government we actually do have nice healthcare but the premiums are ridiculous for the amount of take home pay I have. 1/4 total paycheck, 1/2 of remaining paycheck after support is taken. (Voluntary garnishment, thank you.)

Anyway, it isn't for public assistance. I know Mom has a steady, higher paying than mine job. The healthcare was mandated by the court order and since mine was put in before ACA it doesn't fall under the new laws that incorporate healthcare into the monthly cost of support. So if it is forced 3/4 of my paycheck will go to support, essentially, instead of lowering the monthly support amount and factoring in the healthcare cost.
 
2013-02-16 09:39:12 PM

gibbon1: tom baker's scarf: Havering dealt with the MI FOC I'm not surprised. Never have I found an entire group of people so unbelievably bad at their jobs. These clowns make Congress look like a well oiled machine.

A long time ago I started asking myself, what kind of person would take that job?  Do that and you won't be surprised by much.


The intention of the FOC is good but the staff are worthless so the system is one giant pile of fail. When i went to the judge to get some emergency relief she took one look at the FOC "judgement" sighed, shook here head, stayed thier orders and call a hearing for the next week to issue a new child support order.
 
2013-02-16 09:39:38 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: antidisestablishmentarianism: The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Remember a few years back the guy from Michigan who fought against paying support for the kid he never wanted? I bet he lost because the girl wanted her meal ticket. (Is it fair that a woman has a choice about abortion and the guy doesn't? What about adoption?)

Once the kid is born family courts don't give a crap about fairness. All they care about is what's best for the child.

If you don't want to pay child support, don't sleep with women you can't trust and/or take some responsibility for birth control.


That's right, blame the victim.
 
2013-02-16 09:39:49 PM
Michael's mother declined to comment on the story.

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-02-16 09:40:42 PM

WhippingBoy: Skirl Hutsenreiter: antidisestablishmentarianism: The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Remember a few years back the guy from Michigan who fought against paying support for the kid he never wanted? I bet he lost because the girl wanted her meal ticket. (Is it fair that a woman has a choice about abortion and the guy doesn't? What about adoption?)

Once the kid is born family courts don't give a crap about fairness. All they care about is what's best for the child.

If you don't want to pay child support, don't sleep with women you can't trust and/or take some responsibility for birth control.

That's right, blame the victim.


If I could sponsor you for TF, I would. That made me laugh.
 
2013-02-16 09:43:47 PM
Fortunately I did it all without lawyers, so I just had my employer set it up so a big chunk of my paycheck is direct deposited to the account of my children's mother. So at least my dealings with craziness is limited to one person and not a whole system of craziness.
 
2013-02-16 09:43:54 PM
I don't have a problem with this.  If you're a man and you don't want to have children and/or don't want to pay child support on them whether they're yours or not and whether they are alive or not, then don't have sex with women.  Simple as that.  Choose to have sex, instead, with other men.  100% effective.
 
2013-02-16 09:44:31 PM

WhippingBoy: Skirl Hutsenreiter: antidisestablishmentarianism: The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Remember a few years back the guy from Michigan who fought against paying support for the kid he never wanted? I bet he lost because the girl wanted her meal ticket. (Is it fair that a woman has a choice about abortion and the guy doesn't? What about adoption?)

Once the kid is born family courts don't give a crap about fairness. All they care about is what's best for the child.

If you don't want to pay child support, don't sleep with women you can't trust and/or take some responsibility for birth control.

That's right, blame the victim.


I mentioned the victim blaming earlier.  We should teach women not to steal or commit fraud instead of teaching men to be smart about NOT paying child support for too many years (in this case decades).
 
2013-02-16 09:44:51 PM

TommyymmoT: Why wasn't the mother arrested for fraud?


Do be silly/logical/correct. To be fair though he should had done a better job keeping track of what he was paying and why.
 
2013-02-16 09:50:08 PM
Men should freeze their sperm at 18 and get a vasectomy.  Make sure you know who gets the defroster really really well.
 
2013-02-16 09:52:03 PM

doyner: Donnchadha: GAT_00: Taking child support for a dead child isn't fraud?

Court ordered payments are legal because the court orders them. If the court says she's entitled to the child support, then she's entitled to it, whether or not the child that is supporting is 3, 12, 18, 34 or dead.

It's only fraud on her part if she initiated seeking child support for a child who didn't exist at that time.

[citation needed]


Actually child support is the right of the child not the custodial parent. If she knew the support was in error she's as obligated to report the error as he is obligated to report any new source of income. I have no idea what the standard for fraud is but I'm betting a real audit would show the state took money from this guy under a false claim and he is owed a pile of cash.

He should have done a better job of watching his own back though.
 
2013-02-16 09:52:49 PM

GAT_00: In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women. And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.


That would be fine if her choice didn't result in a massive financial penalty with no appeal on the man. I'm all in favor of the women having the right to choose- but how 'bout this: If a man doesn't want the responsibility to help raise a child, he can pay for an abortion. If the women still wants the baby, she's responsible for the financial implications of that decision, not him.

Look, right now women trying to get guys they see as wealthy to knock them up so they can pocket the checks isn't only not unheard of, it's a downright common practice. This stuff happens. The kids don't see that money, mommy uses it so she doesn't have to actually get a job. You're creating perverse incentives.

And no, the man is not solely responsible. It takes two to fark- mamma made that decision just as much as daddy did. In fact, it's not unheard of for mamma to poke holes in condoms or lie about birth control- both of which, IMO, should be fraud and result in a forced abortion and a jail sentence, but I know that's unrealistic and bad public policy. Right now, it tends to lead to mommy getting enough money to neglect a kid she hates and never having to work. Women abuse the system because it's set up for them to always win and for fathers to always lose, regardless of the circumstances. You can't set up a system where one party has lots of rights and the other basically none and expect good outcomes.
 
2013-02-16 09:52:53 PM
everyone knows biatches be crazy
 
2013-02-16 09:54:37 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Is it fair that a woman has a choice about abortion and the guy doesn't?


IMO, yes.  Our choices come before the kid is made.  If you don't want a bun in her oven don't give her the baby batter.
On a related note, I'm looking forward to this being available.
 
2013-02-16 09:54:47 PM

tom baker's scarf: Actually child support is the right of the child not the custodial parent.


In theory, but in practice that's a just a massive joke.
 
2013-02-16 09:55:54 PM

cptjeff: GAT_00: In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women. And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.

That would be fine if her choice didn't result in a massive financial penalty with no appeal on the man. I'm all in favor of the women having the right to choose- but how 'bout this: If a man doesn't want the responsibility to help raise a child, he can pay for an abortion. If the women still wants the baby, she's responsible for the financial implications of that decision, not him.

Look, right now women trying to get guys they see as wealthy to knock them up so they can pocket the checks isn't only not unheard of, it's a downright common practice. This stuff happens. The kids don't see that money, mommy uses it so she doesn't have to actually get a job. You're creating perverse incentives.

And no, the man is not solely responsible. It takes two to fark- mamma made that decision just as much as daddy did. In fact, it's not unheard of for mamma to poke holes in condoms or lie about birth control- both of which, IMO, should be fraud and result in a forced abortion and a jail sentence, but I know that's unrealistic and bad public policy. Right now, it tends to lead to mommy getting enough money to neglect a kid she hates and never having to work. Women abuse the system because it's set up for them to always win and for fathers to always lose, regardless of the circumstances. You can't set up a system where one party has lots of rights and the other basically none and expect good outcomes.

t
hahaahahahhahahhahahaha

dude, are you trying to be logical and reasonable?
they can kill your child if they feel like it, and they can take your money if they feel like it.
system is messed up.
 
2013-02-16 09:59:53 PM

Gawdzila: If you don't want a bun in her oven don't give her the baby batter.


What if she gets that out of the guy through fraud? Holes in the condom, lying about birth control? It wasn't proven, because the court didn't care and was just gonna stick him with child support anyway and wouldn't let the guy litigate the point, but there was a case where it was alleged that the women gave the guy a blowjob, went to another room, spat out the sperm, and used it to impregnate herself after he left. Another one where it was alleged the women used the sperm from a sock the guy had used for masturbation. In both cases, the court wouldn't even hear argument, because best interests of the child, blah blah blah. Mom's conduct in creating the child didn't matter. There was one where a female teacher, who was later charged with statutory rape, still got to collect money from the teenager she had, by the law's own definition, raped, once he came of age and got a job.

At what point does it all go too far?
 
2013-02-16 10:00:47 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: spidermann: In personal experience news...

Holy shiat man, get your daughter back and sever ties with mom. It sounds like they are after you because she is getting state assistance, if the state has to pay for your seed's healthcare premiums the state want's its damn money. Is it Gopher care in Minnesota?


Yes sir. I remember one of my friends went through this. He got his girlfriend pregnant. The day after his daughter was born he took the birth certificate down to the child support office himself and got the child support process started. So they gave him a court date 3 months from then, but between that day and the court date his daughter had gotten sick and needed to be hospitalized. Instead of using the insurance card that he gave her for his daughter, she used the medicaid or medicare, what ever it is called, card because there was a $75 dollar copay for emergency room service with his insurance. And don't ask me how she qualified for the medical card, she was a very well paid accountant at the time.

Well skip forward to his court date. He went in there expecting to be order to pay about $500 a month. However the prosecutor pulled out paper work showing that he had an almost $20k arrearage. He asked how he could have a $20k arrearage on a 3 month old and that is when he found out about what the mother did at the hospital. Because of that arrearage his child support was set at almost $900 a month. I remember after that hearing he just sat in his seat with a beer and said, "Now I know why OJ did it".
 
2013-02-16 10:01:58 PM

tuna fingers: I knew of a guy in Denver who went into default because he quit paying after a child died.  He had submitted paperwork to FMS (this group in Colorado that runs it).  But the courts came after him about 2 years later stating he owed 10K or whatnot - they didn't acknowledge the death.


Yeah, it's all about getting money, whether it's really owed or not doesn't matter.

I know a guy who was being nailed for child support for a kid in *HIS* sole custody--the problem being that she applied for welfare and claimed she had the kid.  They didn't care that it was her fraud, they wanted the money back from him.

In the end he caved because it was cheaper than fighting it.  That's probably why they did it--they knew he would see it that way.

Mentalpatient87: I know a guy who's ex pushed him into moving down here to Indiana just because the custody laws were more favorable to women, then dumped him a month later. She's now trying to baby lasso a third husband after divorcing the guy she left him for. He pays out the ass for his son, barely making ends meet, while she drives a Lexus and goes shopping.


Yeah, I knew a guy who had worse--she pushed him into moving where her family was, then dumped him before a friendly judge.  She got all the assets and a child support payment he utterly couldn't afford in the community as the judge based his income on what it was before the move.  The judge should have been disqualified from the start due to connections to her family.  There was nothing he could do about it, though--the award meant he had nothing to pay a lawyer to appeal with.  Last I knew he was taking only 1099 work so she couldn't collect.
 
2013-02-16 10:03:18 PM

Azlefty: little crotch nuggets


*snort*
 
2013-02-16 10:05:12 PM

Loren: In the end he caved because it was cheaper than fighting it. That's probably why they did it--they knew he would see it that way.


That's what countersuits are for.
 
2013-02-16 10:08:31 PM
cptjeff: Gawdzila: If you don't want a bun in her oven don't give her the baby batter.

What if she gets that out of the guy through fraud? Holes in the condom, lying about birth control? It wasn't proven, because the court didn't care and was just gonna stick him with child support anyway and wouldn't let the guy litigate the point, but there was a case where it was alleged that the women gave the guy a blowjob, went to another room, spat out the sperm, and used it to impregnate herself after he left. Another one where it was alleged the women used the sperm from a sock the guy had used for masturbation. In both cases, the court wouldn't even hear argument, because best interests of the child, blah blah blah. Mom's conduct in creating the child didn't matter. There was one where a female teacher, who was later charged with statutory rape, still got to collect money from the teenager she had, by the law's own definition, raped, once he came of age and got a job.


At what point does it all go too far?

I think the case with Dr Richard Philips of Illinois might have been the shark jumping moment.

The ruling Wednesday by the Illinois Appellate Court sends Dr. Richard O. Phillips' distress case back to trial court.

Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a "calculated, profound personal betrayal" after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant.

He said he didn't find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state.

Phillips was ordered to pay about $800 a month in child support, said Irons' attorney, Enrico Mirabelli.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/#.USBIzB1OR6I
 
2013-02-16 10:09:33 PM
yeah someone farked someplace in this case.
 
2013-02-16 10:20:44 PM

GAT_00: In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women.  And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.


After conception the woman has 100% control over the course of events even though the man only contributed 50%. Give the guys equal say in what happens in those first 9 months.
 
2013-02-16 10:23:24 PM

ramblinwreck: clear_prop: My ex has me on garnishment even though I've always paid on time to 'guarantee' I pay. Once or twice a year CPS 'forgets' to do the transfer so I get an angry call from the ex and then have to deal with the morons at CPS.

At least I've gotten my payments down to a sane level. Early on in the process my child support payments were more than my net income.

Sounds like the "down to the minute" monthly transfer crazy awareness applies to this one. (See previous posts)

How is that even possible for the court to order more than net income? Did you have some shiatty lawyer or was the court that bat shiat insane?


Nope. The clerk takes the actual numbers from the working parent's pay stub and then pulls random numbers from the sky for the non working parent, types in a completely lopsided custody order, hits enter and goes home. It doesn't really matter what the result is so long as she's out the door at three and makes all her cigarette breaks. They actually said that my ex with her BSN RN degree had an earning potential of $12/hour, 20 hours a week max. Also I only would have gotten the kids for about 70 days a year. It put my child support at 90% of my take home pay.

Lawyers and judges aren't involved in FOC judgements. There is virtually no internal oversight and despite the fact that none of the "coordinators" have any real legal authority they're rulings have the force of law. It's prime conditions for a cesspool of stupidly and laziness.

My suggestion to anyone going through divorce is to get it to a judge ASAP. You're going to end up there anyway and generally speaking they are quite good at setting fair parenting schedules.

In my case the foc's epic fail worked to my advantage. Because it was to completely retarded the judge had no choice but to toss it and figure out a new arrangement ASAP.
 
2013-02-16 10:30:48 PM

The Larch: Well, keep in mind that the collection agency can't even figure out how much money this guy owes.


I'm not saying there aren't obvious bureaucratic screw-ups in play with this story that need to be rectified, I'm just saying that this sounds an awful lot like one of those stories where maybe the only reason the subject is getting screwed is that the subject has made a point of screwing up himself.

quatchi: I think the case with Dr Richard Philips of Illinois might have been the shark jumping moment.


Or you could try understanding, on even a very basic level, how paternity law typically works. Was he or was he not the father? Because of he was, there is no contestable claim regardless of how it happened and the ruling will be made in the best interests of the child, the best interests being support from both parents.

I note that you conveniently snipped out the bits where he's successfully been pressing a case against her for the intentional infliction of emotional distress because her actions were so extreme.
 
2013-02-16 10:41:21 PM

GAT_00: In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women.  And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.


Your wording implies that the action is purely down to the man, that the woman had no part in it. The man "impregnated her" and that's that. Except for rape the process involves both parties deciding to have sex. Why is the man responsible and the woman not?
If the woman said she was using birth control but was not surely that means the consequences are down to her and her alone?
 
2013-02-16 10:44:23 PM
<i>Michael's mother declined to comment on the story.</i>

t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-16 10:48:11 PM

Flint Ironstag: GAT_00: In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women.  And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.

Your wording implies that the action is purely down to the man, that the woman had no part in it. The man "impregnated her" and that's that. Except for rape the process involves both parties deciding to have sex. Why is the man responsible and the woman not?
If the woman said she was using birth control but was not surely that means the consequences are down to her and her alone?


This is what he truly believes.
 
2013-02-16 10:49:37 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Remember a few years back the guy from Michigan who fought against paying support for the kid he never wanted? I bet he lost because the girl wanted her meal ticket. (Is it fair that a woman has a choice about abortion and the guy doesn't? What about adoption?)


Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex. Once you begin you accept the odds and consequences. It's not like men aren't aware of how babies are made.
 
2013-02-16 10:51:26 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: , I'm just saying that this sounds an awful lot like one of those stories where maybe the only reason the subject is getting screwed is that the subject has made a point of screwing up himself.


Well, I'm glad you've used this as an opportunity to validated your belief that when bad things happen to people, it's always their own damned fault.
 
2013-02-16 10:52:39 PM
"how you owe on a child been dead 23 years?"

Sounds like they have their best and brightest working on it.
 
2013-02-16 10:53:19 PM

GAT_00: antidisestablishmentarianism: Jesda: GAT_00: antidisestablishmentarianism: GAT_00: Oh look, supposed personal experience used to condemn the system as a whole.

I got a bit off topic but the main problem is that a father is a father after conception whether he want's to be or not. After conception a mother has the choice to abort the baby or give it up for adoption.

Which is in fact still completely off topic.

Topics can expand and diverge if they want. Whiner.

Exactly. Not to call GAT_00 out but I know he is pro choice for women. In an endlessly gray area like this how can you not be pro-choice for men too?

Having to take responsibility for a child changed my life, it's hard to wonder what would have happened if I had the choice not to be forced to take responsibility for a child I wasn't ready for and didn't want to raise with that person.

In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women.  And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.


If one were to apply actual logic they would apply 100% bias towards the child.

I find it intensely hilarious (and sad) that almost everyone who is anti-gun because they want to  "protect the children" are also pro-choice. I can't fathom how they manage to lie to themselves that much without their heads exploding from the massive amount of hypocrisy contained therein.
 
2013-02-16 10:54:01 PM

IronTom: It sounds a bit like that office is full of dummies.


well, it is a government job.
 
2013-02-16 11:08:32 PM

TommyymmoT: kronicfeld: TommyymmoT: Why wasn't the mother arrested for fraud?

Scanning article.

Evidence of fraud not found.

The wife wasn't receiving those payments all that time, knowing that the kid didn't exist?
I noticed she refused comment.


The dad was sending payments for 23 years, and never noticed that he was sending too much for too long.  It's entirely possible that mom never noticed it was too high as well, because as someone else said, idiot and people with poor money management skills attract.
 
2013-02-16 11:11:15 PM
This is why Dick the Butcher, while just a foil in a play, was right on the money.

If there were no lawyers, we could all just say "Obviously this is wrong." and just not do shiat like this.
 
2013-02-16 11:12:08 PM

tom baker's scarf: ramblinwreck: clear_prop: My ex has me on garnishment even though I've always paid on time to 'guarantee' I pay. Once or twice a year CPS 'forgets' to do the transfer so I get an angry call from the ex and then have to deal with the morons at CPS.

At least I've gotten my payments down to a sane level. Early on in the process my child support payments were more than my net income.

Sounds like the "down to the minute" monthly transfer crazy awareness applies to this one. (See previous posts)

How is that even possible for the court to order more than net income? Did you have some shiatty lawyer or was the court that bat shiat insane?

Nope. The clerk takes the actual numbers from the working parent's pay stub and then pulls random numbers from the sky for the non working parent, types in a completely lopsided custody order, hits enter and goes home. It doesn't really matter what the result is so long as she's out the door at three and makes all her cigarette breaks. They actually said that my ex with her BSN RN degree had an earning potential of $12/hour, 20 hours a week max. Also I only would have gotten the kids for about 70 days a year. It put my child support at 90% of my take home pay.

Lawyers and judges aren't involved in FOC judgements. There is virtually no internal oversight and despite the fact that none of the "coordinators" have any real legal authority they're rulings have the force of law. It's prime conditions for a cesspool of stupidly and laziness.

My suggestion to anyone going through divorce is to get it to a judge ASAP. You're going to end up there anyway and generally speaking they are quite good at setting fair parenting schedules.

In my case the foc's epic fail worked to my advantage. Because it was to completely retarded the judge had no choice but to toss it and figure out a new arrangement ASAP.


What the fark.  The deck is stacked.  No wonder men don't want to get married (or have kids).  Reading about towns where kids are good at (insert sport) and women depend on impregnation is farking disturbing.  Seriously....what the fark.
 
2013-02-16 11:14:22 PM

spidermann: (And don't let that word kid you; I pay to hopefully make my child's life better. I wouldn't know; ex moved years ago and never told anybody where she is... but she still collects the support through direct deposit to her account, of course.)


Holy shiat.  You have to pay child support, but you don't even have so much as an address for your kid?  That just ain't farking right.
I realize you wouldn't necessarily get any kind of custody, but I would think that the exchange of monies would come with at least a theoretical possibility to see the kid.
 
2013-02-16 11:14:32 PM
Well, if Dad's gonna have to pay all that cash then he should get to spend some quality time with the kid.

/Fire up the backhoe, Bubba. We're goin' exhumin'!!
 
Displayed 50 of 259 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report