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
 
2013-02-16 04:17:03 PM
Why wasn't the mother arrested for fraud?
 
2013-02-16 04:32:57 PM
It sounds a bit like that office is full of dummies.
 
2013-02-16 04:55:02 PM
Sounds like instead of filing for audits, he could file a lawsuit or two.  Interested to see how this turns out.
 
2013-02-16 04:55:55 PM
Sounds like the dad himself isn't too bright.
 
2013-02-16 04:58:53 PM
Male?

fark you, pay child support anyways.
 
2013-02-16 04:59:40 PM
This is what happens when you let women vote.
 
2013-02-16 05:03:35 PM

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


Scanning article.

Evidence of fraud not found.
 
2013-02-16 05:07:13 PM
I don't understand how an audit could turn up anything other than "this child died when he was 3, nothing should be owed after that"
 
2013-02-16 05:09:26 PM

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.
 
2013-02-16 05:10:46 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Male?

fark you, pay child support anyways.


qft
 
2013-02-16 05:11:42 PM

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

Scanning article.

Evidence of fraud not found.

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

 
2013-02-16 05:14:24 PM
agrees
i780.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-16 05:15:58 PM

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

Scanning article.

Evidence of fraud not found.

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


Taking child support for a dead child isn't fraud?
 
2013-02-16 05:18:17 PM
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.
 
2013-02-16 05:24:29 PM

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.
 
2013-02-16 05:32:40 PM

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]
 
2013-02-16 05:32:48 PM
He's going to need a really good forensic accountant and attorney to straighten it all out.
 
2013-02-16 05:43:38 PM

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.


I may be going with common sense here, but it's child support, not a set payment to the mother every month until the child is 18 regardless of the state of the child.  In other words, it is to support the child.  If there is no child, there should be no support.
 
2013-02-16 05:54:57 PM
Yet another good reason not to have children.
 
2013-02-16 05:59:10 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]


Trust me. I'm from The Internet.
 
2013-02-16 06:10:51 PM
While this is not right there are a few issues that are not the Courts or the agencies fault
1. The Dad is an idiot
2. He was paying child support to the State becasue he did not pay it at first so they had to care for his little crotch nuggets, which resulted in him owing back support and the penalties and fees
3.The Dad is an idiot
4. No one told the court that the kid became worm food
5. The Dad is an idiot
6. Daddy O did not take the time for 23 years to figure out what he was paying for and waited the said 23 years to ask what it was and is all mad now becasue of it
7 Did I mention The Dad is an idiot.

Yes there is a error on the Courts part, but face it Dad should have been neutered years ago so his idiot seed does not create more cast member for idiocracy the reality series.

He needs to hire a lawyer who will get the Child supporter people to agree to call the debt satisfied just to end the negative publicity.
 
2013-02-16 06:13:06 PM
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?)
 
2013-02-16 06:14:48 PM

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


She was receiving current support as well as payments on what he had not been paid; it is very possible that she was not aware that she was receiving the extra for the dead kid. I think it is more than plausible since she bred with this guy twice and face it he is not a rocket scientist and idiots usually attract
 
2013-02-16 06:16:22 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?)


There we go.  Everyone on child support is lazy, they just want a handout.
 
2013-02-16 06:22:56 PM

GAT_00: There we go.  Everyone on child support is lazy, they just want a handout.


Not everyone. I receive it and don't even really need it, the money is going to pay for college for the kid. I would be happy if mommy went away and left us alone. She only had the child to collect free money from whoever the daddy was going to be. I was a week late with my payment and I got a phone call about how terrible a person I was because I was robbing the child of meals and clothing because she couldn't be bothered to find a job of any kind to support herself and the child. She wasn't saving it for the kids college fund, she was spending it on whatever she wanted to.
 
2013-02-16 06:24:42 PM
Friend of the Court is no friend to the father...ever.

My ex and I split when my son was 1.  I was frustrated with not receiving payments on any type of schedule.  I told her that I'd pay her direct deposit...and when I got a raise, I'd bump up the payments.  So when my son was 6 we went to the Friend of the Court...and the farking Magistrate told her it was a bad idea.  We both told the Magistrate that this is what we wanted and we ceased doing business with FoC.  I asked for and received custody from FoC when my son was 9.  Guess who still got threatening letters saying he owed back child support until my son was 16 and I had to take a freaking day off of work to show them the farking paperwork?  Me.  Fark them.
 
2013-02-16 06:25:45 PM
I should say my EX was frustrated with no receiving her FoC Child Support payments on time.  When we ended the FoC I paid her direct deposit until I received custody.
 
2013-02-16 06:27:37 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: GAT_00: There we go.  Everyone on child support is lazy, they just want a handout.

Not everyone. I receive it and don't even really need it, the money is going to pay for college for the kid. I would be happy if mommy went away and left us alone. She only had the child to collect free money from whoever the daddy was going to be. I was a week late with my payment and I got a phone call about how terrible a person I was because I was robbing the child of meals and clothing because she couldn't be bothered to find a job of any kind to support herself and the child. She wasn't saving it for the kids college fund, she was spending it on whatever she wanted to.


Oh look, supposed personal experience used to condemn the system as a whole.
 
2013-02-16 06:31:43 PM

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.
 
2013-02-16 06:47:16 PM

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.
 
2013-02-16 06:54:16 PM
The mother probably blew all the money on drugs and alcohol.
 
2013-02-16 07:07:55 PM
If its your sperm and if you dont help with money, then you are an asshole of epic proportions. You are the scummiest of the scum. You make Osama bin Laden look like Santa Claus. However, if it is not your child or the child is long dead, then why should you be punished for actions you had no part in?
 
2013-02-16 07:23:37 PM

GAT_00: Which is in fact still completely off topic.


For the article maybe, for my initial statement that the child support system is broken I would argue not so much.
 
2013-02-16 07:28:34 PM

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.


To make the situation fair when a woman finds she is pregnant the father should have equal say. If he does not want to be a father but she wants to keep the child then he doesn't have to pay any support ever. The woman has a choice, keep the child and pay the bills or give the child up. If the father agrees to keep the child and they later split up he has to pay.
 
2013-02-16 07:35:18 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: For the article maybe,


Yes, that was my point.
 
2013-02-16 07:43:17 PM

L.D. Ablo: Yet another good reason not to have children

to have a vasectomy and never, ever acknowledge paternity in any way, shape, form, or fashion, even tiny things like giving your girlfriend's kid a birthday gift, because that can be used in court to force you to pay child support even if there is DNA evidence that you are not the father, and clinical evidence that you cannot father children..
 
2013-02-16 07:47:31 PM
FTA: "A spokesperson for Friend of the Court tells 7 Action News that there is no clear reason other than human error to explain why multiple audits generated such varied amounts."


Did cops do the math?
 
2013-02-16 07:49:51 PM
Up yours, feminism!
 
2013-02-16 07:54:04 PM

Amos Quito: FTA: "A spokesperson for Friend of the Court tells 7 Action News that there is no clear reason other than human error to explain why multiple audits generated such varied amounts."


Did cops do the math?


Republican math.
 
2013-02-16 07:55:28 PM
Sorry OP, you lost all credibility the moment you though that "anyways" was a cromulant word.
 
2013-02-16 07:56:52 PM

GAT_00: antidisestablishmentarianism: For the article maybe,

Yes, that was my point.


Because comment threads never drift to related, but broader issues, or entirely unrelated ones?

Who gives a flying fark if it has to do with exactly what's in the article?
 
2013-02-16 07:57:11 PM

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

She was receiving current support as well as payments on what he had not been paid; it is very possible that she was not aware that she was receiving the extra for the dead kid. I think it is more than plausible since she bred with this guy twice and face it he is not a rocket scientist and idiots usually attract


She knew.
I used to have to deal with mothers receiving welfare, food stamps, child support.
Trust me, even ones you would think couldn't open a door know about every penny they are to receive.
And you can bet when their amounts are off, delayed or otherwise disrupted they are fully aware and will be demanding appoinments with their case worker.
 
2013-02-16 07:58:41 PM

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

She was receiving current support as well as payments on what he had not been paid; it is very possible that she was not aware that she was receiving the extra for the dead kid. I think it is more than plausible since she bred with this guy twice and face it he is not a rocket scientist and idiots usually attract

She knew.
I used to have to deal with mothers receiving welfare, food stamps, child support.
Trust me, even ones you would think couldn't open a door know about every penny they are to receive.
And you can bet when their amounts are off, delayed or otherwise disrupted they are fully aware and will be demanding appoinments with their case worker.


Holy crap, I knew a woman like this

She knew to the hour when government transfer payments were due. It was creepy.
 
2013-02-16 07:59:07 PM

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


...because, "the Patriarchy!"
 
2013-02-16 08:00:30 PM

Azlefty: While this is not right there are a few issues that are not the Courts or the agencies fault
1. The Dad is an idiot
2. He was paying child support to the State becasue he did not pay it at first so they had to care for his little crotch nuggets, which resulted in him owing back support and the penalties and fees
3.The Dad is an idiot
4. No one told the court that the kid became worm food
5. The Dad is an idiot
6. Daddy O did not take the time for 23 years to figure out what he was paying for and waited the said 23 years to ask what it was and is all mad now becasue of it
7 Did I mention The Dad is an idiot.

Yes there is a error on the Courts part, but face it Dad should have been neutered years ago so his idiot seed does not create more cast member for idiocracy the reality series.

He needs to hire a lawyer who will get the Child supporter people to agree to call the debt satisfied just to end the negative publicity.


Sounds like victim blaming
 
2013-02-16 08:01:38 PM
graphics8.nytimes.com

Yikes, Simpson's episode wasn't kidding!

flavorwire.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-16 08:02:20 PM

slayer199: I should say my EX was frustrated with no receiving her FoC Child Support payments on time. When we ended the FoC I paid her direct deposit until I received custody.


I'm pretty sure that FoC's are ripe for embezzlement. Sounds like the FoC in the FA needs to be audited top to bottom. If they can't get their numbers straight someones been stealing.
 
2013-02-16 08:02:33 PM
I goofed, wrong thread :)
 
2013-02-16 08:05:03 PM
Don't have kids. Problem solved. I have no ex-girlfriends pestering me for child support money.
 
2013-02-16 08:05:05 PM

WhippingBoy: Up yours, feminism!


I suspect it's the other way around - old-fashioned, stereotyped views of women as nurturers and men as wild animals who can serve kids best by getting the fark out of the house and bringing home some dough.  Hence women - the caring, gentle gender - win the majority of these disputes.  I'm not sure that's feminism.
 
2013-02-16 08:06:06 PM

cman: If its your sperm and if you dont help with money, then you are an asshole of epic proportions. You are the scummiest of the scum. You make Osama bin Laden look like Santa Claus. However, if it is not your child or the child is long dead, then why should you be punished for actions you had no part in?


I'll help cover the cost of the abortion.  If you want to keep the whelp, you pay for the rest.  I did my share.
 
2013-02-16 08:07:17 PM
Michael's mother declined to comment on the story.

No doubt.

Arbitrary, malicious and mathematically challenged is no way to go through life, FoC.
 
2013-02-16 08:08:49 PM

Flint Ironstag: 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.

To make the situation fair when a woman finds she is pregnant the father should have equal say. If he does not want to be a father but she wants to keep the child then he doesn't have to pay any support ever. The woman has a choice, keep the child and pay the bills or give the child up. If the father agrees to keep the child and they later split up he has to pay.


Yeah, because that would never be abused or anything by every ahole out there who wants to fark every woman he sees without consequences.

I'd be willing to say it should be an available option for men, but just once. After that it's either a mandatory vasectomy or if it happens again you're paying for the first kid, including back child support, along with the second kid.
 
2013-02-16 08:09:18 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: 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.


Meh, I think that's still a fair trade off versus the whole "dying in childbirth" thingy.

/You play, you pay.
 
2013-02-16 08:10:00 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: I goofed, wrong thread :)


I love how most mis-posts seem to work regardless of what thread they are meant for.
 
2013-02-16 08:11:50 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.


Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.
 
2013-02-16 08:12:09 PM

gibbon1: slayer199: I should say my EX was frustrated with no receiving her FoC Child Support payments on time. When we ended the FoC I paid her direct deposit until I received custody.

I'm pretty sure that FoC's are ripe for embezzlement. Sounds like the FoC in the FA needs to be audited top to bottom. If they can't get their numbers straight someones been stealing.


Friends of Carlotta?
 
2013-02-16 08:12:39 PM
See?

This is why you only knock up women in the western hemisphere.

/I like to think there is a little half-asian MurphyMurphy skipping down a beach somewhere dancing with the Tide
//"Little MurphyMurphy" his mother would say "It's time to get dressed and go to the sneaker factory!"
 
2013-02-16 08:14:16 PM

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


that's messed up
 
2013-02-16 08:16:17 PM

FizixJunkee: 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.

Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.


I hate to quote Fox News, but mothers are less likely to pay than fathers who are ordered to pay child support (57% pay vs 68%).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5 9963,00.html
 
2013-02-16 08:18:38 PM

number8: Flint Ironstag: 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.

To make the situation fair when a woman finds she is pregnant the father should have equal say. If he does not want to be a father but she wants to keep the child then he doesn't have to pay any support ever. The woman has a choice, keep the child and pay the bills or give the child up. If the father agrees to keep the child and they later split up he has to pay.

Yeah, because that would never be abused or anything by every ahole out there who wants to fark every woman he sees without consequences.

I'd be willing to say it should be an available option for men, but just once. After that it's either a mandatory vasectomy or if it happens again you're paying for the first kid, including back child support, along with the second kid.


What about every woman who wants to fark men because they know exactly what the consequence will be?And that it will benefit her big time if she chooses?  It takes two to have sex, and two who can take care of contraception. But from the moment of contraception the woman has all the cards and can hold the man to eighteen years of payment while the man has no say whatsoever.

It takes two to have sex. Shouldn't it take two to make the decision of what happens if babby is formed? Why does only one person get to decide? And can make a decision that legally obliges the other to years of payout.

/Hasn't happened to me, so not bitter or biased.
//Just seems logical and fair.
///Contraceptive pill for guys is going to change things.
 
2013-02-16 08:18:41 PM

Donnchadha: 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]

Trust me. I'm from The Internet.


Uh, Bonjour.
 
2013-02-16 08:20:04 PM

ramblinwreck: FizixJunkee: 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.

Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.

I hate to quote Fox News, but mothers are less likely to pay than fathers who are ordered to pay child support (57% pay vs 68%).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5 9963,00.html


It was also the 1980s and the consequences of not paying weren't what they are now.
 
2013-02-16 08:20:11 PM

FizixJunkee: 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.

Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.


The trouble is that that's incredibly rare- on the books I think it's supposed to be the most suitable parent, but in practice, it's always the mother, even if she's constantly drunk, can't hold a job, and regularly goes outside at 2AM to yell at fire hydrants at the top of her voice. The legal system simply stereotypes fathers as being the breadwinners, but completely clueless in raising children, while the mother is stereotyped as being wonderful at raising children but incapable of earning an income. If you get rid of those stigmas and weigh the parents equally as potential custodians rather than presuming that they should go to the mother and forcing any father who wants to raise his kids to basically prove the women should be institutionalized in order to get custody, you'll solve the vast majority of the issues in our child support system.
 
2013-02-16 08:21:25 PM

dahmers love zombie: gibbon1: slayer199: I should say my EX was frustrated with no receiving her FoC Child Support payments on time. When we ended the FoC I paid her direct deposit until I received custody.

I'm pretty sure that FoC's are ripe for embezzlement. Sounds like the FoC in the FA needs to be audited top to bottom. If they can't get their numbers straight someones been stealing.

Friends of Carlotta?


"Foc. It's when a man loves a woman. He puts his--"
"No, F.O.C."
 
2013-02-16 08:22:02 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.


She might be as stupid as the father - assuming the payments for the one son were the same as two.
 
2013-02-16 08:23:31 PM

Flint Ironstag: eighteen years of payment


haha, try 23
 
2013-02-16 08:23:35 PM

FizixJunkee: Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.


This is the problem I have right now. The mother thinks she shouldn't have to pay because she chooses not to be a part of his life except for every other weekend.

quatchi: Meh, I think that's still a fair trade off versus the whole "dying in childbirth" thingy.

/You play, you pay.


I've paid, but only because I was told 'You don't need a condom, I'm on birth control'. I was dumb to believe it. Had mommy died in childbirth my son would be better off. The only reason she spends the minimal amount of time with him is because if she didn't it would look bad to her family.
 
2013-02-16 08:24:20 PM

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




/It's free money. She's going to keep milking him for the dead kid for as long as she can squeeze another penny out of this guy's moob. Why would she say anything? She will just keep farking the dad over, as long as she keeps getting paid. Like they say, the farking you get isn't worth the farking you get.
 
2013-02-16 08:25:50 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?)


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.
 
2013-02-16 08:26:14 PM
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.
 
2013-02-16 08:27:48 PM

cman: If its your sperm and if you dont help with money, then you are an asshole of epic proportions. You are the scummiest of the scum. You make Osama bin Laden look like Santa Claus. However, if it is not your child or the child is long dead, then why should you be punished for actions you had no part in?


/Because you're a male, and someone has to pay. There has been many cases where the guy has proven, without a doubt, that it's not his biological kid.  But the courts tell him he has to pay anyway, because the kid would suffer without the financial assistance.  Nice huh?  They don't even bother going after the real father, why should they? They have this poor sap to milk.
 
2013-02-16 08:29:51 PM

cptjeff: If you get rid of those stigmas and weigh the parents equally as potential custodians rather than presuming that they should go to the mother and forcing any father who wants to raise his kids to basically prove the women should be institutionalized in order to get custody, you'll solve the vast majority of the issues in our child support system.


Yup. Mom doesn't do shiat, can't hold a job or a stable living environment. The state doesn't care about that. They will only intervene if she has a drug or alcohol problem or is physically abusive to the kid. Developmental neglect or just simply being a bad example/influence just isn't a factor with the state when making a placement decision. The default thought is what is good for the kid is equal placement with both parents no matter what.
 
2013-02-16 08:30:14 PM

Flint Ironstag: 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.

To make the situation fair when a woman finds she is pregnant the father should have equal say. If he does not want to be a father but she wants to keep the child then he doesn't have to pay any support ever. The woman has a choice, keep the child and pay the bills or give the child up. If the father agrees to keep the child and they later split up he has to pay.


Your view of "the situation" is limited to the parents.  The child and society have interests in fairness, too.
 
2013-02-16 08:31:55 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: All they care about is what's best for the child.


Except that the system winds up perverting that to an insane degree. It's sure as hell not unheard of for Mommy to become an unemployed addict who thinks she'll never have to do honest work in her life because she tricked an NFL player into knocking her up, and the kid then has to live in semi-poverty with her using child support money for herself, despite daddy, who has some decently invested money and a stable job after retiring from sports wanting to take care of the kid himself.

Our system tends to define "best interests of the child" as "staying with mamma regardless of how good a parent she is". Which is a problem.
 
2013-02-16 08:32:04 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: I've paid, but only because I was told 'You don't need a condom, I'm on birth control'. I was dumb to believe it. Had mommy died in childbirth my son would be better off. The only reason she spends the minimal amount of time with him is because if she didn't it would look bad to her family.


Cruel story, Bro.

Seriously, that must suck.
 
2013-02-16 08:36:31 PM
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.
 
2013-02-16 08:37:39 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: /Because you're a male, and someone has to pay. There has been many cases where the guy has proven, without a doubt, that it's not his biological kid. But the courts tell him he has to pay anyway, because the kid would suffer without the financial assistance. Nice huh? They don't even bother going after the real father, why should they? They have this poor sap to milk.


You'd think there would be a DNA database of unknown fathers.
 
2013-02-16 08:38:26 PM

libranoelrose: Flint Ironstag: eighteen years of payment

haha, try 23


26, once we include healthcare premiums.
 
2013-02-16 08:38:36 PM
I'm glad I received full custody of my daughter when we split up, and I'm glad I didn't pursue child support.
biatch chose not to see her daughter from age 5 to age 14.  I never said a bad word to my daughter about her.  She was smart enough to figure it out herself.
 
2013-02-16 08:39:50 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: All they care about is what's best for the child.


That is seriously debatable. Family courts could a squirt of piss what's best for the child.

Skirl Hutsenreiter: 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.


A hard message to get across to a young guy who has been drinking that is told he doesn't have to worry about not having a condom because she is on birth control.
 
2013-02-16 08:39:54 PM

FizixJunkee: ramblinwreck: FizixJunkee: 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.

Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.

I hate to quote Fox News, but mothers are less likely to pay than fathers who are ordered to pay child support (57% pay vs 68%).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5 9963,00.html

It was also the 1980s and the consequences of not paying weren't what they are now.


My only point was women are less likely to pay, regardless of the consequences. Sorry you had a deadbeat mother.
 
2013-02-16 08:40:34 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: This is the problem I have right now. The mother thinks she shouldn't have to pay because she chooses not to be a part of his life except for every other weekend.


What's the court say about that?
 
2013-02-16 08:42:28 PM
Only date nice people.
 
2013-02-16 08:44:46 PM
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.
 
2013-02-16 08:44:53 PM

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?
 
2013-02-16 08:45:06 PM

BarkingUnicorn: What's the court say about that?


The court says the less time you spend with your child the more you pay. It isn't worth my lawyers fees to adjust payments for someone who is unemployed and technically homeless. But that goes back to the whole states 'equal time' bologna.
 
2013-02-16 08:46:22 PM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: libranoelrose: Flint Ironstag: eighteen years of payment

haha, try 23

26, once we include healthcare premiums.


I'd gladly keep him covered his entire life. The issue I have is paying his mother's lawyers fees so that she can continuously sue me for more money year after year. He doesn't see a dime of it while he is going to school full time, and working a part time job at the age of 20.
 
2013-02-16 08:46:34 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.


Any CSBs regarding his advice?
 
2013-02-16 08:50:09 PM

libranoelrose: YouPeopleAreCrazy: libranoelrose: Flint Ironstag: eighteen years of payment

haha, try 23

26, once we include healthcare premiums.

I'd gladly keep him covered his entire life. The issue I have is paying his mother's lawyers fees so that she can continuously sue me for more money year after year. He doesn't see a dime of it while he is going to school full time, and working a part time job at the age of 20.


Makes sense. Her number one concern is keeping you down instead of elevating her son (who happens to be little you, who she probably despises).
 
2013-02-16 08:50:43 PM

libranoelrose: I'd gladly keep him covered his entire life. The issue I have is paying his mother's lawyers fees so that she can continuously sue me for more money year after year. He doesn't see a dime of it while he is going to school full time, and working a part time job at the age of 20.


Right. I was just making comment on what counts as 'child' nowadays.
 
2013-02-16 08:52:42 PM
This is why no one should ever have children.
 
2013-02-16 08:54:28 PM

GAT_00: antidisestablishmentarianism: GAT_00: There we go.  Everyone on child support is lazy, they just want a handout.

Not everyone. I receive it and don't even really need it, the money is going to pay for college for the kid. I would be happy if mommy went away and left us alone. She only had the child to collect free money from whoever the daddy was going to be. I was a week late with my payment and I got a phone call about how terrible a person I was because I was robbing the child of meals and clothing because she couldn't be bothered to find a job of any kind to support herself and the child. She wasn't saving it for the kids college fund, she was spending it on whatever she wanted to.

Oh look, supposed personal experience used to condemn the system as a whole.


The system should be condemned.
 
2013-02-16 08:55:36 PM

ramblinwreck: Makes sense. Her number one concern is keeping you down instead of elevating her son (who happens to be little you, who she probably despises).


She lied to the state about me being 2 years behind after her second husband left her. I won the appeal by simply showing the court the cashed checks she had received, yet they continue to fight for that money that was already paid. She actually had the gall to tell the mediator that the money I was sending her was not child support.

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Right. I was just making comment on what counts as 'child' nowadays.


Yeah, this is a farked up time to not be a custodial parent.
 
2013-02-16 08:55:58 PM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: libranoelrose: Flint Ironstag: eighteen years of payment

haha, try 23

26, once we include healthcare premiums.


Which is farked up. You become an adult when you're 18.  No parent should be mandated to pay support for an able-bodied, reasonably intelligent adult.

If the parents hadn't separated or divorced, they wouldn't be required to pay college tuition, for example.  Why must divorced parents have to pay?
 
2013-02-16 08:56:30 PM

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.
 
2013-02-16 08:59:20 PM

libranoelrose: ramblinwreck: Makes sense. Her number one concern is keeping you down instead of elevating her son (who happens to be little you, who she probably despises).

She lied to the state about me being 2 years behind after her second husband left her. I won the appeal by simply showing the court the cashed checks she had received, yet they continue to fight for that money that was already paid. She actually had the gall to tell the mediator that the money I was sending her was not child support.

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Right. I was just making comment on what counts as 'child' nowadays.

Yeah, this is a farked up time to not be a custodial parent.


Jeebus, that's farked up. She probably GENUINELY thinks she's entitled to it, too. Why? Because female reasons.
 
2013-02-16 09:00:00 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: BarkingUnicorn: What's the court say about that?

The court says the less time you spend with your child the more you pay. It isn't worth my lawyers fees to adjust payments for someone who is unemployed and technically homeless. But that goes back to the whole states 'equal time' bologna.


Well, yeah, if she's chronically unemployed then her payment would be some minimum set by State law.  No sense in you paying to get it adjusted if it can only go down.  She does have to pay it, but few CSE units will get serious about arrearages before they hit $5K.

One of these days, it will be worth going after mom.  Probably when the child needs it most.  Keep good records, be patient and vigilant.  Try not to lose track of mom.
 
2013-02-16 09:03:04 PM
"We kept doing "audits" and lowering the amount, each time, but he ain't going for it."

"Sh*t.  Well, we got to get SOMETHING out of this motherf*cker.  I mean, he has testicles, so he gots to pay."

"Damn straight.  I got an over due Verizon bill and I need a night out.  I mean, it's not like we have to give it the mother."

"Next time he's here, just tell him to put whatever is in his wallet on your desk, and write him a receipt on a napkin."
 
2013-02-16 09:03:25 PM

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.
 
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'!!
 
2013-02-16 11:15:53 PM

Karac: 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.


In well over half of child support cases, the mother never sees a dime of the money. It's all supposed to go to reimburse the state for welfare and medicaid received by the child, but in many cases a collection agency just keeps most of it in "administrative surcharges".
 
2013-02-16 11:17:12 PM

FizixJunkee: 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.

Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.


Must have been something you weren't told then. My ex put my 4 year old in the emergency room 5 times through neglect in two years.

She physically and psychologically neglected him and let him get sexually abused by his 10 year old half brother. I got a forensic doctor to do a full exam of everything and write a report.

That's what it took to get a court date (next month) to challenge her having half custody. It really is that hard for a man to get custody, even when the child is being neglected and abused.
 
2013-02-16 11:20:30 PM

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


What is this "actual logic"?
 
2013-02-16 11:20:40 PM

onyxruby: FizixJunkee: 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.

Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.

Must have been something you weren't told then. My ex put my 4 year old in the emergency room 5 times through neglect in two years.

She physically and psychologically neglected him and let him get sexually abused by his 10 year old half brother. I got a forensic doctor to do a full exam of everything and write a report.

That's what it took to get a court date (next month) to challenge her having half custody. It really is that hard for a man to get custody, even when the child is being neglected and abused.


Women involved with divorce hate sons.  They remind them on the kid's father.  Of course the state ignores this.  I'm sorry for your kid's plight.  I really wish our society valued equality...your son is paying the price.
 
2013-02-16 11:25:11 PM

Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex


But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.
 
2013-02-16 11:26:11 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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.


No, I get all that I'm just saying that this is exactly the type of issue that makes professional misogynists like Lykos a lot of money.

He totes owes the money for his own kid, obviously, but how that kid came into being does matter.

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.

She sued him successfully for child support and now he's suing her for being a lying, calculating, deal-breaking, cold-hearted, sperm thief.

I don't really see what your point was there.
 
2013-02-16 11:31:13 PM

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

Scanning article.

Evidence of fraud not found.


It's here: Michael's mother declined to comment on the story.

The courts will err 100% of the time on child support payments, because sadly there are far more people anxious to avoid paying child support than there are people who want to do the right thing. So I suspect what happened here is, when dad asked for an audit, said audit consisted of them calling mom up and saying "Is there still Younger Son living there?" --Oh yes!-- said mom who wants the extra money and to stick it to her ex. Because why would a woman lie about her child being dead, right?

Now, to be fair, why dad waited for so many years to wonder why he was still paying support on a dead kid shows he wasn't exactly involved in his children's lives, so it's hard to feel too sorry for him. But he's partially paying for all those other deadbeat parents who just refuse to pay for their kids and so we have this system that assumes all parents paying support are evil slackers who wouldn't pay a dime if they weren't forced into it. And mom shares in the blame because she should have reported immediately that a) the child was dead and b) that her support payments were too high year after year, which she did not.

Really, everyone in this story is at fault here.
 
2013-02-16 11:33:32 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.


And what about the flip side? A man in your hypothetical would only have to file some paperwork (or pay for the abortion) to absolve himself of responsibility whereas the woman has to get an abortion or keep the child. Putting aside the emotional impact and social stigma of getting an abortion, there are plenty of states where the GOP has made it very difficult to get an abortion. What are those women to do? Paperwork vs. abortion aren't equal choices.
 
2013-02-16 11:34:03 PM

ramblinwreck: Women involved with divorce hate sons.  They remind them on the kid's father.  Of course the state ignores this.  I'm sorry for your kid's plight.  I really wish our society valued equality...your son is paying the price.


Sons must pay for the sins of their fathers.
 
2013-02-16 11:38:09 PM

onyxruby: FizixJunkee: 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.

Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.

Must have been something you weren't told then. My ex put my 4 year old in the emergency room 5 times through neglect in two years.

She physically and psychologically neglected him and let him get sexually abused by his 10 year old half brother. I got a forensic doctor to do a full exam of everything and write a report.

That's what it took to get a court date (next month) to challenge her having half custody. It really is that hard for a man to get custody, even when the child is being neglected and abused.


Good luck to you and your son.  I hope the best for both of you.  I don't even know what else to say...  :(
 
2013-02-16 11:40:11 PM

quatchi: 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


Wow. I'd better watch who I fling my semen on in Walmart from now on.
 
2013-02-16 11:40:57 PM
Clearly the solution is that after every divorce children should be equal split if possible, or turned over to the government (mandatory for single children) for raising with each parent contributing equal contribution to the state for raising the child, or death.  That way everyone is happy.
 
2013-02-16 11:43:30 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.


There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.
 
2013-02-16 11:44:55 PM

Maggie_Luna: Clearly the solution is that after every divorce children should be equal split if possible, or turned over to the government (mandatory for single children) for raising with each parent contributing equal contribution to the state for raising the child, or death.  That way everyone is happy.


Yeah, I'm sure the government raising children will work out just fine.  Broken system and broken relationships = very broken.  So sad in so many ways...damn, I must need another beer because I'm way too maudlin for a Saturday night.  Sigh...
 
2013-02-16 11:48:32 PM

ramblinwreck: 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 kid ...


In my case, my ex made false charges of child abuse to gain an advantage in the divorce.  I wasn't allowed to see my kids for many months and child support is set based on how much each parent has  the kids. And it isn't like she is some welfare queen.  She has a PhD and at the time was making about 90% of what I was. The only thing that saved me from bankruptcy was credit cards and my parents flipping me some money.

The goal of Family Court is to fark up families as much as possible so they get stuck in the system and bring more business to the court.  Fortunately for me, my ex has gotten tired of dealing with them, and has been mostly sane the last few years.
 
2013-02-16 11:49:46 PM

GAT_00: 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.

I may be going with common sense here, but it's child support, not a set payment to the mother every month until the child is 18 regardless of the state of the child.  In other words, it is to support the child.  If there is no child, there should be no support.


If the dad wasn't clear on whether he was paying child support for one or two children in any given month, it also may not have been clear to the mother... I mean, if he pays the state, then the state pays her, it's not at all clear that they would enumerate for what she was receiving payment with each check, especially given the clusterfark of audits. Frankly, it's not evident there's ill will on anyones part, just massive incompetence by the middle men.
 
2013-02-16 11:53:06 PM

Gyrfalcon: Really, everyone in this story is at fault here.


Agreed. Hero tag gets the night off on this one.
 
2013-02-17 12:01:23 AM
It's Wayne County FOC, which of course, is not exactly competency-central, as any of you who have ever lived in Michigan are painfully aware.  (Rolls eyes.)

Best thing to do if you're contemplating a divorce is to try to work things out with a mediator, and ask to opt out of the FOC entirely, if you feel comfortable doing so.  Of course, that takes a lot of trust on both the part of both sides, but if you can do it, so much the better.  My ex & I did that, and so far, has worked out well for us.  He pays early or on time, no one has to worry about delays or direct deposit hassles, and we don't have to deal with the FOC & its useless staff.

CSS time:  When I was a teenager, my dad had issues with the FOC in our home county up north "losing" his payments that he sent from his job in Detroit.  So, while I was visiting for Xmas break, we stopped off at my grandparents' house to collect his cancelled checks from the local bank, and grandpa reminded my dad that he had a handgun that he should remember to take back with him.  He threw it all in his briefcase, and we went to the courthouse.  The staff were in the middle of their Christmas party, and the guy who ran the office came to talk to us, while eating out of a huge bag of Doritos.  My dad explained what the problem was, and that they needed to fix it.  The guy was like, "no YOU'RE the one who's wrong."  So, my dad got pissed, and opened up his briefcase to take out his stack of cancelled checks.  Lying on top of the checks was his gun--he'd completely forgot about it being in there, and I'd forgotten to remind him to take it out, like he asked me to (oops.)  The FOC guy's eyes bugged out of his head & he dropped his Doritos.  He just stammered and said something like , "OK, no, we'll fix that for you...just go ahead and leave, and we'll take care of that before the end of the day."  So, my dad closed up his case & we walked out of there.  We got out into the hallway, looked at each other, and just busted out laughing.  Ah, the good old days...
 
2013-02-17 12:02:17 AM

Baryogenesis: And what about the flip side? A man in your hypothetical would only have to file some paperwork (or pay for the abortion) to absolve himself of responsibility whereas the woman has to get an abortion or keep the child. Putting aside the emotional impact and social stigma of getting an abortion, there are plenty of states where the GOP has made it very difficult to get an abortion. What are those women to do? Paperwork vs. abortion aren't equal choices.


Well, if we're talking ideal worlds, the GOP wouldn't exist, and abortion would be widely available and less stigmatized. You're also thinking about these as unintentional pregnancies. They're not. They are very, very intentional pregnancies on the part of the women. Remove the financial incentive entirely, and they simply won't exist, making the question of abortion moot.

And no, paperwork and abortion aren't equal choices, but that's not the choice. The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money. So my solution removes any element of reward from the equation, so the women's choice is now, do I have the abortion, or do I have the kid? When suddenly having to face the possibility of bearing the price tag on that kid for 20 years, they would chose to have the abortion. But right now, that burden is placed mostly, if not entirely, on somebody who's not a part of that decision. So, as a simple and obvious economic decision, the burden placed on the man, with child support payments, is much greater than the burden placed on the women in ending the pregnancy (doesn't have to be an abortion). When one person, being faced with the full range of incentives and disincentives on both sides, is forced to pick between the two different burdens, is it any shock that the vast majority choose to terminate the pregnancy?

Right now, the women is the only one with any power to make the choice, and her choices are between status quo or (to her) free money. The burdens of having an abortion versus filing some paperwork are indeed not equal, but the burdens of having an abortion versus 20 years of child support payments are vastly unequal too.
 
2013-02-17 12:07:11 AM
I actually have the bank mail a paper check to "Ex-Mrs. Meerlar or Meerlar's seed" not direct deposit into her bank account (courts are still not involved at this point)... that way when he's old enough to know what's going on he can start stealing them from the mail and cashing them himself.
 
2013-02-17 12:15:09 AM

Meerlar: I actually have the bank mail a paper check to "Ex-Mrs. Meerlar or Meerlar's seed" not direct deposit into her bank account (courts are still not involved at this point)... that way when he's old enough to know what's going on he can start stealing them from the mail and cashing them himself.


The court will be involved immediately after that happens the first time.
 
2013-02-17 12:16:14 AM

The Larch: Karac: 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.

In well over half of child support cases, the mother never sees a dime of the money. It's all supposed to go to reimburse the state for welfare and medicaid received by the child, but in many cases a collection agency just keeps most of it in "administrative surcharges".


and this is why we have the right to own guns.
 
2013-02-17 12:16:19 AM

onyxruby: FizixJunkee: 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.

Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.

Must have been something you weren't told then. My ex put my 4 year old in the emergency room 5 times through neglect in two years.

She physically and psychologically neglected him and let him get sexually abused by his 10 year old half brother. I got a forensic doctor to do a full exam of everything and write a report.

That's what it took to get a court date (next month) to challenge her having half custody. It really is that hard for a man to get custody, even when the child is being neglected and abused.



I found out later that my father threatened to kill my mother if she contested his request to get full custody, and it worked.  She never showed up in court.

He was violent towards the women in his life though not us kids (all daughters).  Oddly enough, he was great to us.
 
2013-02-17 12:21:21 AM

Popular Opinion: The Larch: Karac: 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.

In well over half of child support cases, the mother never sees a dime of the money. It's all supposed to go to reimburse the state for welfare and medicaid received by the child, but in many cases a collection agency just keeps most of it in "administrative surcharges".

and this is why we have the right to own guns.


Silly teahadist.  Revolutions make bureaucrats stronger, not weaker.
 
2013-02-17 12:37:58 AM

Flint Ironstag: 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.

To make the situation fair when a woman finds she is pregnant the father should have equal say. If he does not want to be a father but she wants to keep the child then he doesn't have to pay any support ever. The woman has a choice, keep the child and pay the bills or give the child up. If the father agrees to keep the child and they later split up he has to pay.


That's wtf condoms (that he supplies) and bleach are for.

I ALWAYS advise my male friends not to let her supply the condom. biatches be farking crazy about trapping you guys. But that solution? "Oh gee! I don't wanna be a baby daddy, so I don't have to pay for it!" Bullshiat. That's about as responsible as the dumb biatch who calls at midnight-oh-one wanting to know where the support check is because she won't get off her ass and get a job to take care of the kid she helped create.

Men are not a meal ticket. Women are not cum dumpsters. Both sides take some farking responsibility.

/didn't want kids, so took every possible precaution--it's not that damn hard to make sure you don't get pregnant
//wasn't at all sad when it became medically necessary at 32 to make it medically impossible for me to ever give birth
///world's overpopulated anyway
 
2013-02-17 12:48:37 AM

Karac: 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.


Ah, but I have a penis.

See... this is where we get into the whole "Child Support/Custody Needs Reform" area. Within the divorce decree I still have my parental rights (never signed them away) AND a set amount of time to have my child. I am supposed to have her around 30% of the time (alternating holidays, my birthday, summers, etc) as well as be able to talk to her at least once, although strongly suggested for twice or more, a week via phone; uninterrupted and unmonitored by anybody else for at least one hour.

My ex has my number. She has my address. She knows where I work. She doesn't care, plain and simple... and neither do the courts. My ex has broken the decree, put in place by a judge, but nobody wants to do anything about it. She broke the law by not following the decree and I get a big "meh". Every person, even the nice DA I deal with on the support/healthcare decree issues, tells me "get a lawyer".

My response is "With what money? You're taking half of everything I make."

Yet every time my seasonal layoff comes around? Local DA starts hounding me on paying even though I'm being brought back a scant time later and my unemployment pays 80% towards support. I  better pay, I  better find another job or they'll take my license that I need to get to work. They'd take my passport so I can't go out of country even if there were work in Canada. They'll remove any licensing that any certifications I have require. They'll report arrears to my credit report so I can't get a line of credit to afford an attorney. My job requires that I be either current or making arranged payments for any debts including taxes and garnishments or I will be terminated, yet that isn't good enough even though I remain employed.

ANYTHING to make it actually harder to pay and I'm not the only one as this happens to more and more people who want to pay but, and especially in the current economic client, find it hard to do because getting a job isn't the easiest thing in the world right now. The fact that they will take away so many of the things you vitally need to get or keep a job is just wrong.

I have one job that I continue to go to while taking home half of my pay because, even though I know different, I hope the other half is going to my child for her happiness. THAT sustains me.
 
2013-02-17 12:51:45 AM
Well a black man that finally pays make up for the thousands that never do, so fark him pay up.
 
2013-02-17 12:52:45 AM

Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.


That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.
 
2013-02-17 12:55:50 AM

Karac: 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.


Agreed. No address, no support. Should be federally mandated unless the support-paying, non-custodial parent is a pedophile. I've known far too many fathers who are court-ordered to pay support, but who are prevented from seeing or even knowing where their kids are because the mothers just run off. Keep the father from seeing the kid? You get no support. Why this is not law at the federal level is something I literally cannot fathom.
 
2013-02-17 01:01:35 AM
There's one explanation.

Guy is insanely stupid.
 
2013-02-17 01:09:43 AM

Aigoo: Karac: 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.

Agreed. No address, no support. Should be federally mandated unless the support-paying, non-custodial parent is a pedophile. I've known far too many fathers who are court-ordered to pay support, but who are prevented from seeing or even knowing where their kids are because the mothers just run off. Keep the father from seeing the kid? You get no support. Why this is not law at the federal level is something I literally cannot fathom.


It seems so... logical, doesn't it? And it works for both sides of the spectrum, male or female. Unless there are extenuating circumstances such as your mentioned pedophilia or drug abuse or something like that, then the inclusion of both parents should be mandatory for a support order.
 
2013-02-17 01:10:08 AM

jmr61: There's one explanation.

Guy is insanely stupid.


For paying court ordered child support?
 
2013-02-17 01:13:55 AM

The Larch: Popular Opinion: and this is why we have the right to own guns.

Silly teahadist.  Revolutions make bureaucrats stronger, not weaker.


if the government cannot protect us, we must assist them in this endeavor.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security "
 
2013-02-17 01:14:08 AM

cptjeff: Baryogenesis: And what about the flip side? A man in your hypothetical would only have to file some paperwork (or pay for the abortion) to absolve himself of responsibility whereas the woman has to get an abortion or keep the child. Putting aside the emotional impact and social stigma of getting an abortion, there are plenty of states where the GOP has made it very difficult to get an abortion. What are those women to do? Paperwork vs. abortion aren't equal choices.

Well, if we're talking ideal worlds, the GOP wouldn't exist, and abortion would be widely available and less stigmatized. You're also thinking about these as unintentional pregnancies. They're not. They are very, very intentional pregnancies on the part of the women. Remove the financial incentive entirely, and they simply won't exist, making the question of abortion moot.

And no, paperwork and abortion aren't equal choices, but that's not the choice. The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money. So my solution removes any element of reward from the equation, so the women's choice is now, do I have the abortion, or do I have the kid? When suddenly having to face the possibility of bearing the price tag on that kid for 20 years, they would chose to have the abortion. But right now, that burden is placed mostly, if not entirely, on somebody who's not a part of that decision. So, as a simple and obvious economic decision, the burden placed on the man, with child support payments, is much greater than the burden placed on the women in ending the pregnancy (doesn't have to be an abortion). When one person, being faced with the full range of incentives and disincentives on both sides, is forced to pick between the two different burdens, is it any shock that the vast majority choose to terminate the pregnancy?

Right now, the women is the only one with any power to make the choice, and her choices are between status quo or (to her) free money. The burdens of having an abortion versus filing some paperwork are indeed not equal, but the burdens of having an abortion versus 20 years of child support payments are vastly unequal too.


As opposed to men farking anything that moves and knowing the only consequence would be paperwork? You seem to be laboring under the delusion that only women abuse the system.
We can talk incentives. The current system has disincentives for both men and women. Women can get an abortion, carry to term and give the baby up for adoption or keep the baby and bear the cost of raising it which can be supplemented by child support from the man. Men only have one disincentive, the cost of paying child support for 18 years.

Your bright idea is to eliminate that one disincentive for men to not create unwanted children because some percentage (can you give me a number?) of women will try to trap men with a baby.

Heck, even with the high cost of paying for a child there are still plenty of men who are too dumb/horny/naive to wrap it up or just not fark women they don't trust. And you want to give them a pass to essentially never care about creating a child they don't want to raise.

So yes, women retain the choice after sex to keep or not keep the child because they bear a much greater responsibility than men.

The solution to women trapping men with babies isn't to absolve men of their responsibility. May I suggest condoms, vasectomies and common sense?
 
2013-02-17 01:26:57 AM

libranoelrose: jmr61: There's one explanation.

Guy is insanely stupid.

For paying court ordered child support?


For not noticing he was still paying 25 years later?

Oh, and for all you all making this into some big power play between the man and the woman (Which one is responsible? Who is playing who?) that is exactly the reason the courts have to be so draconian about the child support issue. Because in between the man who doesn't want to pay and the woman who doesn't want to work, there is a CHILD who isn't getting taken care of. While the man whines that "she tricked me!" and the woman biatches that "he lied to me!" neither one of them is taking care of the kid they produced between the two of them. So the court has to do it.

Of course, a better solution would be to put the money into an unbreakable trust in the child's name so dad pays the money straight to the child, and a court-appointed trustee buys everything the kid needs and mom never sees or touches a dime of it; that would cost money and require some degree of faith in the system which I know nobody on Fark has; but it might prevent deadbeat parents from claiming they don't pay because their ex-spouse is just taking all the money for him/herself. And then the trustee could sue the deadbeat on the child's behalf and deadbeat couldn't claim it was just the spouse trying to get even with him/her for some unrelated cause.

And if the father doesn't want to take responsibility for the child he fathered, there's actually a fairly easy way to do it: He can go to court immediately after its born and legally relinquish his parental rights. Then he doesn't have to pay for it. Of course, then he can't complain about anything mom does later that affects "his" kid, but that's the way it works.
 
2013-02-17 01:38:33 AM

Baryogenesis: The solution to women trapping men with babies isn't to absolve men of their responsibility. May I suggest condoms, vasectomies and common sense?


Condoms: women poke holes in them pretty often. When a women wants to trap you with a baby, they're no obstacle.
Vasectomies: yeah, try selling that to a young guy who might actually want to have kids someday, just in a real relationship.

Your solutions aren't solutions. They're not even close to real ideas. Try again. As long as the economic incentive exists, it will happen. You could try to reform the law so that if it is found to a form of a women trying to trap a man, the women doesn't get child support. I'd be in favor of that, but it would involve the inefficiency and cost of involving the court system with every dispute.


Baryogenesis: As opposed to men farking anything that moves and knowing the only consequence would be paperwork?


It takes two to decide to fark. The women is perfectly free to refuse to have sex if the birth control bases aren't covered, and guys try to fark everything that moves anyway. If the women doesn't want the pregnancy, she usually finds a way to get rid of it or prevent it. If the women does want the pregnancy, she usually finds a way to get it, regardless of what the man involved wants. The only time a man's judgement as to whether to fark somebody and whether or not to use birth control doesn't involve the women is in the case of rape, and there are plenty of strong disincentives for that.

A man cannot trap a women with a child that women does not want. Period, end of sentence. It literally cannot happen, at least in this country. If the women does not want the child, she has the power to get rid of it. There are sometimes disincentives in making that choice, but at least in this country, a women cannot be forced to carry a child to term, and even if she has the child, she is allowed to turn it over for adoption. A women can trap a man into a situation, but, outside of an abusive relationship, which wouldn't involve child support anyway, there is literally no way for a man to trap a women in one. Hence the concern with women trapping men- the opposing situation just doesn't exist.
 
2013-02-17 01:39:56 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.

That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.


No, that's exactly the part that matters. The woman carries the fetus so she gets to choose to keep it or not. It's unequal because biology is unequal. And since kids don't stop needing food, yeah, the next 18 years are already decided.

Personal responsibility you say? Like not farking random chicks bareback?
 
2013-02-17 01:43:40 AM

Gyrfalcon: Of course, a better solution would be to put the money into an unbreakable trust in the child's name so dad pays the money straight to the child


Over half of all child support debt isn't owed to children.   It's owed to the government.

Based on the article, it sounds like all of the money this guy was paying was going to "surcharges" for late fees, collection fees, interest, and anything else the collection agency could legally tack onto the bill before they sent anything left over to the state.  The child lost any claim to the child support payments when the mother started collecting welfare.
 
2013-02-17 01:45:14 AM

Baryogenesis: The woman carries the fetus so she gets to choose to keep it or not.


Nobody's contesting that. What people are contesting is what the consequences of that choice should entail, and for whom.
 
2013-02-17 01:46:05 AM

Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.

That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

No, that's exactly the part that matters. The woman carries the fetus so she gets to choose to keep it or not. It's unequal because biology is unequal. And since kids don't stop needing food, yeah, the next 18 years are already decided.

Personal responsibility you say? Like not farking random chicks bareback?


You're naiive or clueless if you think that women couldn't find ways around birth control methods. There is no male pill.
 
2013-02-17 01:51:40 AM

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

Scanning article.

Evidence of fraud not found.


Did she spend the money that showed up in her account and should not have?
Then it is fraud.

If you dont think so, try spending some of the 50,000 the bank accidently puts in your account.
 
2013-02-17 01:54:40 AM

Gyrfalcon: For not noticing he was still paying 25 years later?


He was under the impression that he was paying for his other child.
 
2013-02-17 01:55:09 AM

cptjeff: Baryogenesis: The solution to women trapping men with babies isn't to absolve men of their responsibility. May I suggest condoms, vasectomies and common sense?

Condoms: women poke holes in them pretty often. When a women wants to trap you with a baby, they're no obstacle.
Vasectomies: yeah, try selling that to a young guy who might actually want to have kids someday, just in a real relationship.

Your solutions aren't solutions. They're not even close to real ideas. Try again. As long as the economic incentive exists, it will happen. You could try to reform the law so that if it is found to a form of a women trying to trap a man, the women doesn't get child support. I'd be in favor of that, but it would involve the inefficiency and cost of involving the court system with every dispute.


Baryogenesis: As opposed to men farking anything that moves and knowing the only consequence would be paperwork?

It takes two to decide to fark. The women is perfectly free to refuse to have sex if the birth control bases aren't covered, and guys try to fark everything that moves anyway. If the women doesn't want the pregnancy, she usually finds a way to get rid of it or prevent it. If the women does want the pregnancy, she usually finds a way to get it, regardless of what the man involved wants. The only time a man's judgement as to whether to fark somebody and whether or not to use birth control doesn't involve the women is in the case of rape, and there are plenty of strong disincentives for that.

A man cannot trap a women with a child that women does not want. Period, end of sentence. It literally cannot happen, at least in this country. If the women does not want the child, she has the power to get rid of it. There are sometimes disincentives in making that choice, but at least in this country, a women cannot be forced to carry a child to term, and even if she has the child, she is allowed to turn it over for adoption. A women can trap a man into a situation, but, outside of an abusive relationship, which wouldn't involve child support anyway, there is literally no way for a man to trap a women in one. Hence the concern with women trapping men- the opposing situation just doesn't exist.


I guess in your world there is no possible way for a man not to be trapped by these devil women. Those poor helpless men who can't buy their own condoms, choose not to fark women they don't trust or get a vasectomy.

I notice you still haven't addressed the glaring hole in your solution. You've now completely disincentivized men from caring about unwanted pregnancies. You don't think THAT would be a huge problem. Or is it just not a big deal because abortions are so simple and easy?

Wrap it up and don't fark women you don't trust. Problem solved.
 
2013-02-17 02:02:42 AM

Baryogenesis: men from caring about unwanted pregnancies


In the situations that have been presented men are the only ones who care about pregnancies and have no choice in what happens after them. I'm not saying guys who foolishly trusted a girl wasn't trolling for a baby daddy isn't supposed to take ownership of his oops, but if a guy had an out from an unwanted baby like a woman does, baby daddy trolling would go away.
 
2013-02-17 02:05:00 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: men from caring about unwanted pregnancies

In the situations that have been presented men are the only ones who care about pregnancies and have no choice in what happens after them. I'm not saying guys who foolishly trusted a girl wasn't trolling for a baby daddy isn't supposed to take ownership of his oops, but if a guy had an out from an unwanted baby like a woman does, baby daddy trolling would go away.


Hey don't worry. Bary will just tell you to spend up to 2 grand to get a possibly irreversible surgery to ensure that never happens to you.
 
2013-02-17 02:05:13 AM

redmid17: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.

That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

No, that's exactly the part that matters. The woman carries the fetus so she gets to choose to keep it or not. It's unequal because biology is unequal. And since kids don't stop needing food, yeah, the next 18 years are already decided.

Personal responsibility you say? Like not farking random chicks bareback?

You're naiive or clueless if you think that women couldn't find ways around birth control methods. There is no male pill.


If you're that worried then you need to
A) not fark the girl
B) take steps to ensure she can't circumvent your protection by disposing of it yourself
C) get snipped
D) stop pretending you're powerless to avoid her trapping you
 
2013-02-17 02:10:23 AM

Baryogenesis: If you're that worried then you need to
A) not fark the girl
B) take steps to ensure she can't circumvent your protection by disposing of it yourself
C) get snipped
D) stop pretending you're powerless to avoid her trapping you


I have to know; are you pro-life or pro-choice?
 
2013-02-17 02:10:28 AM

Baryogenesis: redmid17: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.

That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

No, that's exactly the part that matters. The woman carries the fetus so she gets to choose to keep it or not. It's unequal because biology is unequal. And since kids don't stop needing food, yeah, the next 18 years are already decided.

Personal responsibility you say? Like not farking random chicks bareback?

You're naiive or clueless if you think that women couldn't find ways around birth control methods. There is no male pill.

If you're that worried then you need to
A) not fark the girl
B) take steps to ensure she can't circumvent your protection by disposing of it yourself
C) get snipped
D) stop pretending you're powerless to avoid her trapping you


I'm not that worried. I have a girlfriend who isn't crazy. I just think you're an idiot for thinking that men should shoulder most of the responsibility for something that, at best, they are only 50% responsible for.
 
2013-02-17 02:11:58 AM

Baryogenesis: I notice you still haven't addressed the glaring hole in your solution. You've now completely disincentivized men from caring about unwanted pregnancies. You don't think THAT would be a huge problem. Or is it just not a big deal because abortions are so simple and easy?


Morning after pill is over the counter. Women have many more birth control options than men do, and can insist on men wearing condoms. Make men pay for the morning after pill or the abortion. Just have the clinic and the debt collection agencies have at if he doesn't want to pay.

The women always hast the power to stop or avoid an unwanted pregnancy, for the cost of $50 for a pill or a day at a clinic, which, under my system, she wouldn't ever have to pay. She also has access to a number of convenient and reversible birth control systems that men don't have access to.

The current system works fine with the presumption that an unintended pregnancy will result in birth and that women have no say in whether men use birth control or not. It was set up at a time when both of those things were more or less true. Now, neither of those things are true.
 
2013-02-17 02:13:58 AM

cptjeff: Baryogenesis: . The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money.


While some of these moms never work a day in their lives, I have a very hard time believing that most of them don't contribute a single penny to their children's expenses given that these kids actually live with them.   In fact, it seems unlikely that the non-custodial parent pays 100% of the cost of a child's upbringing.
 
2013-02-17 02:20:43 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: men from caring about unwanted pregnancies

In the situations that have been presented men are the only ones who care about pregnancies and have no choice in what happens after them. I'm not saying guys who foolishly trusted a girl wasn't trolling for a baby daddy isn't supposed to take ownership of his oops, but if a guy had an out from an unwanted baby like a woman does, baby daddy trolling would go away.


Except the out for the man means they can now fark and run, so to speak. There's no reason to avoid creating unwanted children which is bad.
 
2013-02-17 02:23:38 AM

FizixJunkee: cptjeff: Baryogenesis: . The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money.

While some of these moms never work a day in their lives, I have a very hard time believing that most of them don't contribute a single penny to their children's expenses given that these kids actually live with them.   In fact, it seems unlikely that the non-custodial parent pays 100% of the cost of a child's upbringing.


It happens, but mainly on the extremes- women getting money from pro athletes, for example. With child support often calculated as a percentage of income, if you get somebody with a high enough income, it certainly can and does happen.
 
2013-02-17 02:27:01 AM

Baryogenesis: There's no reason to avoid creating unwanted children which is bad.


So the women, who has a far greater level of control over whether an unwanted child is created or winds up coming out, bears no responsibility on that point?
 
2013-02-17 02:27:51 AM

redmid17: Baryogenesis: redmid17: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.

That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

No, that's exactly the part that matters. The woman carries the fetus so she gets to choose to keep it or not. It's unequal because biology is unequal. And since kids don't stop needing food, yeah, the next 18 years are already decided.

Personal responsibility you say? Like not farking random chicks bareback?

You're naiive or clueless if you think that women couldn't find ways around birth control methods. There is no male pill.

If you're that worried then you need to
A) not fark the girl
B) take steps to ensure she can't circumvent your protection by disposing of it yourself
C) get snipped
D) stop pretending you're powerless to avoid her trapping you

I'm not that worried. I have a girlfriend who isn't crazy. I just think you're an idiot for thinking that men should shoulder most of the responsibility for something that, at best, they are only 50% responsible for.


I apologize for that if that seems snarky, but this is pretty slanted toward one side in a way that cannot even be debated.

Men and women can both not sleep with people they do not trust. That is equal.

Men have one tool that is 99% effective against pregnancy. Women have at least three, and they have a backup option the man has no control over that is just as if not more effective.

Of course both sexes can use a condom, but those are much less effective.

To pretend that men and women are equal in the matter of preventing pregnancies is a complete folly and anyone who thinks they are even close is a fool. This is even before one touches on the rampant inadequacies with the child support system.
 
2013-02-17 02:29:41 AM

cptjeff: FizixJunkee: cptjeff: Baryogenesis: . The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money.

While some of these moms never work a day in their lives, I have a very hard time believing that most of them don't contribute a single penny to their children's expenses given that these kids actually live with them.   In fact, it seems unlikely that the non-custodial parent pays 100% of the cost of a child's upbringing.

It happens, but mainly on the extremes- women getting money from pro athletes, for example. With child support often calculated as a percentage of income, if you get somebody with a high enough income, it certainly can and does happen.



So you're saying a negligibly small fraction of mothers who aren't a representative sample?
 
2013-02-17 02:38:42 AM

FizixJunkee: cptjeff: FizixJunkee: cptjeff: Baryogenesis: . The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money.

While some of these moms never work a day in their lives, I have a very hard time believing that most of them don't contribute a single penny to their children's expenses given that these kids actually live with them.   In fact, it seems unlikely that the non-custodial parent pays 100% of the cost of a child's upbringing.

It happens, but mainly on the extremes- women getting money from pro athletes, for example. With child support often calculated as a percentage of income, if you get somebody with a high enough income, it certainly can and does happen.


So you're saying a negligibly small fraction of mothers who aren't a representative sample?


I feel like you do not know what the words "for example" mean.
 
2013-02-17 02:46:56 AM
Typical Wayne County bullshiat. Things ran smoother when now Referee Schewe was running it, but it was still screwed up even then. Since Zennell Brown took over it just keeps getting worse. I've had three cases I've had to do audits on because they erroneously charged past spousal support dates or charged for adult children. Trying to get the referees to admit that FOC made a mistake is no easy task either. Oh well. It's these clowns that keep me in a job.
 
2013-02-17 03:04:54 AM

FizixJunkee: onyxruby: FizixJunkee: 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.

Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.

Must have been something you weren't told then. My ex put my 4 year old in the emergency room 5 times through neglect in two years.

She physically and psychologically neglected him and let him get sexually abused by his 10 year old half brother. I got a forensic doctor to do a full exam of everything and write a report.

That's what it took to get a court date (next month) to challenge her having half custody. It really is that hard for a man to get custody, even when the child is being neglected and abused.


I found out later that my father threatened to kill my mother if she contested his request to get full custody, and it worked.  She never showed up in court.

He was violent towards the women in his life though not us kids (all daughters).  Oddly enough, he was great to us.


My ex tried claiming battered wife as a divorce tactic. That is until we got into the court room where she knew I could provide proof she was the violent one.

The police from multiple agencies saw right through her and refused to bother me (911 calls are recorded etc, witnesses, recorded encounters etc). In fact they advised me to record every interaction with my ex for my own protection.

As I said my ex was violent towards me. The day we separated was the day she slammed her older kid into the concrete floor. Violent people can't control themselves like your 'oddly enough' suggestion.

In other words, if your sisters and yourself never saw violent behavior then there probably wasn't any violent behavior from your father to see. You were probably simply told stories to slander him.
 
2013-02-17 03:10:27 AM

spidermann: Karac: 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.

Ah, but I have a penis.

See... this is where we get into the whole "Child Support/Custody Needs Reform" area. Within the divorce decree I still have my parental rights (never signed them away) AND a set amount of time to have my child. I am supposed to have her around 30% of the time (alternating holidays, my birthday, summers, etc) as well as be able to talk to her at least once, although strongly suggested for twice or more, a week via phone; uninterrupted and unmonitored by anybody else for at least one hour.

My ex has my number. She has my address. She knows where I work. She doesn't care, plain and simple... and neither do the courts. My ex has broken the decree, put in place by a judge, but nobody wants to do anything about it. She broke the law by not following the decree and I get a big "meh". Every person, even the nice DA I deal with on the support/healthcare decree issues, tells me "get a lawyer".

My response is "With what money? You're taking half of everything I make."

Yet every time my seasonal layoff comes around? Local DA starts hounding me on paying even though I'm being brought back a scant time later and my unemployment pays 80% towards support. I  better pay, I  better find another job or they'll take my license that I need to get to work. They'd take my passport so I can't go out of country even if there were work in Canada. They'll remove any licensing that any certifications I ...


Wait.  You actually have a court ruling that you're supposed to have partial custody?  I would assume that the ex taking off with the kid in violation of that would be some kind of felony.  Parential something-or-other title that I can't remember, if not outright kidnapping.  For shiats'n'giggles you may want to head over to the nearest FBI office some day off.  After all, if she's getting the money into her bank account it shouldn't be too hard for them to find her current address.

Maybe you get lucky and find some nice agent who's pissed about his divorce and lack of seeing his own kids and will be willing to listen.  You never know, even if he can't arrest her,  maybe he slips you the address or agrees to call her himself and let her know she's breaking the law.
 
2013-02-17 03:15:45 AM
I feel like I'm lucky sometimes when I read a lot of these stories only because I know what it feels like to be a non custodial parent with a bat shiat crazy ex.  She went full retard when it came to abusing the child support system.  Caught abusing TANF (got thousands back from that; her, nothing).   I had a good lawyer.  Mom got custody, and a little bit of gold she dug, BUT

..got my boy back almost 40 percent after she almost disappeared with him
..she can't move more than 60 miles without going back to court
..got about a third of what she asked for
..has to tell me wherever she moves in town, as well as any job info.  This part is great because she's a shatty waitress, and should she ever apply the degree her poor dad paid for bye bye goes her meal ticket.  I win either way seeing I love my job, and my kid is insured thanks to me.
..the list goes on and on....it's like a crazy biatch insurance policy

I was lucky that I was in Oregon.  Whooped her ass in court 4/5 times.  Only one I consider losing was the custody battle.......but even my lawyer told me that never would have happened.....

Long story short....keep records of EVERYTHING, and never try to represent yourself if male
 
2013-02-17 03:23:19 AM
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.


But as the legal guardian, isn't she responsible for notifying the agency of the death of the child?
They said they had no record of it until HE provided the death certificate. Clearly, the state didn't forward the certificate to them, so where exactly were they supposed to get it from if not her?

Or is it his responsibility too? Just like everything else?
If everything is the responsibility of the male involved, that makes us de facto the more important gender... a statement I disagree with, mind, but... sexism is sexism, even if it benefits women.

I've seen cases where a woman in a supposedly casual relationship wanted a child, knew her significant other didn't, and rather than work this out with him, went off her birth control without telling him... got pregnant... he felt betrayed, and left her. Court ruled he still owed child support.
But if it's her body, her choice, isn't it also her responsibility?

 EDIT: That the system is set up the way it is (re: Welfare to the parents, Child Support to the state to reimburse or outsourced firm for profit) is absurd to me, and only makes the problem worse on all fronts.
I've yet to father anyone, but hope to... and plan on doing right by them.
This... makes me sick to my stomach despite my confidence in never needing to cross such a system. I've heard of too many cases of accidental fathers being screwed over to the effect of most or all of their pay (with multiple jobs no less) to understand such a system.
As for the mothers in this: Since they're ultimately getting less than he's paying... why would they ever submit to it, when direct support is also an option? Why wouldn't the mother in this case comment- after all, she'd been cheated too.
 
2013-02-17 03:59:11 AM

cptjeff: Baryogenesis: There's no reason to avoid creating unwanted children which is bad.

So the women, who has a far greater level of control over whether an unwanted child is created or winds up coming out, bears no responsibility on that point?


Riiiight.  That's exactly what I said.  Of course she has a responsibility to engage in safe sex, but so does the man.  Your "solution" involves removing all responsibility from the man because apparently carrying a child to term, giving birth and raising the kid is a much smaller burden than paying $500/month (or 750 or what have you).  And apparently, abortions are no big deal in your world, roughly equivalent  to filling out some paperwork.

If you don't want to be a father then use protection and don't fark a girl you don't trust.

redmid17: Men and women can both not sleep with people they do not trust. That is equal.

Men have one tool that is 99% effective against pregnancy. Women have at least three, and they have a backup option the man has no control over that is just as if not more effective.

Of course both sexes can use a condom, but those are much less effective.

To pretend that men and women are equal in the matter of preventing pregnancies is a complete folly and anyone who thinks they are even close is a fool. This is even before one touches on the rampant inadequacies with the child support system.


The problem with demanding a 50-50 split in the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is that men and women aren't on equal terms when it comes to pregnancy.  You're never going to get an equal situation there.  And once that decision is made and the child is born both parties have to support that child.  The man can't just back out because he doesn't feel like raising or paying for the kid.


cptjeff: Baryogenesis: I notice you still haven't addressed the glaring hole in your solution. You've now completely disincentivized men from caring about unwanted pregnancies. You don't think THAT would be a huge problem. Or is it just not a big deal because abortions are so simple and easy?

Morning after pill is over the counter. Women have many more birth control options than men do, and can insist on men wearing condoms. Make men pay for the morning after pill or the abortion. Just have the clinic and the debt collection agencies have at if he doesn't want to pay.

The women always hast the power to stop or avoid an unwanted pregnancy, for the cost of $50 for a pill or a day at a clinic, which, under my system, she wouldn't ever have to pay. She also has access to a number of convenient and reversible birth control systems that men don't have access to.

The current system works fine with the presumption that an unintended pregnancy will result in birth and that women have no say in whether men use birth control or not. It was set up at a time when both of those things were more or less true. Now, neither of those things are true.


You didn't address men not caring about pregnancy in this solution of yours. Why should only the woman care?  You just complained because you thought I didn't care about a woman's role in birth control yet here you are essentially saying women have all the options so it should just be up to them.  Allowing men to skip out on their responsibility for creating a child isn't reasonable. And hey, if you're going to focus on this small subset of women who dupe men into child support then let's talk about men who would poke holes in condoms because they know they could just file some paper work to get off the hook.

 Men don't have to carry the baby to term and that is also an unequal situation.  You don't seem too concerned with that inequality.  Why is that?  Is it because women have so many ways of "shutting that whole thing down"?  Abortions are so quick and easy all over the U.S.!  And there's no emotional impact or social stigma whatsoever!  No one cares about your system or what the ideal world would look like.  Here in the real world there's nothing simple about getting an abortion.

What about accidental pregnancies instead of this small subset of "gotcha" pregnancies (do you have any statistics on how common those are or should we just stick with anecdotes)?  Does the man get to file some paperwork to get out of that or is it just when he's trapped by the woman?  How would a court know the difference?

What if a couple does everything right, but the condom breaks or the 1% failure rate kicks in?  Is the man absolved there too?  Do you see the problem with this "get out of jail free card" yet?


antidisestablishmentarianism: I have to know; are you pro-life or pro-choice?


I'd say it's pretty obvious if you've read my posts in the thread.  Of course, pro choice means that women have control over their own bodies.  No one ever phrases it as control over being a parent, but go ahead and give me a line about not allowing men a choice about being a father.  Guess what?  Limiting that choice has nothing to do with restricting a man's control over his body which is what pro choice is about with regard to women.

redmid17: antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: men from caring about unwanted pregnancies

In the situations that have been presented men are the only ones who care about pregnancies and have no choice in what happens after them. I'm not saying guys who foolishly trusted a girl wasn't trolling for a baby daddy isn't supposed to take ownership of his oops, but if a guy had an out from an unwanted baby like a woman does, baby daddy trolling would go away.

Hey don't worry. Bary will just tell you to spend up to 2 grand to get a possibly irreversible surgery to ensure that never happens to you.


What's the cost of 18 years of child support?

And I also said not sticking your dick in crazy is an option (free) and condoms are an option (free in many places, cheap to buy in others).
 
2013-02-17 04:06:46 AM

GAT_00: 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.


So, with great power comes ... no responsibility?

/Uncle Ben is spinning in his grave
 
2013-02-17 04:10:41 AM

redmid17: To pretend that men and women are equal in the matter of preventing pregnancies is a complete folly and anyone who thinks they are even close is a fool.


I'll expand on this point.  I'm not contending men and women are equal in their options for preventing pregnancy.  In fact, I've been saying the whole thread how biology makes men and women very unequal with regard to pregnancy.  Men don't have as many options for prevention, but they also don't have to deal with actually being pregnant, possibly getting an abortion, giving birth and, in some cases, they can walk away with no ramifications at all (1 night stands, ineffective enforcement of child support or just outright lying to the girl, e.g. fake name).

The situation isn't equal, but I'd rather have a system that makes both parents responsible for a child instead of just the mother.  And yes, divorce, custody and child support all need reforms, but the solution isn't just to give men a free pass to fark without being responsible for the child they helped create.
 
2013-02-17 04:12:30 AM

onyxruby: FizixJunkee: onyxruby: FizixJunkee: antidisestablishmentarianism: 
In other words, if your sisters and yourself never saw violent behavior then there probably wasn't any violent behavior from your father to see. You were probably simply told stories to slander him.


Except that it's not true.  I've seen my father knock his mother to the floor and break her glasses, and I've seen him hit my former stepmother when she was 7 months pregnant.

But he never once laid a hand on his kids.  Not even a spanking.
 
2013-02-17 04:13:09 AM

cptjeff: 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.


To be honest I don't find these individual accounts of blatant misconduct compelling.  People can do f**ked-up things to screw people over in all sorts of ways.  These sorts of cases are not, by any slightly reasonable stretch of the imagination, applicable to even a tiny minority of cases on the whole.  If you want to make laws to fix the problem, a better solution by far would be to disincentivise child-having by either making such fraud prosecutable in court, or...


Baryogenesis: I notice you still haven't addressed the glaring hole in your solution. You've now completely disincentivized men from caring about unwanted pregnancies. You don't think THAT would be a huge problem. Or is it just not a big deal because abortions are so simple and easy?
 
Wrap it up and don't fark women you don't trust. Problem solved.

Just take some farking responsibility.  As a man, I don't see why this is such a huge farking deal.
 
2013-02-17 04:26:42 AM

Baryogenesis: Of course she has a responsibility to engage in safe sex, but so does the man.


There are three time frames here. Before conception, after conception (but before birth) and after birth. The man can only affect one of those, while the women has power in all three. If she has more power, she should have more responsibility.
 
2013-02-17 04:51:16 AM

Mija: 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.


And then Mommy kissed Daddy, and the angel told the stork, and the stork flew down from heaven, and left a diamond under a leaf in the cabbage patch, and the diamond turned into a baby!
 
2013-02-17 05:05:59 AM

2xhelix: He's going to need a really good forensic accountant and attorney to straighten it all out.


oh I've heard that before, god help me I can't afford either
 
2013-02-17 05:52:01 AM

libranoelrose: Gyrfalcon: For not noticing he was still paying 25 years later?

He was under the impression that he was paying for his other child.


Which is why it's very difficult to feel any real sympathy for this one. He didn't even bother to keep track of how old the kid was? It hadn't occurred to him the boy was at least 18 by now and he could stop paying any time? (even if he wasn't dead) Way to care about your kids, dad. Or at least, way to care about your bank account. If he'd cared about either, he'd have known the date the kid turned 18 and he was no longer financially responsible and been down at the courthouse, papers in hand, filing for termination of child support.

As I said before, nobody in this sorry tale is guiltless.
 
2013-02-17 05:55:28 AM

cptjeff: The legal system simply stereotypes fathers as being the breadwinners, but completely clueless in raising children


To be fair, even now how much are most men actually involved in raising their children?   Most of you want a pat on the head and victory sex if you deign to spend a half a day "watching" the kids (i.e. being present in the vicinity while the kid plays video games and watches tv).

How much are most men involved in the real, hands-on day-to-day raising of their children?  Who gets them out of bed, gets them dressed, feeds them breakfast, makes their lunch, gets them off to school, makes them dinner, cleans up after them, helps them with their costumes, makes sure homework is done, shops for their food and clothes and schoolbooks, drives them to their friends and the movies and after school activities, does most of the discipline, talks to them about their day, holds them when they cry, looks after them when they're sick, knows all their friends, organises their parties, bathes them, gets them to bed, all whilst usually trying to hold down a job?  Honestly, how much of the actual childcare and rearing do most fathers do?

So if the Court has a choice between the woman who has been doing 90% of the child rearing vs the man who has magically managed to be mostly absent whilst living in the same house, they're going to chose the woman even if she is a crazy biatch.

Oh look, here come all the men who think they're "awesome fathers" because they do a few token fun things and yells at the kid when they annoy him.  Amazing how much praise men want for doing so little.

/Take responsibility for the whereabouts of your sperm
 
2013-02-17 06:02:12 AM

Gyrfalcon: It hadn't occurred to him the boy was at least 18 by now and he could stop paying any time?


He almost certainly owes the state of Michigan a ton of money to reimburse them for any medicare and welfare the mother received, plus he owes a huge amount of late charges, collection charges, administrative charges, interest charges, or any other surcharge they could invent to the FOC.

The FOC doesn't stop trying to collect on all that money owed to them just because one of the kids who benefited from that welfare long ago is now an adult and one of the kids is dead.
 
2013-02-17 06:16:45 AM

fredklein: Baryogenesis: Of course she has a responsibility to engage in safe sex, but so does the man.

There are three time frames here. Before conception, after conception (but before birth) and after birth. The man can only affect one of those, while the women has power in all three. If she has more power, she should have more responsibility.


So your argument is completely based on a spiderman quote?

Guess what, it's her choice, that's biology, and the guy has to deal with it.  Men and women don't have equal roles in pregnancy, but you're still on the hook if you help conceive a child.  He doesn't get to tell her what to do with her body, but he also doesn't have to get an abortion or carry a child to term and give birth.  Men having no responsibility isn't a viable option.

And since when do men not have a say after the child is born?  If all you just want to pay child support you can do that, but you can actually, you know, be a father.
 
2013-02-17 07:15:03 AM
Baryogenesis:
The problem with demanding a 50-50 split in the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is that men and women aren't on equal terms when it comes to pregnancy.  You're never going to get an equal situation there.  And once that decision is made and the child is born both parties have to support that child.  The man can't just back out because he doesn't feel like raising or paying for the kid.

You're technically right... and on that front, there will never be such a thing as perfect equality between genders, as a result of that.
What we can, though, ask for is consistency.
Example: I accidentally get a girl pregnant, I decide I want to keep it but she doesn't... because I'm male, I have no say. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!
Example: I accidentally get a girl pregnant, I don't want it, but she does... but because I'm male, I have no say. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!

This is a flawed morality.

After all, if she deliberately went off birth control (without telling me), poked holes in the condoms (or pulled a save-for-later maneuver) in order to get pregnant without my approval- in fact, with my express disapproval... then what she has done is committed theft of my genome.
But I still have no say. In fact, I have no rights whatsoever. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!
And I might be held responsible for the cost of her actions for years to come... why? Because all of the sudden, it was my sperm, and my responsibility... even though it was used in a way I did not consent to or allow.

It's a little like holding a man responsible for every murder committed with a gun that was stolen from him.

If I have a say, it's not her choice. If it's her choice and hers alone, I bear no responsibility. Pick one. I don't farking care which anymore. Just pick one. you can't have it both ways.
 
2013-02-17 07:50:28 AM

ARedthorn: You're technically right... and on that front, there will never be such a thing as perfect equality between genders, as a result of that.
What we can, though, ask for is consistency.
Example: I accidentally get a girl pregnant, I decide I want to keep it but she doesn't... because I'm male, I have no say. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!
Example: I accidentally get a girl pregnant, I don't want it, but she does... but because I'm male, I have no say. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!

This is a flawed morality.


I'll assume that the consistent version is the same thing others have argued in the thread: the man can opt out even if the woman keeps the baby.  However, as I keep pointing out, since the two sides aren't equal biologically you can't expect to have equal standing legally.  It just doesn't work.  There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.  You're suggesting a system where women are the only ones responsible for conceiving and raising a child.

ARedthorn: After all, if she deliberately went off birth control (without telling me), poked holes in the condoms (or pulled a save-for-later maneuver) in order to get pregnant without my approval- in fact, with my express disapproval... then what she has done is committed theft of my genome.


I suggest you don't leave birth control entirely up to whoever you're farking.  It's called being responsible for your own actions.  That means buying, using and disposing of the condoms yourself like a big boy.

ARedthorn: If I have a say, it's not her choice. If it's her choice and hers alone, I bear no responsibility. Pick one. I don't farking care which anymore. Just pick one. you can't have it both ways.


Let's flesh this out.  You want a say in whether she keeps the baby.  What happens when the man and woman disagree?  She's either being forced to abort a baby that she wants to keep or she's being forced to carry a baby to term she doesn't want.  Obviously, that's not an acceptable situation.  That's just the nature of biology, but that doesn't mean it's no longer your responsibility.  The situation is asymmetrical yet you keep demanding symmetry.  It doesn't work that way.  The alternative is men having ZERO responsibility despite helping create a child.  And by the way, that's something no one in favor of that idea has actually addressed.  What are the consequences of allowing men to opt out of raising/paying for children they father?

If you don't want to be a father then wrap it up and don't fark women you don't trust.  Due to the differences in biology, the time for the man to opt out is BEFORE you have sex, not after.
 
2013-02-17 08:24:53 AM

quatchi: I don't really see what your point was there.


That you latched onto the child support part like it was something special. All that matters is paternity. It's his child so there was never going to be any debate. That's just how it works because it doesn't matter if one or both of the parents are massive, raging psychopaths, it matters that the child is supported.

If you don't like that and you're worried you'll be that 1 in a billion guy this happens to, don't shoot your load at random women you can't trust. There's two problems with your "example":

1. It's an extreme outlier and extraordinarily non-representative of how these spats actually work
2. You're ignoring that no matter how extreme the circumstances, what matters in paternity claims is the paternity, not how it happened. It's his child, it's his child support.

Yea, paternity cases often turn shiatty for the father, but, as usual, Fark's whiners have taken it waaaayyyy beyond reality. Latching onto extremes doesn't help that, it just makes the people doing it appear whiny and senseless.

The Larch: 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.


Yep. Pointing out that one person with a spotty employment history, spotty payment history and who didn't notice he was paying child support on a man approaching middle age means that I'm saying everybody who ever has a bad thing happen to them brought it on themself.

I'll assume you're idiotic strawman is your way of ceding the point and acknowledging I'm right in the typically cowardly, backwards way of the internet.
 
2013-02-17 08:39:05 AM
I'll just leave THIS here. (New window)
 
2013-02-17 08:42:26 AM
Of course when the deadbeat other parent doesn't pay support, or falls behind, they owe back support. And it doesn't disappear, so yeah, if you didn't pay your fair share, you will still owe that money even if the child is dead or over 50. As well you should, because you are a piece of crap. So there are plenty of legitimate ways this can happen.
 
2013-02-17 09:16:26 AM

Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.


If she wants to keep it, and the father doesn't, then she should accept that she will have to pay for it.  Everyone goes on about how men should be responsible and consider the consequences of their actions so why do women get a free pass? She chose to have sex just as much as the guy did. She could have used contraception just as much as the guy could have.
But if babby is formed then suddenly she gets to say "I'm keeping it, you have no say, now pay up and keep paying for the next twenty years"

Why does no one expect the woman to be responsible? Why does everyone consider her a mere passive pawn who has no say and never needs to accept the financial consequences of her actions?
 
2013-02-17 09:23:19 AM
 
2013-02-17 09:39:18 AM
It's very simple: miss payments, you owe more. The payments don't automatically stop when your kid turns 18, you owe until the court says otherwise. If you don't fight for joint custody, you won't even get visitation.
Cletus here missed some payments and had no real interest in the kid's life. Boo farking Hoo.
 
2013-02-17 10:37:35 AM

cptjeff: 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.


Good luck countersuing the government.

ongbok: 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".


And the state doesn't give a hoot she committed fraud, they just want their money anyway.
 
2013-02-17 10:43:32 AM
This thread may have some of the longest replies I've ever seen on Fark.  Who knew?

/deadbeats
 
2013-02-17 11:04:13 AM

Baryogenesis: So your argument is completely based on a spiderman quote?


No- the basic morality behind that quote.

Guess what, it's her choice, that's biology, and the guy has to deal with it.

And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.

Men and women don't have equal roles in pregnancy, but you're still on the hook if you help conceive a child.

Thanks for re-stating the problem.

He doesn't get to tell her what to do with her body

Good thing no one's suggesting that, then.

but he also doesn't have to get an abortion or carry a child to term and give birth.

Neither does she.

Men having no responsibility isn't a viable option.

Of course it is. But since it means women won't be able to trap men, it'll never happen.

And since when do men not have a say after the child is born? If all you just want to pay child support you can do that, but you can actually, you know, be a father.

Have you been reading this thread?? Women move away with the kids, father never sees them again. Woman accuses father of abuse, father never sees them again. Women violates custody order, man only gets to see them rarely, if at all. How, exactly, does the man get to "be a father"; in these cases??
 
2013-02-17 11:08:05 AM

Baryogenesis: There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.


Bullshiat.

A woman can:
Use 'Emergency Contraception' (aka: plan B)
Abort
Adopt

and that's just POST-conception. Women have lots more options pre-conception, too.
 
2013-02-17 11:52:35 AM

fredklein: Baryogenesis: There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.

Bullshiat.

A woman can:
Use 'Emergency Contraception' (aka: plan B)
Abort
Adopt

and that's just POST-conception. Women have lots more options pre-conception, too.


Exactly. It takes two to make the mistake, or both or either. But once that mistake happens the woman holds all the cards, and has the biggest incentive to make a decision that will allow her, in many cases, to never have to work again while the man is forced to give up half his paycheck to support her, even if he never gets to even see the, his, child.

It takes two to make the mistake. Why shouldn't both parties have a say in what happens next?  If the woman wants to keep the child but the man doesn't? Fine. As long as she pays for it.
 
2013-02-17 11:56:21 AM

Flint Ironstag: fredklein: Baryogenesis: There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.

Bullshiat.

A woman can:
Use 'Emergency Contraception' (aka: plan B)
Abort
Adopt

and that's just POST-conception. Women have lots more options pre-conception, too.

Exactly. It takes two to make the mistake, or both or either. But once that mistake happens the woman holds all the cards, and has the biggest incentive to make a decision that will allow her, in many cases, to never have to work again while the man is forced to give up half his paycheck to support her, even if he never gets to even see the, his, child.

It takes two to make the mistake. Why shouldn't both parties have a say in what happens next?  If the woman wants to keep the child but the man doesn't? Fine. As long as she pays for it.


Not to mention that in the UK being sixteen and a single mother equals "Here is your free house/apartment with all the bills paid".  It queue jumps all others, even those who are genuinely homeless. Even if single mom's parents have a big house and spare bedrooms. Doesn't matter, teen and babby get an apartment of their own.
 
2013-02-17 12:11:18 PM
Baryogenesis:
I'll assume that the consistent version is the same thing others have argued in the thread: the man can opt out even if the woman keeps the baby.  However, as I keep pointing out, since the two sides aren't equal biologically you can't expect to have equal standing legally.  It just doesn't work.  There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.  You're suggesting a system where women are the only ones responsible for conceiving and raising a child.

Not entirely. I think you're slightly missing my point... hang on a second.

I suggest you don't leave birth control entirely up to whoever you're farking.  It's called being responsible for your own actions.  That means buying, using and disposing of the condoms yourself like a big boy.

Granted, to a limited degree. Remember- my example given (and one that's happened before) was where the male did exactly what you describe and still failed... why? Because the female in question used deceptive means to bypass that. They're in a casual relationship... she's on BC, he's using condoms... she decides she wants something more serious and that a kid is the best way to that (as opposed to talking about it)... so she goes of BC without telling him, and deliberately damages the condoms (poking holes in them, or saving the sperm from them, or slipping one off or tearing it mid-coitus... more than one option here). Prior to this, he had no reason to distrust her, so the BC is a betrayal, but the condoms were his backup plan... the backup plan you say should be enough- the control he has that she doesn't... she took from him.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is a common example- it's not. But it has happened, and Proof-of-Concepts only need to be displayed as possible, not as common.
My point: Her Body, Her Choice is a flawed morality. My proof: there are several circumstances in which it fails dramatically to be anything like fair, equal or consistent.

ARedthorn: If I have a say, it's not her choice. If it's her choice and hers alone, I bear no responsibility. Pick one. I don't farking care which anymore. Just pick one. you can't have it both ways.

Let's flesh this out.  You want a say in whether she keeps the baby.  What happens when the man and woman disagree?  She's either being forced to abort a baby that she wants to keep or she's being forced to carry a baby to term she doesn't want.  Obviously, that's not an acceptable situation.  That's just the nature of biology, but that doesn't mean it's no longer your responsibility.  The situation is asymmetrical yet you keep demanding symmetry.  It doesn't work that way.  The alternative is men having ZERO responsibility despite helping create a child.  And by the way, that's something no one in favor of that idea has actually addressed.  What are the consequences of allowing men to opt out of raising/paying for children they father?
If you don't want to be a father then wrap it up and don't fark women you don't trust.  Due to the differences in biology, the time for the man to opt out is BEFORE you have sex, not after.

 ...

Yes, in theory, I do want a say in whether she keeps the baby... not perhaps overwhelming majority vote, but you're looking for a black-and-white answer here, I'm not.
No black-and-white solution is ever perfect... that's why Her Body, Her Choice is such a problem.

I'm not saying I favor it. I'm saying that it has consequences:
IF it's true, it absolves men of any responsibility in the pregnancy or raising of the child- after all, they had no choice, and we're in the habit of holding people responsible for THEIR choices, not the choices of those around them.
IF it's false, then it gives men a say in the pregnancy, not just the care for or raising of the child. It's his genes, his legacy, his child as much as hers. She carries the physical burden for 9 months, granted, and this is important, but this does not give her a lifetime of advantage over his rights.

It's used as a rallying cry by women when it benefits them, but the moment those consequences come up, it's immediately forgotten.
That's what I find unacceptable.

Here's my alternate proposal:
The man has a say in the pregnancy... final decision goes to her, but that's not a matter of morality- only practicality. If they agree, no big deal... if they disagree, he lacks the power to enforce his side of the decision anyway, so we may as well just admit that it's not 50/50... and I never thought it should be. More like 60/40 or 70/30 at worst.
But if they do disagree, he gets an out. He gets to make it known publicly and legally that she is making this decision without his support, and he publicly, legally withdraws that support from her. He should not have to pay the price for her decision when he opposed it. Period.
Anything else is a dictatorship, not equality.

If that means she gets an abortion when he wanted to keep the child- the financial and personal responsibility for that decision falls with her.
If that means she carries to term when he wanted her not to (adoption or abortion both as viable and equal alternatives for my purpose)- the financial and personal responsibility for that decision falls with her.
Her decision should be made taking into account his presence- will he be there for the child, physically, emotionally or financially? If those factors don't matter to her, she's an idiot. If they do... then they should have weight, and she should be willing to accept that he holds sway over her decision, and allow him to do so as an equal or nearly-equal partner, not as a silent and powerless boycotter.
Some room for discussion or negotiation may be allowed- but that's between them... and this is where discretion comes in. Maybe he wants the abortion, and she doesn't... but knowing that he will completely withdraw his support if she gives birth, can talk him into paying for the abortion completely if he wants it that badly... or talk him into accepting an adoption instead... or if the fault for the pregnancy lies with him (being an idiot about BC), negotiate a small child support settlement instead of the full amount.
Only in the cases of real culpability or serious negligence do I see the need to bring courts in.

So if you want equality, take it... consequences and all.
That I support fully. If though you intend to ask for equality AND take advantage when it suits you... shut me out of having the same equality you demanded I give you? Not kosher. Not in the slightest.
 
2013-02-17 12:17:45 PM
fark... wish there were an edit feature.

So, I neglected your question about consequences... As I suggested, there may still be cases where negligence (someone sleeping around, taking no precautions at all) or culpability (in the case of either partner being deceitful about BC, as well as cases of rape, etc) where the courts would still be called in.

Even if the male has the option to opt out, he has incentives to use BC... for one thing, because if it can be readily shown that he's taking risks with that right, he'll lose it... for another, STDs... for another, even if he can opt out, the kid is still out there, and for many guys, the financial responsibility comes second to the idea of having a kid at all.
Could there be problems? Sure... but we've already got plenty of guys doing this sort of thing already, or 1:3 of Americans wouldn't be infected with an STD.
I'm not suggesting this system would be perfect... but it would be more fair, more consistent and equal than what we've got, where the man involved is assumed guilty until proven innocent, and often never given the chance to state his case.
 
2013-02-17 12:59:05 PM

ARedthorn: Here's my alternate proposal:
The man has a say in the pregnancy... final decision goes to her, but that's not a matter of morality- only practicality. If they agree, no big deal... if they disagree, he lacks the power to enforce his side of the decision anyway, so we may as well just admit that it's not 50/50... and I never thought it should be. More like 60/40 or 70/30 at worst.
But if they do disagree, he gets an out. He gets to make it known publicly and legally that she is making this decision without his support, and he publicly, legally withdraws that support from her. He should not have to pay the price for her decision when he opposed it. Period.
Anything else is a dictatorship, not equality.

If that means she gets an abortion when he wanted to keep the child- the financial and personal responsibility for that decision falls with her.
If that means she carries to term when he wanted her not to (adoption or abortion both as viable and equal alternatives for my purpose)- the financial and personal responsibility for that decision falls with her.
Her decision should be made taking into account his presence- will he be there for the child, physically, emotionally or financially? If those factors don't matter to her, she's an idiot. If they do... then they should have weight, and she should be willing to accept that he holds sway over her decision, and allow him to do so as an equal or nearly-equal partner, not as a silent and powerless boycotter.


I'd agree with that. The woman gets to choose. But she has to take into account whether she can afford to raise the child. It's her decision. If the man doesn't get a say then why should he have to pay? And pay for her to spend the next twenty years doing nothing? It's a baby, not a lottery ticket.
 
2013-02-17 01:46:28 PM
Gyrfalcon: My phone is acting weird and not letting me quoote. Your opinions are not very well thought out, and just plain wrong, mostly.
 
2013-02-17 04:42:39 PM
Detroit, figured.
 
2013-02-17 05:59:24 PM

jgeisle: This thread may have some of the longest replies I've ever seen on Fark.  Who knew?

/deadbeats


I've never had a kid, I've never owed child support.  I've just seen what has happened to others I know.
 
2013-02-17 06:29:31 PM
Pretty soon women won't even need to have a child in order them to sue you for child support.

"It's for the child we *should* have had together!"
 
2013-02-17 07:55:31 PM

Flint Ironstag: Why does no one expect the woman to be responsible? Why does everyone consider her a mere passive pawn who has no say and never needs to accept the financial consequences of her actions?


Holy shiat, man.  In what world is carrying a baby to term, giving birth and raising the child not bearing the (financial) responsibility?  Oh, it's no big deal because she got a check from the father?

fredklein: And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.


It's the consequence of HIS choice to FARK the woman.  That's a risk of having sex.  Women, due to the differences in biology, have a few extra options down the line.  Men don't.  It's not equal and it won't ever be equal so demanding that the man's situation matches the woman's is absurd.

fredklein: but he also doesn't have to get an abortion or carry a child to term and give birth.

Neither does she.


Actually, those are her options.  There's no third option.  What world do you live in?

fredklein: Men having no responsibility isn't a viable option.

Of course it is. But since it means women won't be able to trap men, it'll never happen.


Oh really?  You think there would be no consequences if no man was responsible for creating a child?  Stop considering only this tiny subset of pregnancies where the woman traps the man.  What about totally accidental pregnancies?  Should that be only the woman's responsibility?  What if the man wants to have a kid, but then he panics a few months after conceiving and bails?  And since none of you can let go of these examples of woman trapping men, how about a situation where, because the man holds no responsibility, he intentionally pokes a hole in the condom to knock her up and then leaves?

Tell me more about how not being responsible for your actions is a good thing.

fredklein: And since when do men not have a say after the child is born? If all you just want to pay child support you can do that, but you can actually, you know, be a father.

Have you been reading this thread?? Women move away with the kids, father never sees them again. Woman accuses father of abuse, father never sees them again. Women violates custody order, man only gets to see them rarely, if at all. How, exactly, does the man get to "be a father"; in these cases??


So because some women violate custody laws we should just absolve ALL men of any responsibility in caring/paying for a child they helped create?  I'm not arguing those situations aren't shiatty for the men, but your solution isn't a solution.

fredklein: Baryogenesis: There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.

Bullshiat.

A woman can:
Use 'Emergency Contraception' (aka: plan B)
Abort
Adopt

and that's just POST-conception. Women have lots more options pre-conception, too.


You don't seem to understand "equivalent".  We're talking about a situation where the woman is pregnant (contraceptives and plan B don't apply) and the man can file some paperwork and then just walk out the door.  The woman under your plan either has to get an abortion or carry a child to term and then either give it up for adoption or raise the kid alone.  Abortions are not equivalent to paperwork. Carrying a child for 9 months only to give it up for adoption isn't equivalent to paperwork.  Raising a child isn't equivalent to paperwork.  Guess what?  Not all woman are going to be cavalier about an abortion or adoption.  It's not some simple thing.

Flint Ironstag: Exactly. It takes two to make the mistake, or both or either. But once that mistake happens the woman holds all the cards, and has the biggest incentive to make a decision that will allow her, in many cases, to never have to work again while the man is forced to give up half his paycheck to support her, even if he never gets to even see the, his, child.

It takes two to make the mistake. Why shouldn't both parties have a say in what happens next?  If the woman wants to keep the child but the man doesn't? Fine. As long as she pays for it.


Both parties don't have a say because biology.  Why does everyone have such a problem understanding this.  The situation isn't equal and you can't force it to be equal.  Sure, you've solved the problem (no one can give me numbers for how common it even is) about women trapping men with pregnancy, you've created a much worse problem.  A system that allows men to have zero responsibility isn't reasonable.

ARedthorn: Mind you, I'm not saying this is a common example- it's not. But it has happened, and Proof-of-Concepts only need to be displayed as possible, not as common.
My point: Her Body, Her Choice is a flawed morality. My proof: there are several circumstances in which it fails dramatically to be anything like fair, equal or consistent.



We can't make laws that are 100% perfect in all situations you can possibly think up.  The world doesn't work that way and it's an absurd standard to judge a situation by. And what about the reverse situation where men don't have any responsibility to stick around?  You don't think there would be some epic failures in fairness in that situation?
You still need to be responsible for your own birth control.  If you're worried about her circumventing your protection then keep it on you or buy new ones every time or not fark her.

ARedthorn: Here's my alternate proposal


Again, the situation isn't fair because of the biological differences.  It won't ever be fair and you can't make a law forcing it to be fair.  It won't actually end up being fair.  In your case, you've decided women now carry all the burden of contraception, pregnancy and raising children.  Men have no responsibility.  It doesn't matter if they get a girl pregnant because they can just opt out with minimal fuss.  They have no incentive to care about contraception as they bear no responsibility if she gets pregnant.  How is that acceptable?  We already have a problem with men dropping their seed and avoiding responsibility and you want to eliminate the one mechanism that regulates that behavior.  You demand a system where both parties have equal say and equal responsibility and then when you realize biology doesn't work that way you decide on a system where one party has all the responsibility and the other has none.

And please, let's not call having to pay for a child you fathered tyranny, okay?  You have the power to not sleep with a girl you don't trust.  You have the power to use contraception.  You have the power to get a vasectomy.  You're not a little boy at the mercy of a succubus.  You don't get to opt out of your responsibilities because you don't think it's fair.  The situation is asymmetrical so it's not going to be a 50-50 deal.  Sorry, that's life.  The alternative you presented doesn't work.  If you don't like it then don't have sex because it will always carry a risk of pregnancy.
 
2013-02-17 08:28:22 PM

fredklein: And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.


That is the single most stupid thing I have ever read in my life.

I'm not joking
 
2013-02-17 08:34:26 PM

Baryogenesis: Flint Ironstag: Why does no one expect the woman to be responsible? Why does everyone consider her a mere passive pawn who has no say and never needs to accept the financial consequences of her actions?

Holy shiat, man.  In what world is carrying a baby to term, giving birth and raising the child not bearing the (financial) responsibility?  Oh, it's no big deal because she got a check from the father?



It's not bearing the responsibility because she can make a decision that forces him to have to pay for the next twenty years. Both made the mistake, yet now he has no say but can be forced to pay up for twenty years for what, in many cases, could have been her mistake, or even, as has been reported, her deliberate actions.

Couples who find they are expecting a child have to decide what to do and consider if they can afford it. yet a woman can decide unilaterally, overrule the father, and doing so obliges him to pay up.
Couples have to consider if they can afford to raise a child on what they earn. Why shouldn't single mom's have to make the same decision based on what she earns?
Many couples have had to give up a child because they couldn't afford it. Why should single moms be able to skip that part by being able to force someone else to pay?
 
2013-02-17 11:49:58 PM

Baryogenesis: fredklein: And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.

It's the consequence of HIS choice to FARK the woman.


And SHE didn't make a choice? You say "he farked her", not "they farked", which shows your bias from the start.

Women... have a few extra options down the line.  Men don't.

Exactly. You understand perfectly.

fredklein: but he also doesn't have to get an abortion or carry a child to term and give birth.

Neither does she.

Actually, those are her options.  There's no third option.  What world do you live in?


One where a woman can:

1) practice abstinence
2) insist he use a condom
3) use a 'female condom'
4) use a diaphragm
5) use a cervical cap
6) use a cervical sponge
7) use spermicide
8) use the 'rhythm method' (ie have sex only when not near ovulation)
9) engage in, um, non-standard sex acts that won't lead to pregnancy (oral, anal, etc)
10) Get a hormonal implant (norplant, etc)
11) get her tubes tied
12) get an IUD
13) if all else fails, use 'emergency contraception' (aka 'plan B')
14) abort
15) adopt out
16) abandon the baby

That's a LOT more than two options. And I think I may have missed a few.

Women have WAY more choices than men.

And since none of you can let go of these examples of woman trapping men, how about a situation where, because the man holds no responsibility, he intentionally pokes a hole in the condom to knock her up and then leaves?

Then she can avail herself of one of the many options she has left. There is no way for a guy to 'trap' a woman, like women can trap men now. neither side could trap the other, thus: fairness.

So because some women violate custody laws we should just absolve ALL men of any responsibility in caring/paying for a child they helped create?

The man made 1 decision. The women ALSO made that decision, AND many more. it was the result of those decisions that resulted in a child.

Who's more responsible for the loaf of bread- the guy who mixes the dough, or the woman who takes some, puts it in a pan, puts the pan in the oven, and bakes it?

The woman under your plan either has to get an abortion or carry a child to term and then either give it up for adoption or raise the kid alone. Abortions are not equivalent to paperwork. Carrying a child for 9 months only to give it up for adoption isn't equivalent to paperwork. Raising a child isn't equivalent to paperwork. Guess what? Not all woman are going to be cavalier about an abortion or adoption. It's not some simple thing.

Then maybe they should take responsibility for their decision to fark the guy. You keep saying MEN have to take responsibility. Why don't women???

Sure, you've solved the problem (no one can give me numbers for how common it even is) about women trapping men with pregnancy, you've created a much worse problem. A system that allows men to have zero responsibility isn't reasonable.

Yeah-it would force the women to only fark guys they love and trust to be fathers, and it would force them to stop trapping guys. Not reasonable at all.

In your case, you've decided women now carry all the burden of contraception, pregnancy and raising children.

As you say, that's because of Biology.

Men have no responsibility. It doesn't matter if they get a girl pregnant because they can just opt out with minimal fuss. They have no incentive to care about contraception as they bear no responsibility if she gets pregnant. How is that acceptable?

"no incentive to care about contraception as they bear no responsibility"- kinda the way women are now!!
 
2013-02-17 11:52:33 PM

The Larch: fredklein: And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.

That is the single most stupid thing I have ever read in my life.

I'm not joking


If I have a huge debt due to gambling, should YOU have to pay it? Of course not- it's MY problem.

If you disagree, lemme know, and I'll tell you how much to transfer to my paypal account.
 
2013-02-18 12:22:26 AM

fredklein: The Larch: fredklein: And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.

That is the single most stupid thing I have ever read in my life.

I'm not joking

If I have a huge debt due to gambling, should YOU have to pay it? Of course not- it's MY problem.

If you disagree, lemme know, and I'll tell you how much to transfer to my paypal account.


Congress just passed a law making the username "fredklein" carry a fine of $10,000.  You didn't vote for it, but you still have to deal with the result.

fredklein: Then she can avail herself of one of the many options she has left. There is no way for a guy to 'trap' a woman, like women can trap men now. neither side could trap the other, thus: fairness.


Err, no.  A man being "trapped" isn't the only unequal situation that can arise from conception.  What happens if a truly accidental conception happens, but the man can simply opt out?  There's nothing "fair" about a man being able to sign a few slips of paper to get out of being a father, but the woman has to either get an abortion (always fun!) or carry the child then give it up for adoption (also fun).

fredklein: "no incentive to care about contraception as they bear no responsibility"- kinda the way women are now!!


Clearly you're not worth continued conversation if you can't even understand women bear responsibility for contraception and pregnancy by virtue of the fact that they carry the unborn child.

Flint Ironstag: Both made the mistake, yet now he has no say but can be forced to pay up for twenty years


And your solution to both people making the mistake is to let one of them completely opt out of responsibility.  How are you not getting this?  You can't complain about the situation being unfair and then turn around and propose a solution that is even more unequal.
 
2013-02-18 12:28:23 AM

fredklein: The Larch: fredklein: And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.

That is the single most stupid thing I have ever read in my life.

If I have a huge debt due to gambling, should YOU have to pay it? Of course not- it's MY problem.


Idiots who gambles money they can't afford to lose are already forcing other people to pay for their bad choices.

And, if you really are one of those aspie psuedo-libertarians who imagines that he should go through life entirely removed from the burden of living in society, go live in the desert. The rest of us are sick of your shiat.
 
2013-02-18 04:16:13 AM
Baryogenesis:
We can't make laws that are 100% perfect in all situations you can possibly think up.  The world doesn't work that way and it's an absurd standard to judge a situation by. And what about the reverse situation where men don't have any responsibility to stick around?  You don't think there would be some epic failures in fairness in that situation?
You still need to be responsible for your own birth control.  If you're worried about her circumventing your protection then keep it on you or buy new ones every time or not fark her.

Again, the situation isn't fair because of the biological differences.  It won't ever be fair and you can't make a law forcing it to be fair.  It won't actually end up being fair.  In your case, you've decided women now carry all the burden of contraception, pregnancy and raising children.  Men have no responsibility.  It doesn't matter if they get a girl pregnant because they can just opt out with minimal fuss.  They have no incentive to care about contraception as they bear no responsibility if she gets pregnant.  How is that acceptable?  We already have a problem with men dropping their seed and avoiding responsibility and you want to eliminate the one mechanism that regulates that behavior.  You demand a system where both parties have equal say and equal responsibility and then when you realize biology doesn't work that way you decide on a system where one party has all the responsibility and the other has none.

And please, let's not call having to pay for a child you fathered tyranny, okay?  You have the power to not sleep with a girl you don't trust.  You have the power to use contraception.  You have the power to get a vasectomy.  You're not a little boy at the mercy of a succubus.  You don't get to opt out of your responsibilities because you don't think it's fair.  The situation is asymmetrical so it's not going to be a 50-50 deal.  Sorry, that's life.  The alternative you presented doesn't work.  If you don't like it then don't have sex because it will always carry a risk of pregnancy.


Agreed on some points... we can't ever manage a law that's 100% perfect, fair and consistent... but that's where negotiation and discretion comes in, but you seem to think that neither is acceptable.

I absolutely think fathers, and men in general, should be responsible... but you can't force responsibility externally with a blunt instrument like this and not call it tyranny. Mind, it could arguably be a beneficial tyranny SOME of the time, but tyranny it is.
Why? Because you are at least on occasion, taking his choice away and making him pay for the consequences of that choice.

I think you've missed most of my point.

Responsibility is not a result of participation, but of CHOICE.
If someone involved in a military operation is given orders to drop a bomb on a given region he knows nothing about, and that region happens to have no enemy military presence, and that bomb happens to kill hundreds of civilians, injure thousands... we don't convict the soldier who dropped the bomb of war crimes... we convict his commanding officer.
If I were to put you in a bomb vest, in a crowded hospital... with the sure knowledge that if you tried to remove it, disarm it, or disobey my orders, I would set it off- killing you and everyone in the building with you... and order you to smother an old man, with the understanding that if you do, the bomb will be deactivated...
Who's at fault if you obey? Who do we convict?

Our legal system is built from the ground all the way up to the top on this premise... entirely on this premise...
And yet you're the one that wants to skate by.
Because that premise- that foundation for the law that is true EVERYWHERE but here states that if it's her choice, it's her responsibility.
End of story.

So we can either abandon "her body, her choice" and share responsibility...
Or we can keep it, and absolve men of the majority of the responsibility...
Or you can admit that you're taking advantage. That you're using "her body, her choice" when it benefits  one gender, and ignoring it when it benefits the other. Which is (again, calling a pig a pig) sexist.

One last time- I'm not looking for 50-50 here... never have been... stop telling me I am.
 
2013-02-18 04:51:46 AM

Baryogenesis: redmid17: To pretend that men and women are equal in the matter of preventing pregnancies is a complete folly and anyone who thinks they are even close is a fool.

I'll expand on this point.  I'm not contending men and women are equal in their options for preventing pregnancy.  In fact, I've been saying the whole thread how biology makes men and women very unequal with regard to pregnancy.  Men don't have as many options for prevention, but they also don't have to deal with actually being pregnant, possibly getting an abortion, giving birth and, in some cases, they can walk away with no ramifications at all (1 night stands, ineffective enforcement of child support or just outright lying to the girl, e.g. fake name).

The situation isn't equal, but I'd rather have a system that makes both parents responsible for a child instead of just the mother.  And yes, divorce, custody and child support all need reforms, but the solution isn't just to give men a free pass to fark without being responsible for the child they helped create.


This is the most reasonable thing I've heard from you- which leads me to believe that for the most part, we might just be missing eachothers' points here.

What I'm railing against is the guy's powerlessness in the situation.

I think that summary rulings should be out. The guy should get a chance to make a solid case for himself... and if he can make a case that he wasn't negligent about BC, and did not support carrying the child to term (that she made that decision without consulting him, or overruled him completely), it should be taken strongly into consideration in reducing the degree of his payments, or in some uncommon cases, negate them altogether.

And I'd /like/ to see the need for courts lessened by responsible adults handling the negotiation with eachother, without the need for dragging it into litigation at all.

A complete opt-out is just as unfair in the opposite direction, and I stated that poorly, several times over- but some measure of control on his part is due and overdue.

Otherwise... heh... Like I said in the last post: admit the man a say SOMEWHERE in the process, or admit the system is unfair to men at least a significant minority of the time (and could be better, we know not how), and I'll happily walk away from this debate...

If [Group A] wants to ask for equality, I'll give it to them, but it comes with consequences and responsibilities... the same ones everyone else pays for that right.
If they want to ask for favorable treatment, I'll likewise give it to them, but that too comes with consequences and responsibilities...
Either way, I expect them to accept those consequences/responsibilities... "Her Body, Her Choice" fails to do that... and so far in this debate, you've been seemingly refusing to do so. (Emphasis on seemingly.)
 
2013-02-18 07:44:42 AM

FizixJunkee: onyxruby


It's unfortunate to hear that he was violent. I am used to interacting with false claims of violence that are used as a divorce tactic. It's something that I've had to become intimately familiar with over the last couple years.

I have learned that it's a relatively common method of gaining the upper hand in a divorce. After my personal experience with my ex-wife where she was actually the violent person it makes me skeptical be default when I hear stories. At least your father wasn't violent with your sisters and you as kids.
 
2013-02-18 08:46:01 AM

Baryogenesis: Congress just passed a law making the username "fredklein" carry a fine of $10,000. You didn't vote for it, but you still have to deal with the result.


1) I may not have DIRECTLY voted for it, but I did vote for the congressmen/women who voted for it. I at least had some input.
2) Such a law is unconstitutional- Freedom of Speech and such.

Oh, and BTW laws do get overturned when enough people don't like them.

Err, no. A man being "trapped" isn't the only unequal situation that can arise from conception. What happens if a truly accidental conception happens, but the man can simply opt out? There's nothing "fair" about a man being able to sign a few slips of paper to get out of being a father, but the woman has to either get an abortion (always fun!) or carry the child then give it up for adoption (also fun).

That's the fault of BIOLOGY, not MEN. Go blame "Mother Nature". :-)

Of course, the whole thing could be avoided if the women took responsibility and used contraception (of which she has many, many, many more choices). But that would mean SHE has to be responsible, and we cant have that, can we?

your solution to both people making the mistake is to let one of them completely opt out of responsibility.

BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE CAN DO THAT, TOO. A woman can, currently, completely opt out of responsibility for a baby by getting an abortion, or by putting it up for adoption, or by abandoning it. Yes, those options come with consequences- what choices don't?? But at least she currently has options. HE DOES NOT.
 
2013-02-18 09:02:40 AM

The Larch: And, if you really are one of those aspie psuedo-libertarians who imagines that he should go through life entirely removed from the burden of living in society, go live in the desert. The rest of us are sick of your shiat.


Pay my bills or STFU.
 
2013-02-18 09:43:13 AM

arentol: 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.


I'll bite...

Being pro-choice =/= not wanting to protect children. You see, people who are pro-choice often do not consider an unborn fetus and a child that one has been raising to be the same thing and therefore do not feel they should be treated the same.
 
2013-02-18 05:59:56 PM

Baryogenesis: Flint Ironstag: Both made the mistake, yet now he has no say but can be forced to pay up for twenty years

And your solution to both people making the mistake is to let one of them completely opt out of responsibility.  How are you not getting this?  You can't complain about the situation being unfair and then turn around and propose a solution that is even more unequal.


She can opt out completely. There's the morning after pill or, if too late, then abortion. Unless you think a woman having an abortion is more traumatic for her than it is for a man to have his child abortion by a woman where he wants to keep it but she doesn't. She can do that without him having any say.
 
2013-02-19 09:34:11 AM

Flint Ironstag: Baryogenesis: Flint Ironstag: Both made the mistake, yet now he has no say but can be forced to pay up for twenty years

And your solution to both people making the mistake is to let one of them completely opt out of responsibility.  How are you not getting this?  You can't complain about the situation being unfair and then turn around and propose a solution that is even more unequal.

She can opt out completely. There's the morning after pill or, if too late, then abortion. Unless you think a woman having an abortion is more traumatic for her than it is for a man to have his child abortion by a woman where he wants to keep it but she doesn't. She can do that without him having any say.


Just kick her in the stomach. Takes the guesswork out of the equation.
 
Displayed 259 of 259 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report