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.

(Washington Post)   In today's episode of "good things happen to bad people", Powerball lotto winner who is getting $152 Million lump sum, after taxes, owes $29K in back child support   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 394
    More: Asinine, Powerball, New Jersey, child support, Powerball jackpot, lump sums, evils  
•       •       •

9372 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Mar 2013 at 2:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-28 02:38:02 PM
Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.
 
2013-03-28 02:42:31 PM

sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.


Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.
 
2013-03-28 02:45:07 PM

what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.


Perhaps he doesn't have any money?
 
2013-03-28 02:50:02 PM
No-longer-broke people problems.
 
2013-03-28 02:50:05 PM

Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?


so..why's he playing the lotto?
 
2013-03-28 02:51:04 PM

what_now: so..why's he playing the lotto?


That's what poor to low-middle income people do. Play the lotto. Dream of winning big.
 
2013-03-28 02:51:25 PM
On the plus side, he can now pay that. So that's good.
 
2013-03-28 02:52:25 PM
Ya know, it's funny when someone immediately jumps to the conclusion that just because he's a dude and owes child support that he must be a bad person.

Either submitter is trolling or is a woman.
 
2013-03-28 02:54:10 PM

Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?


Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.
 
2013-03-28 02:54:52 PM

Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?


I wonder if maybe there was some sort of economic factor beyond his control. Something like a worldwide recession and unprecedented high unemployment.
 
2013-03-28 02:59:30 PM
www.epm.org
"Being a dead-beat dad doesn't necessarily make you a bad person."
 
2013-03-28 02:59:45 PM

Lando Lincoln: On the plus side, he can now pay that. So that's good.


This. in spades.  And if he likes his kid(s) (dnrtfa), he can more than make up for it.

and this, too:

sammyk: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

I wonder if maybe there was some sort of economic factor beyond his control. Something like a worldwide recession and unprecedented high unemployment.

 
2013-03-28 02:59:47 PM
Typical.
 
2013-03-28 03:00:22 PM
kronicfeld:
Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.

Being stupid doesn't make you a bad person; it just makes you stupid.

/He's playing the lotto, by definition he really isn't all that mathematically inclined
 
2013-03-28 03:00:52 PM
Well, it worked out in his case.
 
2013-03-28 03:01:12 PM
I wonder what the overlap is between the "sometimes men can't pay child support for reasons beyond their control" crowd and the "keeps your legs closed if you don't want kids, lady" crowd.
 
2013-03-28 03:01:17 PM

xanadian: Ya know, it's funny when someone immediately jumps to the conclusion that just because he's a dude and owes child support that he must be a bad person.

Either submitter is trolling or is a woman.


Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.
 
2013-03-28 03:01:23 PM
Now he can pay. Everyone's a winner!
 
2013-03-28 03:01:42 PM

kronicfeld: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.


I read that as "even if he didn't have money he should still have had money and is an asshole."

heh. battling in court is so cost free.
 
2013-03-28 03:02:06 PM
Mo money, less problems.
 
2013-03-28 03:02:25 PM

sammyk: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

I wonder if maybe there was some sort of economic factor beyond his control. Something like a worldwide recession and unprecedented high unemployment.


Meanwhile the mother has to pay all the bills herself or accept welfare when she may not need to if her baby daddy would contribute. Stuff happens, sure, but I hope he puts the kid and the mothet through life with his winnings otherwise I'm on subby's side.
 
2013-03-28 03:03:42 PM
Who knows what trouble he's had to keep him from paying that back support... maybe he is really just a deadbeat.  I hope his baby-mommas are all planning on taking him back to court for a readjustment.  He now has the money to truly provide everything his children will ever need and let's hope that he's required to do so.
 
2013-03-28 03:04:23 PM
I've found that guys with 5 kids who owe several years of back child support and buy lottery tickets are generally pretty responsible, so lets not jump to conclusions.  Spending $2 on a powerball ticket instead of a condom doesn't make him bad, it makes him an American hero. BACK OFF.
 
2013-03-28 03:04:40 PM

lymond01: sammyk: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

I wonder if maybe there was some sort of economic factor beyond his control. Something like a worldwide recession and unprecedented high unemployment.

Meanwhile the mother has to pay all the bills herself or accept welfare when she may not need to if her baby daddy would contribute. Stuff happens, sure, but I hope he puts the kid and the mothet through life with his winnings otherwise I'm on subby's side.


Why should he pay a dime more than he owes? And why the fark would anyone be expected to support an ex? If dude wanted to pay that biatches way he wouldn't have kicked her to the curb in the first place.
 
2013-03-28 03:04:49 PM

highendmighty: Lando Lincoln: On the plus side, he can now pay that. So that's good.

This. in spades.  And if he likes his kid(s) (dnrtfa), he can more than make up for it.

and this, too:
sammyk: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

I wonder if maybe there was some sort of economic factor beyond his control. Something like a worldwide recession and unprecedented high unemployment.


I paid child support. I paid child support that was based upon a gross income figure that I never even approached in real life (did you know un-exercised stock options count as income?) and as a result of the crushing sum of money that was deducted from my check every week I couldn't even afford to hire a lawyer to have it reduced. I paid the damn support though, because that's what I was legally required to do regardless of how looney the accounting by the Texas AG's office was.

If this guy owes child support back to 2009, hasn't paid ANY of it and is out buying Powerball tickets he is a bad person. Period. With any luck they just garnish his unpaid amount from his winnings so at least his kid will see some money before this newly minted millionaire gets back about the very serious business of shirking his responsibilities in a much nicer car.
 
2013-03-28 03:04:50 PM
As someone who has owed as much as 10k in back child support, I can easily see how this person could be a good person and still owe back support. The mechanism for collecting child support are designed to favor the the custodial parent. So changing support is often cumbersome and expensive. Add on top of this the fact that changes in judgments do not always get communicated to the collecting operations or to the  federal level where tax returns can be garnished. I have been through the mill on this several time in the state of illinois.

/has been current with support for many years
//often the back support is due to court/state error and not non payment
///I hope he give the mother of the child 2 million the child 4 and takes them on a cruise
 
2013-03-28 03:04:54 PM

kronicfeld: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.


It's not always that easy. I got behind by around 12k. See I was living in NJ while my case is in NC. I was very sick. So sick I needed a liver transplant. I could not work and I damn sure was in no shape to make the trip to NC. Not working meant I could not afford a lawyer to handle the case for me. The arrears just kept ticking up, up and away. The next time we went to court for an adjustment I had all the proof I needed to show I was a)incapable of working b)incapable of going to court for a reduction. None of that mattered. The only person that can forgive that debt is my twat of an ex and she never will.
 
2013-03-28 03:05:20 PM

what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.


*raises hand*

As one of the millions of people who lost their jobs in 08-09, I'm going to guess that might have something to do with it.
 
2013-03-28 03:05:21 PM
kronicfeld:

Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.

LOL, it's just that easy. File some paperwork, and you're golden.

/Not really. Mine took two years, all the while racking up the difference between what I could pay, and what the old order said
//In a lot of states, the CP's attorney can delay the hearing for months at a time, just because
///Family court sucks
 
2013-03-28 03:05:43 PM

what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.


TFA doesnt say he hasn't paid any child support.  It says there's a deficiency.  While I am death on people who refuse to pay (and people who refuse to file claims on their children's behalf), I'm not prepared to lynch people who do the best they can.  IDK what this guy is.
 
2013-03-28 03:05:46 PM

what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.


I didn't pay any from 2003 to 2009, because I was not employed, yet the court refused to reduce my payment, which was based on my high water earnings at my previous employer .. so, the last 3 years I was there, I wasn't able to foot the bill, as my earnings had gone down (but the court argued that since I was still at the same job, I should be still making the same amount of money .. irrelevant to the fact that on that high water year they measured by, I had set virtually every sales and profit record in the company, so the vast majority of my income was "bonus"), by the time I was no longer employed there, I owed 4k, and by the time I was re-employed, it was up to 20k.

Of course, during this whole time I was unemployed, the child's mother also was unemployed, so therefore, I was expected to foot her part of everything, as well.  Which is pretty damn difficult with -0- income.

Sooooooooooooooooo..... yeah, child support courts can be really difficult to work with.
 
2013-03-28 03:06:08 PM

what_now: so..why's he playing the lotto?


Because a lottery ticket is like one damned dollar and probably the cheapest form of entertainment on the planet, so it's exactly the kind of thing you do for entertainment when you don't have money?

lymond01: Meanwhile the mother has to pay all the bills herself or accept welfare when she may not need to if her baby daddy would contribute. Stuff happens, sure, but I hope he puts the kid and the mothet through life with his winnings otherwise I'm on subby's side.

Yeah, because his lack of custody is totally willing and not the result of an absurdy misandrist set of laws and traditions governing divorce proceedings in the US or anything.
 
2013-03-28 03:06:57 PM

Lando Lincoln: On the plus side, he can now pay that. So that's good.


That's what I thought too. If he's back on child support for the last 4 years then this is a GREAT opportunity for mom to get the court to force him to pay up, even if he's asshole enough not to do it himself after getting such a windfall.
 
2013-03-28 03:07:04 PM
Sounds like he no longer has any excuse to be behind on those child support payments.

Going to suck ass when the courts tell him that he can now afford to pay more money each month.
 
2013-03-28 03:07:19 PM
Owing child support doesn't make him "bad."

He could've gotten a bad divorce, and since those are the norm, he's probably just withholding crack money from his former wife.
 
2013-03-28 03:07:27 PM

drewogatory: lymond01: sammyk: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

I wonder if maybe there was some sort of economic factor beyond his control. Something like a worldwide recession and unprecedented high unemployment.

Meanwhile the mother has to pay all the bills herself or accept welfare when she may not need to if her baby daddy would contribute. Stuff happens, sure, but I hope he puts the kid and the mothet through life with his winnings otherwise I'm on subby's side.

Why should he pay a dime more than he owes? And why the fark would anyone be expected to support an ex? If dude wanted to pay that biatches way he wouldn't have kicked her to the curb in the first place.


What a lovely person you are.
 
2013-03-28 03:07:53 PM
I wonder how much he'll owe in back child support payments when he declares bankruptcy?
 
2013-03-28 03:08:02 PM

drewogatory: Why should he pay a dime more than he owes?


Because he fathered five children. When you do that, when you make the conscious decision to have your own farking basketball team, you support them.
 
2013-03-28 03:08:11 PM
Most people who win the lottery have something going against them. If they have no criminal or legal foibles, they generally fall into one of two categories: gambling addicts or greedy excess spenders with too much money already, but think they need more for some idiotic reason. I highly doubt this man fell into the latter category (though clearly he has legal financial trouble), considering nearly everywhere a person who has a job will be required to, eventually, pay child support unless he goes from job to job and literally either makes nothing or is paid under the table.

So, yeah, now this man will not only EASILY be able to pay off his debts, but his child will be taken care of.

Here comes the part where, because this is the US, someone will now say that a) his child support should be increased to a million bucks a year, and/or b) the mother of said child deserves some of this lottery windfall because she had to deal with the financial pain and suffering of not receiving his money, while simultaneously, if her luck is down and out, receiving literally every single legal allowable financial government benefit under the sun, assuming the child is under 18.

/most people don't argue in favor of the final paragraph above
//my experience is from that of the child going through the divorce, though an older teenager, so some of the above has applied to me
///dad should have been out on his ass, not mom
 
2013-03-28 03:08:22 PM

TrollingForColumbine: As someone who has owed as much as 10k in back child support, I can easily see how this person could be a good person and still owe back support. The mechanism for collecting child support are designed to favor the the custodial parent. So changing support is often cumbersome and expensive. Add on top of this the fact that changes in judgments do not always get communicated to the collecting operations or to the  federal level where tax returns can be garnished. I have been through the mill on this several time in the state of illinois.

/has been current with support for many years
//often the back support is due to court/state error and not non payment
///I hope he give the mother of the child 2 million the child 4 and takes them on a cruise


He does not owe her a dime!
 
2013-03-28 03:08:31 PM

tylerdurden217: xanadian: Ya know, it's funny when someone immediately jumps to the conclusion that just because he's a dude and owes child support that he must be a bad person.

Either submitter is trolling or is a woman.

Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.


Every scenario.

Good/Evil is to binary, try to think a little more outside the box. It'll do you and society a favor.

This man is more than just whether or not he pays child support and these knee jerk reactions based on emotion and self-righteousness are part of the problem.

It's not like we just had a debilitating recession and the job market right now is dismal at best.

Living in a "Just World" is fun because it makes you the "Good" guy and other people the "Bad" guys.
 
2013-03-28 03:09:20 PM

Harry Freakstorm: I wonder how much he'll owe in back child support payments when he declares bankruptcy?


$29k
 
2013-03-28 03:09:56 PM
Awesome things happen to bad people all the time.

I just want to know what the over/under is on an eight figure debt load before his bankruptcy proceeding begins.
 
2013-03-28 03:10:10 PM

BunkoSquad: I wonder what the overlap is between the "sometimes men can't pay child support for reasons beyond their control" crowd and the "keeps your legs closed if you don't want kids, lady" crowd.


Joe Walsh.
 
2013-03-28 03:10:22 PM
As someone engaged to a person owed 7 grand in back support plus 10k in birthing costs getting a kick etc. But she's constantly getting the run around from the courts on getting him to pay anything. The judge even said once that the sperm donor would get special consideration because of a tour of duty in Iraq. Now here we sit, myself raising his kids, him taking off to oregon and knocking up an 18 year old, and us trying to get him to give up legal rights. Id rather him have nothing at all to do with them, it's not like he is anyways.
 
2013-03-28 03:10:42 PM
tylerdurden217
Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.

What if she re-married a wealthy person? Or if she won the lottery. Or the kid(s) got institutionalized for some reason. Or if she put them up for adoption.

I could think of more.
 
2013-03-28 03:11:02 PM
This is the deadbeat dad apologists thread apparently.
 
2013-03-28 03:11:32 PM
Though, my experience also says "people with a heart and no concept of the value of a dollar today are typically screwed by the current civil court system."
 
2013-03-28 03:11:57 PM

Jim_Callahan: lymond01: Meanwhile the mother has to pay all the bills herself or accept welfare when she may not need to if her baby daddy would contribute. Stuff happens, sure, but I hope he puts the kid and the mothet through life with his winnings otherwise I'm on subby's side.

Yeah, because his lack of custody is totally willing and not the result of an absurdy misandrist set of laws and traditions governing divorce proceedings in the US or anything.


Your point doesn't negate their point.
 
2013-03-28 03:13:13 PM

ga362: tylerdurden217
Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.
What if she re-married a wealthy person? Or if she won the lottery. Or the kid(s) got institutionalized for some reason. Or if she put them up for adoption.

I could think of more.


Doesn't matter who she marries. Support is ordered for the child, not the spouse. Unless you want to allow the  new spouse to formally adopt your child you are still responsible for the support.

If she won the lottery, you might be able to get a lawyer to finagle something that reduces your responsibility but not if you already owe back support.

If she put them up for adoption....wait, this is just silly. Why would I dignify a remark that stupid with a serious answer?
 
2013-03-28 03:13:17 PM
If ya can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Throw the bum in jail, teach him a lesson.
 
2013-03-28 03:13:48 PM
You didn't get a raw deal from the courts.  You got what every man got before you.  You were simply ignorant of the risks.

Your real problem was knocking up a terrible woman.
 
2013-03-28 03:14:24 PM
Be afraid wealthy people. They are looking for a home in your neighborhood.   www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-03-28 03:15:17 PM
Also, they are idiots for showing their mugs like that.
 
2013-03-28 03:15:17 PM

puffy999: Here comes the part where, because this is the US, someone will now say that a) his child support should be increased to a million bucks a year, and/or b) the mother of said child deserves some of this lottery windfall because she had to deal with the financial pain and suffering of not receiving his money, while simultaneously, if her luck is down and out, receiving literally every single legal allowable financial government benefit under the sun, assuming the child is under 18.


What will happen is that he'll pay a handsome lump sum to his children out of his winnings and future payments will be based on his income, as usual.
 
2013-03-28 03:15:25 PM

Rurouni: This is the deadbeat dad apologists thread apparently.


It's the oversimplistic jump to conclusions thread for the self-righteous.
 
2013-03-28 03:16:13 PM
Child support is a racket. Non-custodial fathers get screwed.

There, I said it.
 
2013-03-28 03:16:34 PM
Im sure he will be broke in about 5 years.
 
2013-03-28 03:16:35 PM

Rurouni: This is the deadbeat dad apologists thread apparently.


And the deadbeat dad absolutists thread, as usual.
 
2013-03-28 03:19:05 PM

what_now: drewogatory: Why should he pay a dime more than he owes?

Because he fathered five children. When you do that, when you make the conscious decision to have your own farking basketball team, you support them.


Basketball team? Watch yourself...
 
2013-03-28 03:19:13 PM
In my State, any parent that is unemployed is treated as earning minimum wage for child support calculations.

I had 50/50 custody with my ex for many years.   She kept suing for readjustments asking for $400-$500 per month for 1 kid, because all of her friends told her that is what she deserved.

She was always shocked when the support was ordered at $75-$150 because that is what the formula said she got.  Now I have 100% custody, and she gets 0.

My State also has a maximum child support of $63000 per year.    Yes, his ex will ask for a readjustment and will probably get it.

I wonder if New Jersey has a maximum child support level
 
2013-03-28 03:20:28 PM

Bippal: As someone engaged to a person owed 7 grand in back support plus 10k in birthing costs getting a kick etc.


Run. Now.
 
2013-03-28 03:20:45 PM

Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?


I'm sure this has been mentioned but he apparently scraped up enough for a Powerball ticket.

F**k this a**hole.
 
2013-03-28 03:21:04 PM

Master Sphincter: Be afraid wealthy people. They are looking for a home in your neighborhood.   [www.washingtonpost.com image 569x404]


He used his wife as an interpreter at the news conference. It seems that over twenty years isn't enough time to learn the language of the country you moved to.
 
2013-03-28 03:21:11 PM

Bippal: him taking off to oregon


If this person you speak of stays in Oregon, he'll pay if he gets a job... but, there's a caveat.

I live in Oregon, ex-roommate was a man who owed child support in another state. See, he had over $10,000 of child support collected from his paychecks in the state of Oregon since, I think, 2004 (this was based on a statement from a couple years ago).
About this same time, he received a statement from his home state, to which this child support is supposed to be going, stated that they had received ZERO dollars and was subject to arrest if he were to ever enter that state again (he's actually been held in jail for hours in Oregon for a non-criminal offense BECAUSE of this child support case).

Oregon had collected child support, but had not distributed it, is what happened. I still do not know if they've distributed it. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of dollars of stuff has been sold off and given to the son involved in this case by his father, through family members (since he's banished from his home state), but that does not get to be accounted in his child support. And, hey, the mother is currently in jail for child abuse.
 
2013-03-28 03:21:16 PM

A Shambling Mound: With any luck they just garnish his unpaid amount from his winnings so at least his kid will see some money before this newly minted millionaire gets back about the very serious business of shirking his responsibilities in a much nicer car.


Garnish? GARNISH???


HAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-03-28 03:21:31 PM
My ex-wife has to pay me child support, so I'm getting a kick.....
 
2013-03-28 03:21:37 PM

Master Sphincter: Be afraid wealthy people. They are looking for a home in your neighborhood.   [www.washingtonpost.com image 569x404]


As long as they drive up the price of my home, come on down!
/Won't live here long because we don't cotton to their kind (nouveau riche)
 
2013-03-28 03:21:59 PM

Masta Kronix: tylerdurden217: xanadian: Ya know, it's funny when someone immediately jumps to the conclusion that just because he's a dude and owes child support that he must be a bad person.

Either submitter is trolling or is a woman.

Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.

Every scenario.

Good/Evil is to binary, try to think a little more outside the box. It'll do you and society a favor.

This man is more than just whether or not he pays child support and these knee jerk reactions based on emotion and self-righteousness are part of the problem.

It's not like we just had a debilitating recession and the job market right now is dismal at best.

Living in a "Just World" is fun because it makes you the "Good" guy and other people the "Bad" guys.



Unemployment at 8% means there's a pretty good chance that a person who doesn't pay child support, is doing so for selfish reasons. Man or woman, if you don't intend on providing for your offspring until they can provide for themselves, get fixed. I have known MANY people who did everything they could to avoid child support and not ONE of them was doing it for any reason other than selfish. A person might have many great qualities, but if they don't take care of their children's financial needs, that's a deal breaker for me. There are no doubt exceptions, but that's the rule. There might be some people who are 99% amazing human beings, but beat their dog at home. That's a deal breaker for me. I don't give a fark what their situation is, I can neatly file that under "no me gusta"... bad person.
 
2013-03-28 03:22:00 PM

Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?


Doesn't have money to take care of this kids?

Of course we don't know his story, but odds are he is a deadbeat. Of course he had enough expendible income to buy friggin lottery tickets so yeah, pretty damned sure he was a deadbeat.
 
2013-03-28 03:22:09 PM
As a dad who adopted his step-son from his second marriage, and who's crazy ex is filing for support even though I have custody of THOSE kids as well, I'm getting a kick...

/seriously, she's expecting me to pay child support when I have them 70% of the time
//she's filed in another jurisdiction because the first judge only gave her 4 extra days per month
 
2013-03-28 03:22:38 PM

Rurouni: This is the deadbeat dad apologists thread apparently.


Funny, it seemed more along the lines of "jump on the moral superiority and self-righteous bandwagon to make ourselves feel better about ourselves" thread?

I wonder why it isn't the "She should have made a better choice in men and making decisions" thread if we want to start placing blame instead of understanding.

Surely she should have known what type of character the individual was she willingly opening up her legs for him, right?

I mean, she had a choice with whom to have a child with? Wouldn't it be her fault for not picking a more "good" person? Anyone?
 
2013-03-28 03:22:41 PM

retarded: Child support is a racket. Non-custodial fathers get screwed.

There, I said it.


Agreed, at least he isn't in Michigan where they can take up to 50% of your take home pay after taxes, even if it is one kid.

/currently getting screwed by the state or MI
//Don't give me the you shouldn't have kids BS, I was married and was never expecting to be a single dad
///slashes FTW
 
2013-03-28 03:22:52 PM

Bippal: plus 10k in birthing costs


Did the state not pick that up? In almost all cases of the mother not having health insurance the state picks up the tab.

Subby is a troll, or a woman without a doubt. My daughters birth was a csection in 1999. Regular costs would have been around 6k or so, because the state paid they PAID the full amount the hospital was asking. Around 18k and change, for a damn birth... They hit me with every red cent.

/Pays child support monthly
// Still owes more than 10k on the birthing costs
/// Is a good person
 
2013-03-28 03:23:06 PM
I had a deadbeat dad.  I resented him like hell as a kid, but now that I'm older I genuinely appreciate everything he didn't do for me.  I've got a son of my own now who will be one month old tomorrow.  Nothing makes you realize the importance of being a good dad like not having one yourself.  I'm looking forward to doing all the things with him that I never got to do with my dad.
 
2013-03-28 03:23:06 PM
Classy couple trifecta in play?
 
2013-03-28 03:23:06 PM

ImRonBurgundy: Well, it worked out in his case.


brokenclockisrighttwiceaday.jpg
 
2013-03-28 03:23:09 PM
"Hey kids. NOW who would you rather live with, mommy or daddy?"
 
2013-03-28 03:23:29 PM
did he stand at a podium & announce that everyone else was a leech & the cause of all our social & economic problems?
 
2013-03-28 03:23:40 PM
knew a guy once that had several kids by several women, and he was working as a cabbie so that he could make money under the table.  Speaking as someone who may not have the ability to have kids(not for lack of trying, though), this man looks so happy, though he should have had the money in check form at the mother's house, on one knee, begging forgiveness.  Any child I may father would be the light of my life.  This dirt bag cabbie was shirking his duty so he could buy lotto tickets and booze.  It is a long and painful time, is parenting.  Can't handle it?  It's a $2 condom.  You don't deserve to be the biological father with actions like his.  Neither does the lotto winner.  Give it to someone who can regulate their bodily functions a little better.

/here I thought subby was going somewhere else with the headline.
//chances are good that we hear about this moron in the news
///dead with his wife pointing to a string of mistresses as the cause of her temporary insanity
temeez.com
 
2013-03-28 03:23:58 PM

give me doughnuts: Master Sphincter: Be afraid wealthy people. They are looking for a home in your neighborhood.   [www.washingtonpost.com image 569x404]

He used his wife as an interpreter at the news conference. It seems that over twenty years isn't enough time to learn the language of the country you moved to.


He's at a f*cking press conference, he's not ordering fries at McDonalds.

Hell, most AMERICAN people could use a f*cking interpreter at a press conference if they were to ever have one, because they sound like they just got out of the lobotomy ward.
 
2013-03-28 03:24:13 PM
He looks like an ok guy to me....
 
2013-03-28 03:24:58 PM

TrollingForColumbine: As someone who has owed as much as 10k in back child support, I can easily see how this person could be a good person and still owe back support. The mechanism for collecting child support are designed to favor the the custodial parent. So changing support is often cumbersome and expensive. Add on top of this the fact that changes in judgments do not always get communicated to the collecting operations or to the  federal level where tax returns can be garnished. I have been through the mill on this several time in the state of illinois.

/has been current with support for many years
//often the back support is due to court/state error and not non payment
///I hope he give the mother of the child 2 million the child 4 and takes them on a cruise


I work with a guy whose spouse sent an order to establish child support to the court after the divorce was finalized, and forged a signature on the service form, so he didn't know about any court date until a default judgment had been entered for the full requested amount and it started getting taken out of his check. The amount getting "taken out" of his check was temporarily 100% of the check, though he got an emergency order reducing that to a mere 50%. I don't know if he's had it corrected to his real salary yet, but the system is structured to that overpayment can never be refunded, only underpayments debited.

His fault was that he hired a useless lawyer and let his hate overwhelm his good judgment, though. Well, that and marrying a psycho, but in my opinion, they kind of deserved each other, since he repeatedly ranted about killing her and kept asking around if anyone knew a guy who could "take care" of those kind of problems.
 
2013-03-28 03:25:13 PM

olddinosaur: If ya can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Throw the bum in jail, teach him a lesson.


Would you throw a guy in jail if he lost his job and had to cut back on his family spending?
 
2013-03-28 03:25:16 PM

Masta Kronix: Rurouni: This is the deadbeat dad apologists thread apparently.

Funny, it seemed more along the lines of "jump on the moral superiority and self-righteous bandwagon to make ourselves feel better about ourselves" thread?

I wonder why it isn't the "She should have made a better choice in men and making decisions" thread if we want to start placing blame instead of understanding.

Surely she should have known what type of character the individual was she willingly opening up her legs for him, right?

I mean, she had a choice with whom to have a child with? Wouldn't it be her fault for not picking a more "good" person? Anyone?


It sure as hell isn't his kid's fault.
 
2013-03-28 03:25:19 PM

ManRay: what_now: drewogatory: Why should he pay a dime more than he owes?

Because he fathered five children. When you do that, when you make the conscious decision to have your own farking basketball team, you support them.

Basketball team? Watch yourself...


wat? five people. Basketball team.
 
2013-03-28 03:25:28 PM
I used to be harsh about this stuff, until a friend of mine was put through the wringer by the lazy twat he married.

Let's hope the guy pays a little extra to help his kid have an ample upbringing, even if that means letting the custodial ex come along for the ride for the next few years.  If he's a good dad he'll be nice to his child. He'll always be richer than the ex now, so he should let the animosity go, if any was there.
 
2013-03-28 03:25:31 PM

Masta Kronix: Rurouni: This is the deadbeat dad apologists thread apparently.

Funny, it seemed more along the lines of "jump on the moral superiority and self-righteous bandwagon to make ourselves feel better about ourselves" thread?

I wonder why it isn't the "She should have made a better choice in men and making decisions" thread if we want to start placing blame instead of understanding.

Surely she should have known what type of character the individual was she willingly opening up her legs for him, right?

I mean, she had a choice with whom to have a child with? Wouldn't it be her fault for not picking a more "good" person? Anyone?


What the hell are you talking about. Women are not to be blamed for their own actions, EVER.
 
2013-03-28 03:26:16 PM
"New Jersey man..."
And, that's all you have to know.
 
2013-03-28 03:26:57 PM

WhippingBoy: A Shambling Mound: With any luck they just garnish his unpaid amount from his winnings so at least his kid will see some money before this newly minted millionaire gets back about the very serious business of shirking his responsibilities in a much nicer car.

Garnish? GARNISH???


HAHAHAHAHAHA


- Krusty, this is America.  We don't send our celebrities to jail.  We're just going to garnish your salary.
- You're going to GARNISH my CELERY?
- Please, Krusty, no jokes!
- WHO'S JOKING?!  Oh, I don't understand what you're saying, it all sounds so crazy to me.
 
2013-03-28 03:27:20 PM
i1207.photobucket.com
cheaper than child support.
 
2013-03-28 03:27:28 PM

ga362: tylerdurden217
Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.
What if she re-married a wealthy person? Or if she won the lottery. Or the kid(s) got institutionalized for some reason. Or if she put them up for adoption.

I could think of more.


Wow, those are all terrible examples. It's like you wiped your ass and showed it to me. The spouse's newly found wealth (either by marriage or gambling) does not preclude a parent with a court order to provide support. There are some things that do end support: the death of the child, child turning 18 AND graduating form HS, the kid getting adopted by the exes new spouse... I'm sure there are more, but NOTHING you listed ends a person's financial responsibility for their child.

Also, like how you assumed it was a guy... just sayin.
 
2013-03-28 03:27:34 PM

BarkingUnicorn: What will happen is that he'll pay a handsome lump sum to his children out of his winnings and future payments will be based on his income, as usual.


Possible that he pays a big lump sum to make it go away, but can one consider a lottery windfall "income" over the course of time? Yes, guys like T.O. may end up paying more because they make millions of dollars per year over many consecutive years, but I don't know about a lotto winner.

tylerdurden217: Unemployment at 8%


Do you know what "unemployment," in the context in which you are using it, means?
 
2013-03-28 03:27:44 PM
Also, regarding the story, at least mom gets her back child support. Regardless of whether anyone deserves a windfall - you or I deserve it no more than he, but he gets it because he played - at least all of his debts are going to be paid before anyone sees the money.
 
2013-03-28 03:28:38 PM

Cagey B: Bippal: As someone engaged to a person owed 7 grand in back support plus 10k in birthing costs getting a kick etc.

Run. Now.


Run? Why? Because her husband left her four months pregnant with her second baby to run off with some young girl? No thanks she's an amazing mom .

And she had insurance from work, just crappy insurance and makes enough to not qualify for any sort of stye assistance. But their divorce decree stated he owed half he just never paid.
 
2013-03-28 03:28:44 PM

puffy999: give me doughnuts: Master Sphincter: Be afraid wealthy people. They are looking for a home in your neighborhood.   [www.washingtonpost.com image 569x404]

He used his wife as an interpreter at the news conference. It seems that over twenty years isn't enough time to learn the language of the country you moved to.

He's at a f*cking press conference, he's not ordering fries at McDonalds.

Hell, most AMERICAN people could use a f*cking interpreter at a press conference if they were to ever have one, because they sound like they just got out of the lobotomy ward.


He's been living here for over 20 years and can't or won't speak the damned language. If I'd been living in Katmandu for a couple of decades I'd damned well be able to speak Nepali and Bhasa.
 
2013-03-28 03:28:51 PM

kronicfeld: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.


What if he cannot afford a lawyer?  What if he cannot work through the byzantine legal code re: family courts?  What if the best lawyer he can afford isn't very good.

Just because people cannot afford to hire Johnny Cochrane doesn't mean they should take blame for what happens in the US court system.  The system is rigged for the rich and well connected.

Also people aren't always poor because of bad choices or laziness.
 
2013-03-28 03:29:17 PM

eljibarito: retarded: Child support is a racket. Non-custodial fathers get screwed.

There, I said it.

Agreed, at least he isn't in Michigan where they can take up to 50% of your take home pay after taxes, even if it is one kid.

/currently getting screwed by the state or MI
//Don't give me the you shouldn't have kids BS, I was married and was never expecting to be a single dad
///slashes FTW


Maximum is 35% of gross .. which could end up being 50% of net.
 
2013-03-28 03:29:41 PM
He should take out a hit on his ex. I mean, rich people don't go to jail. And besides, he should be able to get a decent hit man for < $29K
 
2013-03-28 03:29:50 PM

fickenchucker: Let's hope the guy pays a little extra to help his kid have an ample upbringing,


Like a college trust fund.
 
2013-03-28 03:30:30 PM

John Buck 41: I'm sure this has been mentioned but he apparently scraped up enough for a Powerball ticket.

F**k this a**hole.


Oh man, he scraped up an entire dollar? That monster!
 
2013-03-28 03:30:38 PM
Maybe guys should be a little more cautious about where they put their dick.
 
2013-03-28 03:30:40 PM
The guy ran a farking bodega in Passiac. His entire business is selling Dutchmasters, booze, Newports......and lotto tickets. Of course, you might play yourself on a lark after clicking off Powerball tickets all day.

My advice for this guy: Cut a check and hire a expensive attorney before you lose everything from baby-mama drama. Hide cash offshore if you have to.
 
2013-03-28 03:30:47 PM

sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.


Yup, shiat happens.  It is good that this will be cleared up with the winnings regardless of the moral standing of the deadbeat.  (still gonna call him a deadbeat)
 
2013-03-28 03:31:19 PM

what_now: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

so..why's he playing the lotto?


In this case, it has beaten my sandwich-heavy portfolio.

www.pequepuzzle.com
 
2013-03-28 03:31:20 PM
And now he can pay it.  Welcome to the new wives tales.  He might have just been poor.  A lot of poor people pay the lottery.  Now, he's not poor.  Worked out.
 
2013-03-28 03:31:51 PM

nocturnal001: Masta Kronix: Rurouni: This is the deadbeat dad apologists thread apparently.

Funny, it seemed more along the lines of "jump on the moral superiority and self-righteous bandwagon to make ourselves feel better about ourselves" thread?

I wonder why it isn't the "She should have made a better choice in men and making decisions" thread if we want to start placing blame instead of understanding.

Surely she should have known what type of character the individual was she willingly opening up her legs for him, right?

I mean, she had a choice with whom to have a child with? Wouldn't it be her fault for not picking a more "good" person? Anyone?

It sure as hell isn't his kid's fault.


Never said it was, what I said was it didn't make this individual a bad person and reducing the subject down to such a ridiculous binary Good/Evil is doing more harm than good.

Bad father perhaps, but not a bad person deserving of all this hatred and self-righteous drivel taking place in this thread.
 
2013-03-28 03:31:52 PM

SquiggsIN: I hope his baby-mommas are all planning on taking him back to court for a readjustment.  He now has the money to truly provide everything his children will ever need and let's hope that he's required to do so.


Baby momma is entitled to the original award.
Nothing more.
 
2013-03-28 03:32:09 PM
Do the right thing and set up a college fund. Don't be a cheapass.
 
2013-03-28 03:32:28 PM

Mugato: Maybe guys should be a little more cautious about where they put their dick.


100% this.
 
2013-03-28 03:32:53 PM

DrewCurtisJr: olddinosaur: If ya can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Throw the bum in jail, teach him a lesson.

Would you throw a guy in jail if he lost his job and had to cut back on his family spending?


If he could work and would not, yeah I would. And if he had the money and would not pay, doubly so.

If he flips burgers all day, delivers pizzas all night and mows lawns all weekend, he would have the money. If he is not crippled, retarded or blind he gets no sympathy from me.

/// Sick and tired of seeing my tax money feed someone else's bastards.
 
2013-03-28 03:33:48 PM
Countdown to the exes filing lawsuits to get more than 29k in 3...
 
2013-03-28 03:34:00 PM
I once met a woman who used her child support payments to get drunk. Grandma took care of the kid and didn't bother asking for the support payments because it would have been more trouble than it was worth. I wouldn't have blame the guy involved if he fell behind...
 
2013-03-28 03:34:28 PM
Pay her off.  Make your kids millionaires.  Sell the bodega or hire people to run it and create jobs.  Don't be a douche.
 
2013-03-28 03:34:36 PM

PiffMan420: The guy ran a farking bodega in Passiac. His entire business is selling Dutchmasters, booze, Newports......and lotto tickets. Of course, you might play yourself on a lark after clicking off Powerball tickets all day.

My advice for this guy: Cut a check and hire a expensive attorney before you lose everything from baby-mama drama. Hide cash offshore if you have to.


He needs a whole financial team that he can trust, Lawyer is just one part.

He has a new full time job now.   Learning how to manage that much money effectively and not getting it stolen from him by a whole slew of scumbags.

Fortunately, I don't know any of the scumbags that will try to rip him off.   I don't have enough money for them to be interested in me.
 
2013-03-28 03:35:09 PM
Why am I not surprised he's mexican?
 
2013-03-28 03:35:22 PM

tylerdurden217: Masta Kronix: tylerdurden217: xanadian: Ya know, it's funny when someone immediately jumps to the conclusion that just because he's a dude and owes child support that he must be a bad person.

Either submitter is trolling or is a woman.

Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.

Every scenario.

Good/Evil is to binary, try to think a little more outside the box. It'll do you and society a favor.

This man is more than just whether or not he pays child support and these knee jerk reactions based on emotion and self-righteousness are part of the problem.

It's not like we just had a debilitating recession and the job market right now is dismal at best.

Living in a "Just World" is fun because it makes you the "Good" guy and other people the "Bad" guys.


Unemployment at 8% means there's a pretty good chance that a person who doesn't pay child support, is doing so for selfish reasons. Man or woman, if you don't intend on providing for your offspring until they can provide for themselves, get fixed. I have known MANY people who did everything they could to avoid child support and not ONE of them was doing it for any reason other than selfish. A person might have many great qualities, but if they don't take care of their children's financial needs, that's a deal breaker for me. There are no doubt exceptions, but that's the rule. There might be some people who are 99% amazing human beings, but beat their dog at home. That's a deal breaker for me. I don't give a fark what their situation is, I can neatly file that under "no me gusta"... bad person.


That says more about you than the people you are using your own arbitrary, moral compass to pass judgment on.
 
2013-03-28 03:35:44 PM

fickenchucker: I used to be harsh about this stuff, until a friend of mine was put through the wringer by the lazy twat he married.


Eh, nobody's perfect. He probably wasn't a saint either, and might have even had a clue about her beforehand. Hell, I asked a crazy latina to marry me, god knows if I don't end up in a ditch if I get divorced, I'll be lucky to escape with the shirt off my back. It'd be no one's fault but mine; even if I have complaints about her, I knew them before hand, so I can't cry ignorance.

Not many deserve the shiat they get, but the real world is a harsh mistress. We take our lumps and move on.
 
2013-03-28 03:36:43 PM

Masta Kronix: nocturnal001: Masta Kronix: Rurouni: This is the deadbeat dad apologists thread apparently.

Funny, it seemed more along the lines of "jump on the moral superiority and self-righteous bandwagon to make ourselves feel better about ourselves" thread?

I wonder why it isn't the "She should have made a better choice in men and making decisions" thread if we want to start placing blame instead of understanding.

Surely she should have known what type of character the individual was she willingly opening up her legs for him, right?

I mean, she had a choice with whom to have a child with? Wouldn't it be her fault for not picking a more "good" person? Anyone?

It sure as hell isn't his kid's fault.

Never said it was, what I said was it didn't make this individual a bad person and reducing the subject down to such a ridiculous binary Good/Evil is doing more harm than good.

Bad father perhaps, but not a bad person deserving of all this hatred and self-righteous drivel taking place in this thread.


Well jeez, with that standard.  As much hate and bile there is on the net I think the only people ever really worth are Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ghengis Kahn, and maybe that girl from South Carolina that wanted to give maps to African children or something.
 
2013-03-28 03:37:03 PM

BunkoSquad: I wonder what the overlap is between the "sometimes men can't pay child support for reasons beyond their control" crowd and the "keeps your legs closed if you don't want kids, lady" crowd.


It's just one circle.
 
2013-03-28 03:37:38 PM

shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?


Probably because you hold racist views and use race as a metric to judge others.
 
2013-03-28 03:38:06 PM
Investment bankers steal billions, tank it, pick our pockets to get it back and blow the money on bonuses.  Job creators.  Pillars of the community.  Some schnook lucks out, nail him up.  Corporations love it when people start eating each other cause "that money should be MINE" while they steal our pensions and eat out of our pantries.  Ha ha.
 
2013-03-28 03:38:21 PM

olddinosaur: /// Sick and tired of seeing my tax money feed someone else's bastards.


Just because you are behind on child support doesn't mean the kids are on welfare and the kids are starving.
 
2013-03-28 03:39:33 PM
I have a friend who was 35k in arrearages  before his daughter was 6 months old.

How did that happen you ask. Well when his daughter was born he went and petitioned the state to set child support payments.  When his daughter was about a month old she got an ear infection and had to be admitted to the hospital. He had health insurance for his daughter, but instead of using his health insurance his daughter's mother used her medicaid or medicare, what ever it is, card because his health insurance had a $75 copay and she didn't want to pay it. He didn't find out about this until 2 months later when they were at the child support hearing and they told him he had an arrearage of 35k. So I guess if the article was about him and it said that he owed child support of 35k - what ever he paid off, dating back to 2008, some of you would be screaming that he was a deadbeat also.

And for those of you saying that he should have asked for a reduction if he couldn't pay, the court doesn't automatically give out reductions. I know a few people that ask for reductions when they were laid off and couldn't find work, or found other jobs that paid far less than they were making before, and refused reductions and told to get two or three jobs if they had to.
 
2013-03-28 03:39:53 PM
I think my father still owes that much for me from decades ago. Really it's child support, by the time you get to that point you know the payor won't be paying.
 
2013-03-28 03:41:00 PM

nocturnal001: Masta Kronix: nocturnal001: Masta Kronix: Rurouni: This is the deadbeat dad apologists thread apparently.

Funny, it seemed more along the lines of "jump on the moral superiority and self-righteous bandwagon to make ourselves feel better about ourselves" thread?

I wonder why it isn't the "She should have made a better choice in men and making decisions" thread if we want to start placing blame instead of understanding.

Surely she should have known what type of character the individual was she willingly opening up her legs for him, right?

I mean, she had a choice with whom to have a child with? Wouldn't it be her fault for not picking a more "good" person? Anyone?

It sure as hell isn't his kid's fault.

Never said it was, what I said was it didn't make this individual a bad person and reducing the subject down to such a ridiculous binary Good/Evil is doing more harm than good.

Bad father perhaps, but not a bad person deserving of all this hatred and self-righteous drivel taking place in this thread.

Well jeez, with that standard.  As much hate and bile there is on the net I think the only people ever really worth are Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ghengis Kahn, and maybe that girl from South Carolina that wanted to give maps to African children or something.


Or we are all human beings and given the same situation and circumstances we'd be just as likely to exhibit the behavior of those individuals as you would any other.

You're not special, your the result of your life experiences and how your physiological make up allows you to respond and learn from those experiences.

See, it's fun to degrade and judge others whom we deem less human or morally corrupt according to our own moral compass because it makes us feel better about ourselves.

See I'm a "good" person, so therefore they must be a "bad" person since I manage to follow rules A,B,C!

Must easier to live in that world than the real world.
 
2013-03-28 03:41:12 PM

Masta Kronix: shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?

Probably because you hold racist views and use race as a metric to judge others.


North Jersey......my money's on Domincian or Puerto Rican.

If you must stereotype other races, do it right!
 
2013-03-28 03:44:01 PM

puffy999: Do you know what "unemployment," in the context in which you are using it, means?


I understand the actual unemployment statistic from the BLS quite well. I used it to suggest that most people looking for a job, have a job. If you have a mouth to feed other than your own and you are free from the custody of that responsibility, the LEAST you can do is search a little harder than the other unemployed people.

"Can't find a job" doesn't cut it. I'm not talking about someone who makes a late payment occasionally .. I'm saving my criticism for those that NEVER pay or are so far behind that the figure is totaling in the thousands or worse yet, 10's of thousands.
 
2013-03-28 03:44:37 PM

shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?


Because you're a racist.
 
2013-03-28 03:44:41 PM

kronicfeld: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.


How do you know he didn't move for a reduction?  Maybe the 29K is after the reduction.
 
2013-03-28 03:45:13 PM
The common practice is for whores to marry a foolish man, bear a few miserable brats, sue for divorce and child support, and then begin a downward spiral of serial monogamy and loose alliances until the meal tickets come of age and the money stops.

An especially crafty whore can start the first round of leeching at 18 to 20 years old, and still be able to repeat the exercise with a new fallguy at the end of her practical childbearing years -- around 38 to 40 years old.
 
2013-03-28 03:45:42 PM

WhippingBoy: A Shambling Mound: With any luck they just garnish his unpaid amount from his winnings so at least his kid will see some money before this newly minted millionaire gets back about the very serious business of shirking his responsibilities in a much nicer car.

Garnish? GARNISH???


HAHAHAHAHAHA


What are you laughing about?  Do you think Shambling meant, "stick a pickle slice on his winnings?"
 
2013-03-28 03:47:49 PM

PiffMan420: Masta Kronix: shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?

Probably because you hold racist views and use race as a metric to judge others.

North Jersey......my money's on Domincian or Puerto Rican.

If you must stereotype other races, do it right!


My bad.

/Trolling aside, I work collections for a living and every single mexican, dom, or PR that we deal with is always (and I don't stereotype, I literally mean always) have some form of civil judgement against them, and 9/10 times it's for unpaid child support.
 
2013-03-28 03:48:03 PM

Masta Kronix: nocturnal001: Masta Kronix: nocturnal001: Masta Kronix: Rurouni: This is the deadbeat dad apologists thread apparently.

Funny, it seemed more along the lines of "jump on the moral superiority and self-righteous bandwagon to make ourselves feel better about ourselves" thread?

I wonder why it isn't the "She should have made a better choice in men and making decisions" thread if we want to start placing blame instead of understanding.

Surely she should have known what type of character the individual was she willingly opening up her legs for him, right?

I mean, she had a choice with whom to have a child with? Wouldn't it be her fault for not picking a more "good" person? Anyone?

It sure as hell isn't his kid's fault.

Never said it was, what I said was it didn't make this individual a bad person and reducing the subject down to such a ridiculous binary Good/Evil is doing more harm than good.

Bad father perhaps, but not a bad person deserving of all this hatred and self-righteous drivel taking place in this thread.

Well jeez, with that standard.  As much hate and bile there is on the net I think the only people ever really worth are Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ghengis Kahn, and maybe that girl from South Carolina that wanted to give maps to African children or something.

Or we are all human beings and given the same situation and circumstances we'd be just as likely to exhibit the behavior of those individuals as you would any other.

You're not special, your the result of your life experiences and how your physiological make up allows you to respond and learn from those experiences.

See, it's fun to degrade and judge others whom we deem less human or morally corrupt according to our own moral compass because it makes us feel better about ourselves.

See I'm a "good" person, so therefore they must be a "bad" person since I manage to follow rules A,B,C!

Must easier to live in that world than the real world.


That's bullcrap.  You just gave everyone who ever did something bad a pass.
 
2013-03-28 03:49:35 PM
I just know he isn't going to only give $29K. I bet he gives them a $1 million. If he is a good hearted man.
 
2013-03-28 03:49:56 PM

asmodeus224: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Yup, shiat happens.  It is good that this will be cleared up with the winnings regardless of the moral standing of the deadbeat.  (still gonna call him a deadbeat)


"Deadbeat" is for those who refuse to pay, not for those who cannot.  I'll go along with "failure" for the latter, noting that failure is not always a choice.
 
2013-03-28 03:53:30 PM
$1000 says he will blow it within 5 years
 
2013-03-28 03:53:34 PM

nocturnal001: Doesn't have money to take care of this kids?

Of course we don't know his story, but odds are he is a deadbeat. Of course he had enough expendible income to buy friggin lottery tickets so yeah, pretty damned sure he was a deadbeat.


I'd venture to guess that your opinion of welfare recipients buying things like cigarettes and lottery tickets is totally consistent with your condemnation of deadbeat dads.
 
2013-03-28 03:53:52 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-28 03:53:57 PM

vudukungfu: Mugato: Maybe guys should be a little more cautious about where they put their dick.

100% this.


I'd go along with that if I didn't know that women change their minds... you know, as it is their prerogative to do so. Say in the unlikely case that one who is cautious about where he deposits his sperm, and the willing recipient agrees that he is great dad material - then suddenly, out of the blue, she decides she is no longer happy and BAM... you got pwned by family court. Caution has nothing at all to do with any of it.
 
2013-03-28 03:54:13 PM

shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?


Dominican Republics =/= Mexican.

seeing that you are in the Chino area, i can understand your generalization but c'mon, that's just bad form.
 
2013-03-28 03:54:17 PM
Hey, if he didn't waste his money on the lottery, he would have never paid that back child support.  Since he is such an idiot, they should just make him pre-pay the child support.  I have a feeling it's going to get a little more expensive.
 
2013-03-28 03:54:48 PM

shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?


How do you know?  He could be Panamanian, Guatemalan, El Salvadoran. Colombian, Venezuelan or Spanish.
Who am I kidding, you're right.
 
2013-03-28 03:55:13 PM

Masta Kronix: That says more about you than the people you are using your own arbitrary, moral compass to pass judgment on.


I don't think you have ever used a compass, because that was a flawed analogy. There are certain specific behaviors that people exhibit that are some indication of how they treat other people. If you don't agree with that concept, I really don't want to meet the scum that you associate with.

If some dude beats his girlfriend, date rapes at college, doesn't pay child support, abuses animals/children/friends/strangers/..., kills people, steals, etc. I don't feel like I need to take a step back and look at their other qualities that may or may not be good. You are right, that does say something about me. You are right, I pass judgement. You should admit that you also do. You know almost nothing about me, but still felt comfortable telling me that I could do "society a favor" by changing the way I think.

I think you could do society a favor by being a little less tolerant of assholes. When friends ignore the douchebaggery of their asshole friends, it makes them think that it's really not all that bad, but it really is.
 
2013-03-28 03:55:29 PM
Ever been to Passaic, NJ?  It's not Beverly Hills.  This dude didn't even own a car.   Give it a rest.
 
2013-03-28 03:55:34 PM

Pick: I just know he isn't going to only give $29K. I bet he gives them a $1 million. If he is a good hearted man.


He may end up "giving" much more when this year's support obligation is recalculated.  And a thoughtful family court judge will order it placed in trust for the children, with an income stream to  the custodial parent(s) for the kids' reasonable support until they turn 18.
 
2013-03-28 03:55:41 PM

GoldSpider: nocturnal001: Doesn't have money to take care of this kids?

Of course we don't know his story, but odds are he is a deadbeat. Of course he had enough expendible income to buy friggin lottery tickets so yeah, pretty damned sure he was a deadbeat.

I'd venture to guess that your opinion of welfare recipients buying things like cigarettes and lottery tickets is totally consistent with your condemnation of deadbeat dads.


Sure is, stupid and irrational behaviors that somebody else pays the price for (his kids and taxpayers respectively).
 
2013-03-28 03:55:45 PM

nocturnal001: Masta Kronix: nocturnal001: Masta Kronix: nocturnal001: Masta Kronix: Rurouni: This is the deadbeat dad apologists thread apparently.

Funny, it seemed more along the lines of "jump on the moral superiority and self-righteous bandwagon to make ourselves feel better about ourselves" thread?

I wonder why it isn't the "She should have made a better choice in men and making decisions" thread if we want to start placing blame instead of understanding.

Surely she should have known what type of character the individual was she willingly opening up her legs for him, right?

I mean, she had a choice with whom to have a child with? Wouldn't it be her fault for not picking a more "good" person? Anyone?

It sure as hell isn't his kid's fault.

Never said it was, what I said was it didn't make this individual a bad person and reducing the subject down to such a ridiculous binary Good/Evil is doing more harm than good.

Bad father perhaps, but not a bad person deserving of all this hatred and self-righteous drivel taking place in this thread.

Well jeez, with that standard.  As much hate and bile there is on the net I think the only people ever really worth are Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ghengis Kahn, and maybe that girl from South Carolina that wanted to give maps to African children or something.

Or we are all human beings and given the same situation and circumstances we'd be just as likely to exhibit the behavior of those individuals as you would any other.

You're not special, your the result of your life experiences and how your physiological make up allows you to respond and learn from those experiences.

See, it's fun to degrade and judge others whom we deem less human or morally corrupt according to our own moral compass because it makes us feel better about ourselves.

See I'm a "good" person, so therefore they must be a "bad" person since I manage to follow rules A,B,C!

Must easier to live in that world than the real world.

That's bullcrap.  You just gave everyone w ...


No I didn't, what I did was give a scientific and based in reality explanation for why human beings act the way they do sometimes.

You're the individual who can't get past this binary everything is broken down into "Good/Bad" actions and those who commit "bad" actions are bad and those who commit "good" actions are good.

How one judges an action is based solely on their own personal interpretation of said actions. How one forms an interpretation of actions is based on their own moral and philosophical view.

One can argue there are actions that hurt society as a whole when it comes to quality of life and progress however you would then have to define a Universal Metric for what Quality of Life and Progress means and prove that's the undisputed metric by which we should use.

It's easy to judge others actions as bad/good, any idiot can do it, it's much more difficult to understand their actions and the underlying causes without prejudice or bias.
 
2013-03-28 03:56:18 PM

Quigs: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 320x308]


Oh dear...
 
2013-03-28 03:56:54 PM

Isitoveryet: shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?

Dominican Republics =/= Mexican.

seeing that you are in the Chino area, i can understand your generalization but c'mon, that's just bad form.


i3.ytimg.com
/obscure?
 
2013-03-28 03:57:13 PM

nocturnal001: Sure is, stupid and irrational behaviors that somebody else pays the price for (his kids and taxpayers respectively).


Interesting, that's not what I've come to expect from Fark.
 
2013-03-28 03:57:15 PM
And THIS is one of the reasons why I'm ever-so-picky about when getting a girlfriend/wife.

"What?! You've never had a girlfriend/wife yet?!"

Correct. Because this is one of the reasons why: because the child support and alimony system is too far too crazy.

/guy seems like a deadbeat, btw
 
2013-03-28 03:57:36 PM

Quigs: 4.bp.blogspot.com


Oh, boy, that Mallard Fillmore sure has some competition now...
 
2013-03-28 03:58:27 PM

PsyLord: Isitoveryet: shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?

Dominican Republics =/= Mexican.

seeing that you are in the Chino area, i can understand your generalization but c'mon, that's just bad form.

[i3.ytimg.com image 320x180]
/obscure?


Dominicans roll crêpes much too tightly.
 
2013-03-28 03:58:33 PM

sammyk: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

I wonder if maybe there was some sort of economic factor beyond his control. Something like a worldwide recession and unprecedented high unemployment.


Are you sure you know what the word unprecedented means?
 
2013-03-28 03:59:28 PM

PsyLord: Isitoveryet: shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?

Dominican Republics =/= Mexican.

seeing that you are in the Chino area, i can understand your generalization but c'mon, that's just bad form.

[i3.ytimg.com image 320x180]
/obscure?


"The English Patient"
 
2013-03-28 03:59:48 PM
I wonder what the media would say about me if I won (I have no kids... that I know of). Like what kind of dirt would come up with crazy people. I'd still like a $100+ million. But I'd get the hell out of the US.
 
2013-03-28 03:59:55 PM

tylerdurden217: Masta Kronix: That says more about you than the people you are using your own arbitrary, moral compass to pass judgment on.

I don't think you have ever used a compass, because that was a flawed analogy. There are certain specific behaviors that people exhibit that are some indication of how they treat other people. If you don't agree with that concept, I really don't want to meet the scum that you associate with.

If some dude beats his girlfriend, date rapes at college, doesn't pay child support, abuses animals/children/friends/strangers/..., kills people, steals, etc. I don't feel like I need to take a step back and look at their other qualities that may or may not be good. You are right, that does say something about me. You are right, I pass judgement. You should admit that you also do. You know almost nothing about me, but still felt comfortable telling me that I could do "society a favor" by changing the way I think.

I think you could do society a favor by being a little less tolerant of assholes. When friends ignore the douchebaggery of their asshole friends, it makes them think that it's really not all that bad, but it really is.


This is Fark.  Such rational, free-thinking individualism is not tolerated herein.
Oh, and,,,,bravo!
 
2013-03-28 04:00:59 PM

DrewCurtisJr: olddinosaur: /// Sick and tired of seeing my tax money feed someone else's bastards.

Just because you are behind on child support doesn't mean the kids are on welfare and the kids are starving.


Don't taunt the dynamite monkey. The sign clearly states this message.
 
2013-03-28 04:01:14 PM

SquiggsIN: Who knows what trouble he's had to keep him from paying that back support... maybe he is really just a deadbeat.  I hope his baby-mommas are all planning on taking him back to court for a readjustment.  He now has the money to truly provide everything his children will ever need and let's hope that he's required he chooses to do so.

 
2013-03-28 04:01:15 PM
Quigs:

4.bp.blogspot.com

You know when feminism is going to actually mean something in the west?  Seriously?  The actual "HA!" moment?  About an hour after women stop going, "nuh UH, whatEVER, cause vaGIna!"  That's when.  Not holding my hand on my butt waiting.
 
2013-03-28 04:01:22 PM

sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.


I agree with the family court part.  That place is mind boggling and if you've never been... you can't be told, you have to go yourself.

However, child support is not negotiable.  Your child, your money, not your choice.  Failing to have any money is also not acceptable.  If you aren't literally starving to death, you had better be putting money toward that kid.  Anything else is uncivilized.  (hey, don't like it, don't have kids)
 
2013-03-28 04:01:39 PM
My son grabbed my wallet one time and said, "I'm going to take all your money."  I responded, "Your mom already did that."  The wallet had no cash.

CSB

2 more years and I am done paying for her new appliances and just pay my son directly.

"Dad can I borrow..."

"Yes...yes you can."
 
2013-03-28 04:02:22 PM

tylerdurden217: Masta Kronix: That says more about you than the people you are using your own arbitrary, moral compass to pass judgment on.

I don't think you have ever used a compass, because that was a flawed analogy. There are certain specific behaviors that people exhibit that are some indication of how they treat other people. If you don't agree with that concept, I really don't want to meet the scum that you associate with.

If some dude beats his girlfriend, date rapes at college, doesn't pay child support, abuses animals/children/friends/strangers/..., kills people, steals, etc. I don't feel like I need to take a step back and look at their other qualities that may or may not be good. You are right, that does say something about me. You are right, I pass judgement. You should admit that you also do. You know almost nothing about me, but still felt comfortable telling me that I could do "society a favor" by changing the way I think.

I think you could do society a favor by being a little less tolerant of assholes. When friends ignore the douchebaggery of their asshole friends, it makes them think that it's really not all that bad, but it really is.


No it doesn't.

Plenty of people are told how much of an asshole they are being and it doesn't change their behavior.

That asshole who beats his girlfriend, date rapes in college and doesn't pay child support has reasons for their behavior.

Rape isn't inherent, it's learned. Anger isn't inherent, it's learned. Violence isn't inherent, it's learned.

You want them to change, teach them new ways instead of expecting them to just know what you know and act how you act.

You're taking the easy way out. It's much harder to understand and help than it is to persecute and judge.
 
2013-03-28 04:04:22 PM

ekdikeo4: I didn't pay any from 2003 to 2009, because I was not employed, yet the court refused to reduce my payment, which was based on my high water earnings at my previous employer .. so, the last 3 years I was there, I wasn't able to foot the bill, as my earnings had gone down (but the court argued that since I was still at the same job, I should be still making the same amount of money .. irrelevant to the fact that on that high water year they measured by, I had set virtually every sales and profit record in the company, so the vast majority of my income was "bonus"), by the time I was no longer employed there, I owed 4k, and by the time I was re-employed, it was up to 20k.

Of course, during this whole time I was unemployed, the child's mother also was unemployed, so therefore, I was expected to foot her part of everything, as well.  Which is pretty damn difficult with -0- income.

Sooooooooooooooooo..... yeah, child support courts can be really difficult to work with.


Maybe your problem was telling the court you weren't employed while you were still employed?
 
2013-03-28 04:05:49 PM

rkiller1: How do you know? He could be Panamanian, Guatemalan, El Salvadoran. Colombian, Venezuelan or Spanish.


All of those are just differente words for Mexican.
 
2013-03-28 04:07:03 PM

Why Would I Read the Article: shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?

Because you're a racist.


I'd guess that 85% of Fark is racist - the other 15% is some weird melange of ethnic origin.
/i keed
 
2013-03-28 04:07:49 PM

Quigs: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 320x308]


dyurrrrp
 
2013-03-28 04:07:59 PM
The oppressed, protected class fandango applies to the following people.

People with dark skin.  People with a vagina.  People who are gay.  People with billions of dollars.  The rest of you better start kissing the aforementioned asses rosy and cutting checks.

No seriously.

Look into it.
 
2013-03-28 04:08:20 PM

Trance354: knew a guy once that had several kids by several women, and he was working as a cabbie so that he could make money under the table.  Speaking as someone who may not have the ability to have kids(not for lack of trying, though), this man looks so happy, though he should have had the money in check form at the mother's house, on one knee, begging forgiveness.  Any child I may father would be the light of my life.  This dirt bag cabbie was shirking his duty so he could buy lotto tickets and booze.  It is a long and painful time, is parenting.  Can't handle it?  It's a $2 condom.  You don't deserve to be the biological father with actions like his.  Neither does the lotto winner.  Give it to someone who can regulate their bodily functions a little better.

/here I thought subby was going somewhere else with the headline.
//chances are good that we hear about this moron in the news
///dead with his wife pointing to a string of mistresses as the cause of her temporary insanity
[temeez.com image 600x300]


You sound sterile
 
2013-03-28 04:08:56 PM

Bippal: As someone engaged to a person owed 7 grand in back support plus 10k in birthing costs getting a kick etc. But she's constantly getting the run around from the courts on getting him to pay anything. The judge even said once that the sperm donor would get special consideration because of a tour of duty in Iraq. Now here we sit, myself raising his kids, him taking off to oregon and knocking up an 18 year old, and us trying to get him to give up legal rights. Id rather him have nothing at all to do with them, it's not like he is anyways.


So adopt the kid and take over or stufu
 
2013-03-28 04:11:16 PM

Masta Kronix: One can argue there are actions that hurt society as a whole when it comes to quality of life and progress however you would then have to define a Universal Metric for what Quality of Life and Progress means and prove that's the undisputed metric by which we should use.


Sadly, proving such a metric is not possible without sufficient precognitive powers to foresee every single challenge to the definition for the rest of eternity. Perhaps a rewording is in order, such as creating a metric that is capable of adapting to a wide variety of circumstances, and can even be suspended or abandoned if survival can be proven to depend on doing so.

/here in the USA, we have this thing we call a Constitution
//it's worked for 200 or so years, though it didn't account for the possibility that representation without taxation could be just as damaging as taxation without representation
 
2013-03-28 04:13:52 PM

Tatterdemalian: /here in the USA, we have this thing we call a Constitution//it's worked for 200 or so years


Wait for it.  *taps watch*
 
2013-03-28 04:14:34 PM

BarkingUnicorn: And a thoughtful family court judge will order it placed in trust for the children, with an income stream to the custodial parent(s) for the kids' reasonable support until they turn 18.


Why should this guy have to set a trust up for his children?  Parents that stay together and raise their kids together aren't required to, even if they are loaded.
 
2013-03-28 04:15:03 PM
http://www.fark.com/comments/7671033/83297902#c83297902" target="_blank">Masta Kronix: No I didn't, what I did was give a scientific and based in reality explanation for why human beings act the way they do sometimes.

You're the individual who can't get past this binary everything is broken down into "Good/Bad" actions and those who commit "bad" actions are bad and those who commit "good" actions are good.

How one judges an action is based solely on their own personal interpretation of said actions. How one forms an interpretation of actions is based on their own moral and philosophical view.

One can argue there are actions that hurt society as a whole when it comes to quality of life and progress however you would then have to define a Universal Metric for what Quality of Life and Progress means and prove that's the undisputed metric by which we should use.

It's easy to judge others actions as bad/good, any idiot can do it, it's much more difficult to understand their actions and the underlying causes without prejudice or bias.


You got all that from a few lines of text? Amazing.

Can you tell me what the next powerball numbers will be?


See, here is the difference between you and me (or at least the you that you are presenting). I do live in the real world. In the real world there are consequences for your actions. A rational person looks at the world and not being omniscient takes what information he does have and fills in what he doesn't based on his knowledge and experiences.


We have an article about a guy who got way behind on his child support, owns a small business, and just won the lottery. Now, apparently Fark is the repository for all the men in the US that have fallen victim to conniving women out to steal their wealth, but in the real world most guys that are behind on child support have decided not to pay. Either that decision is active (I literally won't pay or I'm going to take a cash job so I don't have to) or passive (I don't want to get a job, or work more hours, or get a second job). Sure, no doubt some are genuinely well intentioned guys that either got screwed over in court or fell on hard times, but odds are odds. He has a small business, judging by his area I can also suspect that he might be dealing in a lot of cash sales (easy to hide his income). He also bought at least one lottery ticket, and knowing how much the average lotto buyer spends compared to their income we can also assume he has purchased more than that in his life.


At bare minimum he has been pissing away a few bucks here and there that could have gone to help pay for his kid or at worst alleviate his legal obligation. Now, for all of these dead beat dads who are so innocent in all of this, who get's to pick up the tab? I do, as a taxpayer. This selfish or lazy fark is probably causing his child to receive government assistance. He may not be a "bad" person, but he can surely do better and in my book not taking care of your children is fairly bad. I don't care what in his past led him to be a deadbeat dad.I am not tasked with fixing him, nor am I tasked with punishing him. I never said good and bad were simple concepts, I simply stated that he was probably a deadbeat.


Pretend you aren't human all you want, but you are very ignorant if you do not understand that this IS human nature (this has been studied extensively, scientifically). As a survival mechanism humans take what they know and then fill in the gaps as best they can. Sometimes they do so incorrectly, usually they are correct though. I am going to make another guess in that you just think you are so evolved as to be above our silly concepts of right and wrong, or judging people. It is a shame though to see a creature so advanced wasting his time on a website famous for a squirrel with giant nuts.
 
2013-03-28 04:15:08 PM

Descartes: Mo money, less problems.


In theory, but that clown in WV who won the assload of money proves that hilarity can ensue at any moment.
 
2013-03-28 04:16:19 PM

Why Would I Read the Article: shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?

Because you're a racist.


I once naively thought a person born in Mexico was a Mexican, but now I learn Mexico = race.  Perhaps because there's no such word as "countryist" and screaming "racist" packs a bigger emotional and political whollop.
 
2013-03-28 04:16:54 PM
Uh, this dude IS a bad person. Period. Not paying child support makes you a bad person. Yes there are reasons you get behind. There are legal remedies. Yes family court sucks. It is burdensome and slow and can be expensive. However...... just because you lose your job and can't pay doesn't mean squat. Your unemployment doesn't mean your children don't get hungry, or need clothes, or a roof over their head, or water to drink, etc etc etc. He obviously found a mean to support himself, so he obviously realizes the need for necessities, he just chose to not extend that to his own children. That makes him a bad person.

/Pays a lot of child support, before any other bill
//Doesn't biatch about it
///Wife is owed $12k in support from her ex. He is a bad person.
 
2013-03-28 04:17:19 PM

stevenboof: Why should this guy have to set a trust up for his children?  Parents that stay together and raise their kids together aren't required to, even if they are loaded.


Because he's worth over a tenth of a billion dollars and nobody cries at a douchebag's funeral while they shovel his remaining wealth into the casket.
 
2013-03-28 04:17:31 PM

tylerdurden217: xanadian: Ya know, it's funny when someone immediately jumps to the conclusion that just because he's a dude and owes child support that he must be a bad person.

Either submitter is trolling or is a woman.

Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.


Easy enough.

A friend of mine met a woman. Went on a few dates, did the sexual thing with her, and then found out she was married. He dumped her immediately.

Few years goes by, and a man shows up at his door with a notice saying he needs to take a paternity test. He then finds out he has a 3 year old. During that time, he didn't know he had a child, but due to the test showing a match, he now owes back child support.

/Poor bastard. Both him and his child.
 
2013-03-28 04:17:43 PM

Tatterdemalian: Masta Kronix: One can argue there are actions that hurt society as a whole when it comes to quality of life and progress however you would then have to define a Universal Metric for what Quality of Life and Progress means and prove that's the undisputed metric by which we should use.

Sadly, proving such a metric is not possible without sufficient precognitive powers to foresee every single challenge to the definition for the rest of eternity. Perhaps a rewording is in order, such as creating a metric that is capable of adapting to a wide variety of circumstances, and can even be suspended or abandoned if survival can be proven to depend on doing so.

/here in the USA, we have this thing we call a Constitution
//it's worked for 200 or so years, though it didn't account for the possibility that representation without taxation could be just as damaging as taxation without representation


Expect the Constitution hasn't really worked all that well for the past 200 years when you consider the condition America is in at this moment in time.

If the Constitution was such a great document, we wouldn't be in the situation we find ourselves in as a country.

We constantly ranked below other countries in almost all measurable metrics.

We're just now getting around to deciding whether or not states have the right to deny Marriage Equality to a whole section of the United States Populace, using the constitution as a reference.

Yes, surely the Constitution is the end all document that we should all refer to when making decisions based on current issues.

Human Beings 200 years ago knew more about the complexities of society and how to solve those complexities then current human beings today.
 
2013-03-28 04:18:19 PM

Masta Kronix: shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?

Probably because you hold racist views and use race as a metric to judge others.


Weird, I had assumed he was white.  Guess I'm self hating?
 
2013-03-28 04:18:24 PM

GoldSpider: nocturnal001: Sure is, stupid and irrational behaviors that somebody else pays the price for (his kids and taxpayers respectively).

Interesting, that's not what I've come to expect from Fark.


I'm new here, give me time.
 
2013-03-28 04:19:07 PM

Thespecialistkc: However...... just because you lose your job and can't pay doesn't mean squat


Math begs to differ.  I suppose you can start robbing liquor stores but the prison wood shop doesn't pay much, either.
 
2013-03-28 04:19:26 PM
Why is it everytime there's a big payout only 1 person wins?  Would much rather see 10 different winners splitting that $320 mil.


/luck of the balls I guess
 
2013-03-28 04:20:53 PM

Masta Kronix: No it doesn't.

Plenty of people are told how much of an asshole they are being and it doesn't change their behavior.

That asshole who beats his girlfriend, date rapes in college and doesn't pay child support has reasons for their behavior.

Rape isn't inherent, it's learned. Anger isn't inherent, it's learned. Violence isn't inherent, it's learned.

You want them to change, teach them new ways instead of expecting them to just know what you know and act how you act.

You're taking the easy way out. It's much harder to understand and help than it is to persecute and judge.


Yeah, I think we're done here. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything. If you meet someone who is an admitted serial rapist, who commits acts of violence on defenseless people and animals you are saying that you wouldn't classify them as a bad person, but I would. Got it. You might like to get to try to understand this person. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, I just don't have that kind of time on my hands. I've got shiat to deal with that is infinitely more important.

I would not tolerate inhumane treatment of (what I consider to be bad) people. But I also will not tolerate their behavior that I consider to be bad. I'll even go as far as to just label them bad and move about my day. When it becomes my responsibility to deal with someone like this (ie. one of my own children exhibits criminal or otherwise bad behavior) then I'll deal with it then. Until then, it's just not something I'm too concerned with.

People need to be good parents and make sure their children behave and do well in school and also provide for them financially. Period.
 
2013-03-28 04:21:10 PM
I think what's important here is that we never bother to take a good long gaze at how we treat each other over money.
 
2013-03-28 04:21:17 PM

Masta Kronix: Tatterdemalian: Masta Kronix: One can argue there are actions that hurt society as a whole when it comes to quality of life and progress however you would then have to define a Universal Metric for what Quality of Life and Progress means and prove that's the undisputed metric by which we should use.

Sadly, proving such a metric is not possible without sufficient precognitive powers to foresee every single challenge to the definition for the rest of eternity. Perhaps a rewording is in order, such as creating a metric that is capable of adapting to a wide variety of circumstances, and can even be suspended or abandoned if survival can be proven to depend on doing so.

/here in the USA, we have this thing we call a Constitution
//it's worked for 200 or so years, though it didn't account for the possibility that representation without taxation could be just as damaging as taxation without representation

Expect the Constitution hasn't really worked all that well for the past 200 years when you consider the condition America is in at this moment in time.

If the Constitution was such a great document, we wouldn't be in the situation we find ourselves in as a country.

We constantly ranked below other countries in almost all measurable metrics.

We're just now getting around to deciding whether or not states have the right to deny Marriage Equality to a whole section of the United States Populace, using the constitution as a reference.

Yes, surely the Constitution is the end all document that we should all refer to when making decisions based on current issues.

Human Beings 200 years ago knew more about the complexities of society and how to solve those complexities then current human beings today.


dgt1.net
 
2013-03-28 04:22:53 PM

Okieboy: Why is it everytime there's a big payout only 1 person wins?  Would much rather see 10 different winners splitting that $320 mil.


/luck of the balls I guess


Astoundingly astronomical odds, or so it's said.  The odds of two people hitting those odds at once are like Andromeda astronomical.
 
2013-03-28 04:25:20 PM

nocturnal001: http://www.fark.com/comments/7671033/83297902#c83297902" target="_blank">Masta Kronix: No I didn't, what I did was give a scientific and based in reality explanation for why human beings act the way they do sometimes.

You're the individual who can't get past this binary everything is broken down into "Good/Bad" actions and those who commit "bad" actions are bad and those who commit "good" actions are good.

How one judges an action is based solely on their own personal interpretation of said actions. How one forms an interpretation of actions is based on their own moral and philosophical view.

One can argue there are actions that hurt society as a whole when it comes to quality of life and progress however you would then have to define a Universal Metric for what Quality of Life and Progress means and prove that's the undisputed metric by which we should use.

It's easy to judge others actions as bad/good, any idiot can do it, it's much more difficult to understand their actions and the underlying causes without prejudice or bias.

You got all that from a few lines of text? Amazing.

Can you tell me what the next powerball numbers will be?


See, here is the difference between you and me (or at least the you that you are presenting). I do live in the real world. In the real world there are consequences for your actions. A rational person looks at the world and not being omniscient takes what information he does have and fills in what he doesn't based on his knowledge and experiences.


We have an article about a guy who got way behind on his child support, owns a small business, and just won the lottery. Now, apparently Fark is the repository for all the men in the US that have fallen victim to conniving women out to steal their wealth, but in the real world most guys that are behind on child support have decided not to pay. Either that decision is active (I literally won't pay or I'm going to take a cash job so I don't have to) or passive (I don't want to get ...


Again that whole reply can be summed up as

"This guy isn't behaving the way I say he should and therefore is a bad person because I deem him so"

When in reality, this guy is behaving in a manner that is perfectly reasonable given his life experiences and physiological make up.

People have reasons for their behavior that is much more complicated than your nuanced approach of "We all know what's up and should be able to figure shiat out accordingly."

Case and point you said " As a survival mechanism humans take what they know and then fill in the gaps as best they can "

So why doesn't this apply to this man? He's doing the best he can given the circumstance he find himself in.
 
2013-03-28 04:25:55 PM

foxyshadis: fickenchucker: I used to be harsh about this stuff, until a friend of mine was put through the wringer by the lazy twat he married.

Eh, nobody's perfect. He probably wasn't a saint either, and might have even had a clue about her beforehand. Hell, I asked a crazy latina to marry me, god knows if I don't end up in a ditch if I get divorced, I'll be lucky to escape with the shirt off my back. It'd be no one's fault but mine; even if I have complaints about her, I knew them before hand, so I can't cry ignorance.

Not many deserve the shiat they get, but the real world is a harsh mistress. We take our lumps and move on.



You're correct--he now admits he was infatuated and ignored the warning signs.  And ignored all of his friends and family who tried to warn him, myself included.

He's pulled through the divorce well and loves his kids.  He gets 50% of the time with the kids and looks for ways to get more, since the kids flat-out dislike their mom for breaking up the family.  The ex is verging on dirt-poor because she is still too lazy to work, while he runs a fairly large IT department and was able to cut the alimony time short.

He makes over $150,000, and the child support he has to pay out is $28,800, which starts declining in a few years.
 
2013-03-28 04:27:20 PM

bunner: stevenboof: Why should this guy have to set a trust up for his children?  Parents that stay together and raise their kids together aren't required to, even if they are loaded.

Because he's worth over a tenth of a billion dollars and nobody cries at a douchebag's funeral while they shovel his remaining wealth into the casket.


Hey, if your comfortable with the government telling you that if you have over X amount of money, it may redistribute it as it sees fit, then that's cool.
 
2013-03-28 04:28:23 PM

Masta Kronix: Anger isn't inherent, it's learned.


Dafuq? Anger is a feeling, not a behavior - and I suspect that you're pedantic diatribes here are nothing more than learned behavior, either by some cognitive behavioral therapy, self-help books - or most likely a court appointed anger management class.
 
2013-03-28 04:29:34 PM

SearchN: Easy enough.

A friend of mine met a woman. Went on a few dates, did the sexual thing with her, and then found out she was married. He dumped her immediately.

Few years goes by, and a man shows up at his door with a notice saying he needs to take a paternity test. He then finds out he has a 3 year old. During that time, he didn't know he had a child, but due to the test showing a match, he now owes back child support.

/Poor bastard. Both him and his child.


OK, that's a really good (albeit unfortunate) example. My original statement was a bit of a generalization and so I clarified a bit above with "A person might have many great qualities, but if they don't take care of their children's financial needs, that's a deal breaker for me. There are no doubt exceptions, but that's the rule"

You have presented an exception. He does have 3+15 years of financial responsibility, but he's not a deadbeat. This is definitely an exception.
 
2013-03-28 04:30:02 PM

stevenboof: Hey, if your comfortable with the government telling you that if you have over X amount of money, it may redistribute it as it sees fit, then that's cool.


I'm comfortable with the idea that we start using money for what it's for and conscionable men doing ethical things.  Like we're supposed to and tell ourselves we do.
 
2013-03-28 04:30:17 PM

special20: Masta Kronix: Anger isn't inherent, it's learned.

Dafuq? Anger is a feeling, not a behavior - and I suspect that you're pedantic diatribes here are nothing more than learned behavior, either by some cognitive behavioral therapy, self-help books - or most likely a court appointed anger management class.


You got me :lol:

Anger is in no way a learned, everyone is born Angry!

Why I can remember wanting to slap my mother the second I came out the womb for no apparent reason at all.
 
2013-03-28 04:30:23 PM

Masta Kronix: no

cturnal001: Again that whole reply can be summed up as

"This guy isn't behaving the way I say he should and therefore is a bad person because I deem him so"

When in reality, this guy is behaving in a manner that is perfectly reasonable given his life experiences and physiological make up.

People have reasons for their behavior that is much more complicated than your nuanced approach of "We all know what's up and should be able to figure shiat out accordingly."

Case and point you said " As a survival mechanism humans take what they know and then fill in the gaps as best they can "

So why doesn't this apply to this man? He's doing the best he can given the circumstance he find himself in.


This is how human society works.  We get together and say "we like these actions, we do not like these other actions".  It is simple really.

So, "he is doing the best he can"?  How is that NOT giving anyone and everyone a pass?

You know.  When my car breaks down, I like to figure out why the issue happened.  Why did my serpentine belt break?  It's good information to know so that maybe I can prevent that from happening in the fugure.  Just because I figured out why it broke doesn't mean that it's not broken.
 
2013-03-28 04:31:00 PM

Masta Kronix: Human Beings 200 years ago knew more about the complexities of society and how to solve those complexities then current human beings today.


If that were true, I wouldn't have to talk in riddles to sneak anything past the people who would take away my voice.
 
2013-03-28 04:31:24 PM

bunner: stevenboof: Hey, if your comfortable with the government telling you that if you have over X amount of money, it may redistribute it as it sees fit, then that's cool.

I'm comfortable with the idea that we start using money for what it's for and conscionable men doing ethical things.  Like we're supposed to and tell ourselves we do.


Who decided that money was "for" anything?
 
2013-03-28 04:32:38 PM

what_now: Slaxl:

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

so..why's he playing the lotto?


Ever been in a convenience store on welfare day?
 
2013-03-28 04:32:40 PM

special20: Why Would I Read the Article: shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?

Because you're a racist.

I'd guess that 85% of Fark is racist - the other 15% is some weird melange of ethnic origin.
/i keed


Haven`t you heard? Everyone`s a little bit racist...
 
2013-03-28 04:34:31 PM

LL316: Who decided that money was "for" anything?


You're hurt.  You need meds.  You go to where all the meds are.  Somebody who owns all the meds, doesn't need or use the meds, says "sorry, MY meds, motherf*cker".  Is that what money is for?  Conscionable actions.  You can't fake them.    Money is a convenience and, and this is easily researched, nothing more than IOUs for things we actually use.  We create things to serve humanity.  The people who put them on a high shelf serve nothing and nobody and they eventually move into the lawn food business, too.  Ha ha.
 
2013-03-28 04:36:22 PM

bunner: Thespecialistkc: However...... just because you lose your job and can't pay doesn't mean squat

Math begs to differ.  I suppose you can start robbing liquor stores but the prison wood shop doesn't pay much, either.


Beg all you want, it doesn't matter. If you are ordered to pay "X" you pay "X". Lose your job you still have to pay "X". If you can't pay "X" you better march your ass to the courthouse and file for a hearing to explain why you can'y pay "X" and should instead pay "X-Y=Z". Simply losing your job may or may not be enough of a reason. The courts will make the call. Often times the call is "Well, go get another job. Or two. You have kids to feed."
It's a harsh reality. You have kids, you must support them. Yes there are exceptions for disability, etc, but as a whole the court looks at your ability to pay as opposed to your actual earning. As an example if you have a civil engineering degree, but are working a drive-through for minimum wage the courts will find you "willfully under-employed", impute the average income of your field to you and send you on your way with a warning to not fall behind. Seen it done. Had it done.

/Kids are expensive
//Condoms are cheap
///Choose wisely, 18 years is a long time
////2 kids, 3 step kids, made the right decision :-)
 
2013-03-28 04:37:38 PM
The real problem that I have with this guy is that he won the Powerball, and I didn't.

It's a pretty fair bet that is the same for most of the people on the thread.
 
2013-03-28 04:37:53 PM
He's got 99 problems, so on and so forth ...
 
2013-03-28 04:38:34 PM
what_now: so..why's he playing the lotto?

Really? Your argument is that he spent $2 on a lotto ticket?
 
2013-03-28 04:39:28 PM
Isn't this a good thing?

Guy wins
Kid wins
Mom wins

Regardless of reason for non payment the court will order back owed and probably a new rate.
 
2013-03-28 04:39:35 PM
So, I owe, on paper, a metric arseload of back spousal support.  No matter that the ex is getting 56% of my net income.  What she *wants* amounts to 70% of my net income, and I just simply can't afford that and continue to live in a building, rather than a cardboard box.

The amount she *wants* is based on a legal and financial fiction.  It was calculated based on my earnings from a job I no longer had when we split up--right at the time the economy was going south, and Nortel laid me off.

So, now, I have a job that pays me 50% less than I was making at Nortel, and I can't afford a lawyer to get things legally reduced, and she's indicated that she won't agree to that.  I can't qualify for legal aid, because, well, I'm working.  But I totally, utterly, don't have the cash-flow to support a $3K visit or two to court.  So, I'm stuck "underpaying" my support every month, with the notional arrears mounting up.

Am I a deadbeat dad as a result?  I don't think so.  My ex gets more of my money than I do, and I'm servicing the communal debt while she sits on her fat ass and refuses to work.   But if you looked at the amounts I owe in back spousal support, it could easily qualify for the kind of "shocking headline" we have before us.  And in no way, shape, or form, am I a deadbeat dad or deadbeat ex husband.

/divorce laws, they are the suck
 
2013-03-28 04:41:08 PM

Thespecialistkc: Beg all you want, it doesn't matter


Read all you want, you'll probably still just keep shining that projector on me.

Thespecialistkc: Lose your job you still have to pay "X".


I'm gonna cut your hand off.  Now go make me a sandwich.  The high white horse musings of the self proclaimed pious have never amounted to squat, either.  I'm gonna guess you pat yourself on the back regularly for never having been beaten and sodomized in a concrete toilet by recidivist criminals because you're poor.   :  )  To be honest, neither have I but it's still a pretty piss poor society that would allow it, don't you think?
 
2013-03-28 04:42:39 PM
I always wondered if a lottery ticket could be redeemed by a representative of an offshore corporation, effectively masking the identity of ultimate ownership of the winnings.

I probably won't find out since I know more consistently positive ways to risk money for gains.
 
2013-03-28 04:42:40 PM

give me doughnuts: The real problem that I have with this guy is that he won the Powerball, and I didn't.

It's a pretty fair bet that is the same for most of the people on the thread.


coachotis.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-28 04:42:43 PM

SearchN: tylerdurden217: xanadian: Ya know, it's funny when someone immediately jumps to the conclusion that just because he's a dude and owes child support that he must be a bad person.

Either submitter is trolling or is a woman.

Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.

Easy enough.

A friend of mine met a woman. Went on a few dates, did the sexual thing with her, and then found out she was married. He dumped her immediately.

Few years goes by, and a man shows up at his door with a notice saying he needs to take a paternity test. He then finds out he has a 3 year old. During that time, he didn't know he had a child, but due to the test showing a match, he now owes back child support.


If somebody that deceptive and hateful did that to me, I would show up at her door.  With a handgun and one bullet.  And blow my own goddamn brains out all over her living room rug while she watched.

Why not?  Something like that happens to you, and you live in a country with as screwed-up a family court system as ours, your life is over.  Done.  Finished.  You don't get to even have an opinion about what's been ordered against you, let alone be allowed to argue your case.  It's already been decided.  It's the man's fault, the woman is always totally 100% honest, there are no mistakes anywhere, and anybody who even tries to defend himself is immediately and forever a despicable deadbeat dad.  Go home, you lose, hand over all your money for the rest of your life.

Some godawful lying slut effectively ends my life, there's no reason to not just end it more quickly.  If she has recurring nightmares about it, at least some kind of justice will have been served.

/fortunately, I trust my gf
//and neither of us ever want children
///too many potential health risks
 
2013-03-28 04:44:53 PM

TrollingForColumbine: As someone who has owed as much as 10k in back child support, I can easily see how this person could be a good person and still owe back support. The mechanism for collecting child support are designed to favor the the custodial parent. So changing support is often cumbersome and expensive. Add on top of this the fact that changes in judgments do not always get communicated to the collecting operations or to the  federal level where tax returns can be garnished. I have been through the mill on this several time in the state of illinois.

/has been current with support for many years
//often the back support is due to court/state error and not non payment
///I hope he give the mother of the child 2 million the child 4 and takes them on a cruise


yep. instead of jumping on him people should be encouraging the guy to finally make things right.
all this hate probably has the opposite effect... i know it would on me.
 
2013-03-28 04:45:09 PM

Master Sphincter: Be afraid wealthy people. They are looking for a home in your neighborhood.   [www.washingtonpost.com image 569x404]


Wouldn't it be really funny though if they were to move into some enclave with multi million $ mansions full of older white conservative Republican country club types? and regularly throw lavish loud parties for their friends from their old neck of the woods?
 
2013-03-28 04:45:22 PM

patchvonbraun: So, I owe, on paper, a metric arseload of back spousal support. No matter that the ex is getting 56% of my net income. What she *wants* amounts to 70% of my net income, and I just simply can't afford that and continue to live in a building, rather than a cardboard box.

The amount she *wants* is based on a legal and financial fiction. It was calculated based on my earnings from a job I no longer had when we split up--right at the time the economy was going south, and Nortel laid me off.

So, now, I have a job that pays me 50% less than I was making at Nortel, and I can't afford a lawyer to get things legally reduced, and she's indicated that she won't agree to that. I can't qualify for legal aid, because, well, I'm working. But I totally, utterly, don't have the cash-flow to support a $3K visit or two to court. So, I'm stuck "underpaying" my support every month, with the notional arrears mounting up.

Am I a deadbeat dad as a result? I don't think so. My ex gets more of my money than I do, and I'm servicing the communal debt while she sits on her fat ass and refuses to work. But if you looked at the amounts I owe in back spousal support, it could easily qualify for the kind of "shocking headline" we have before us. And in no way, shape, or form, am I a deadbeat dad or deadbeat ex husband.

/divorce laws, they are the suck


For three months of what you're paying in child support, I can make your wife problem "go away," if you catch my drift. She's gotta walk down a flight of stairs sometime, ya know? I can help you.
 
2013-03-28 04:46:10 PM
There are a lot of angry men in this Fark thread.

Or is that redundant?
 
2013-03-28 04:46:46 PM

duenor: all this hate probably has the opposite effect... i know it would on me.


Nah, you either do like you oughta or you don't.  The reason you chose not to when you finally can is pretty much inconsequential.
 
2013-03-28 04:47:14 PM
J.G. Wentworth
1-877-CASH-NOW
 
2013-03-28 04:47:40 PM

Car_Ramrod: There are a lot of angry men in this Fark thread.

Or is that redundant?


Don't forget the amateur projectionists!
 
2013-03-28 04:49:21 PM

you are a puppet: I've found that guys with 5 kids who owe several years of back child support and buy lottery tickets are generally pretty responsible, so lets not jump to conclusions.  Spending $2 on a powerball ticket instead of a condom doesn't make him bad, it makes him an American hero. BACK OFF.


Indeed. Impregnating multiple women and diverting that income to one's own lottery habit instead of helping out his children -- which is so bleeding hard for him to comprehend that the farking legal system had to get involved -- is the mark of a responsible man.

If I had my way his kids would get 1% of that apiece and the state would sieze the rest since the money was obtained while he was being a deadbeat.
 
2013-03-28 04:52:13 PM

theBigBigEye: And THIS is one of the reasons why I'm ever-so-picky about when getting a girlfriend/wife.

"What?! You've never had a girlfriend/wife yet?!"

Correct. Because this is one of the reasons why: because the child support and alimony system is too far too crazy.


What about that girl from Canada?
 
2013-03-28 04:52:14 PM
Trance354:  Can't handle it?  It's a $2 condom.  You don't deserve to be the biological father with actions like his.  Neither does the lotto winner.

Wow.  We know precisely NOTHING other than he owes the money.
 
2013-03-28 04:53:48 PM

special20: "New Jersey man..."
And, that's all you have to know.


big talk for a Rick Perry gal.
 
2013-03-28 04:56:01 PM

over_and_done: SearchN: tylerdurden217: xanadian: Ya know, it's funny when someone immediately jumps to the conclusion that just because he's a dude and owes child support that he must be a bad person.

Either submitter is trolling or is a woman.

Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.

Easy enough.

A friend of mine met a woman. Went on a few dates, did the sexual thing with her, and then found out she was married. He dumped her immediately.

Few years goes by, and a man shows up at his door with a notice saying he needs to take a paternity test. He then finds out he has a 3 year old. During that time, he didn't know he had a child, but due to the test showing a match, he now owes back child support.

If somebody that deceptive and hateful did that to me, I would show up at her door.  With a handgun and one bullet.  And blow my own goddamn brains out all over her living room rug while she watched.

Why not?  Something like that happens to you, and you live in a country with as screwed-up a family court system as ours, your life is over.  Done.  Finished.  You don't get to even have an opinion about what's been ordered against you, let alone be allowed to argue your case.  It's already been decided.  It's the man's fault, the woman is always totally 100% honest, there are no mistakes anywhere, and anybody who even tries to defend himself is immediately and forever a despicable deadbeat dad.  Go home, you lose, hand over all your money for the rest of your life.

Some godawful lying slut effectively ends my life, there's no reason to not just end it more quickly.  If she has recurring nightmares about it, at least some kind of justice will have been served.

/fortunately, I trust my gf
//and neither of us ever want children
///too many potential health risks



I...just...wow. This was all I could come up with as my contribution:

1) If she insists without a condom or says she is on birth control and it's okay...big red flag
2) Yes I realize that puts the responsibility on the guys and no it's not fair, but I also think that not being able to get my tubes tied without having kids first isn't fair either
3) i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-28 04:56:05 PM

Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you

 

sammyk: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

I wonder if maybe there was some sort of economic factor beyond his control. Something like a worldwide recession and unprecedented high unemployment.


It's always someone else's fault...
 
2013-03-28 04:56:47 PM

Chach: If I had my way his kids would get 1% of that apiece and the state would sieze the rest since the money was obtained while he was being a deadbeat.


So, since the investment banks colluded to steal trillions of dollars and got rewarded with us paying what they stole and they blew the rest on Costa Rican hookers and Maybachs, we should get their banks and assets and 1% should to to pay their utility bills?  Man, we will buy ANYTHING if it means we get to say "I'm a better man that THAT sonofab*tch".  The real deadbeats eat out of our fridge and have 12,000,000.00 gated homes.  Suckers.
 
2013-03-28 04:57:04 PM

Droog8912: kronicfeld:
Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.

Being stupid doesn't make you a bad person; it just makes you stupid.

/He's playing the lotto, by definition he really isn't all that mathematically inclined


Not everyone that buys lotto tickets is stupid.
 
2013-03-28 04:57:19 PM
If it's for the child, why is the amount based on the income of the father?
 
2013-03-28 04:57:35 PM

Bippal: As someone engaged to a person owed 7 grand in back support plus 10k in birthing costs getting a kick etc. But she's constantly getting the run around from the courts on getting him to pay anything. The judge even said once that the sperm donor would get special consideration because of a tour of duty in Iraq. Now here we sit, myself raising his kids, him taking off to oregon and knocking up an 18 year old, and us trying to get him to give up legal rights. Id rather him have nothing at all to do with them, it's not like he is anyways.


Sounds like you've chosen to get yourself into a really great situation with a truly brilliant lady! Way to put a ring on it!
 
2013-03-28 04:57:35 PM
I can see a guy who is given $338,000,000 and then throwing away half of it away in the name of instant gratification being exactly the sort of guy who would owe thirty grand in back child support.
 
2013-03-28 05:02:40 PM
News here said that he's not eligible for the payout until the backpayment is paid in full.

If I were in his shoes, here is what I would do:

1) Talk to a well-respected family-court lawyer and secure his services for future payment
2) Talk to anybody that could loan me $29k immediately with a promise for future payment
3) Pay the back-support payments
4) Have lawyer prove to the lottery that the debt has been paid in full.
5) Have lawyer file for full custody of all 5 kids
6) Receive lump sum payment of lottery winnings
7) Buy a house large enough to house all 5 kids in a neighborhood with a great school system
8) Hire a well-respected financial planner/investment manager
 
2013-03-28 05:04:52 PM

NephilimNexus: I can see a guy who is given $338,000,000 and then throwing away half of it away in the name of instant gratification being exactly the sort of guy who would owe thirty grand in back child support.


Invested properly, the 1/2 of the award immediately is *far* better than taking the monthly payout for 20 years.
 
2013-03-28 05:06:59 PM

BunkoSquad: I wonder what the overlap is between the "sometimes men can't pay child support for reasons beyond their control" crowd and the "keeps your legs closed if you don't want kids, lady" crowd.


Not sure. But I can tell you the overlap of the "I'm offended by the keep your legs closed if you don't want kids, lady crowd" and the "Keep it in your pants if you don't want to be stuck with child support" crowd is about 100%
 
2013-03-28 05:07:04 PM

fickenchucker: foxyshadis: fickenchucker: I used to be harsh about this stuff, until a friend of mine was put through the wringer by the lazy twat he married.

Eh, nobody's perfect. He probably wasn't a saint either, and might have even had a clue about her beforehand. Hell, I asked a crazy latina to marry me, god knows if I don't end up in a ditch if I get divorced, I'll be lucky to escape with the shirt off my back. It'd be no one's fault but mine; even if I have complaints about her, I knew them before hand, so I can't cry ignorance.

Not many deserve the shiat they get, but the real world is a harsh mistress. We take our lumps and move on.


You're correct--he now admits he was infatuated and ignored the warning signs.  And ignored all of his friends and family who tried to warn him, myself included.

He's pulled through the divorce well and loves his kids.  He gets 50% of the time with the kids and looks for ways to get more, since the kids flat-out dislike their mom for breaking up the family.  The ex is verging on dirt-poor because she is still too lazy to work, while he runs a fairly large IT department and was able to cut the alimony time short.

He makes over $150,000, and the child support he has to pay out is $28,800, which starts declining in a few years.


About the best you can ask for, all things considered. Hope the best for the kids.
 
2013-03-28 05:08:00 PM

KrispyKritter: special20: "New Jersey man..."
And, that's all you have to know.

big talk for a Rick Perry gal.


If I ever get the chance, I'd punch that plastic haired idiot right in his bull-milking face.
Are you from Jersey? LOL too bad.
 
2013-03-28 05:09:04 PM

Roman Fyseek: News here said that he's not eligible for the payout until the backpayment is paid in full.

If I were in his shoes, here is what I would do:

1) Talk to a well-respected family-court lawyer and secure his services for future payment
2) Talk to anybody that could loan me $29k immediately with a promise for future payment
3) Pay the back-support payments
4) Have lawyer prove to the lottery that the debt has been paid in full.
5) Have lawyer file for full custody of all 5 kids
6) Receive lump sum payment of lottery winnings
7) Buy a house large enough to house all 5 kids in a neighborhood with a great school system
8) Hire a well-respected financial planner/investment manager


9) Hit up mom for support.  Don't think it wouldn't happen to him if she had won.
 
2013-03-28 05:09:47 PM

tylerdurden217: SearchN: Easy enough.

A friend of mine met a woman. Went on a few dates, did the sexual thing with her, and then found out she was married. He dumped her immediately.

Few years goes by, and a man shows up at his door with a notice saying he needs to take a paternity test. He then finds out he has a 3 year old. During that time, he didn't know he had a child, but due to the test showing a match, he now owes back child support.

/Poor bastard. Both him and his child.

OK, that's a really good (albeit unfortunate) example. My original statement was a bit of a generalization and so I clarified a bit above with "A person might have many great qualities, but if they don't take care of their children's financial needs, that's a deal breaker for me. There are no doubt exceptions, but that's the rule"

You have presented an exception. He does have 3+15 years of financial responsibility, but he's not a deadbeat. This is definitely an exception.


Agreed. And honestly, I posted this as I walked into my house and I misread the original post so 'ill just fill that in..

...Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person...

My original post doesn't apply, he isn't avoiding it. He was just blind sided with it, and the few YEARS of it he owed.

over_and_done:

You have no idea. Feel free to email me and I'll provide a bit more info if you want.
 
2013-03-28 05:10:43 PM

SuperNinjaToad: Master Sphincter: Be afraid wealthy people. They are looking for a home in your neighborhood.   [www.washingtonpost.com image 569x404]

Wouldn't it be really funny though if they were to move into some enclave with multi million $ mansions full of older white conservative Republican country club types? and regularly throw lavish loud parties for their friends from their old neck of the woods?


Just imagine the valet parking on the lawn... all those 20 something inch rims sparkling in the sun... spinning slowly in the breeze... the horror.
 
2013-03-28 05:10:59 PM

sammyk: kronicfeld: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.

It's not always that easy. I got behind by around 12k. See I was living in NJ while my case is in NC. I was very sick. So sick I needed a liver transplant. I could not work and I damn sure was in no shape to make the trip to NC. Not working meant I could not afford a lawyer to handle the case for me. The arrears just kept ticking up, up and away. The next time we went to court for an adjustment I had all the proof I needed to show I was a)incapable of working b)incapable of going to court for a reduction. None of that mattered. The only person that can forgive that debt is my twat of an ex and she never will.


DON'T STICK YOUR DICK IN CRAZY ...


It's amazing to me how many guys biatch about child support, but didn't think about that while plowing the insanity into the mattress ... 'tards, the whole lot of ya!
 
2013-03-28 05:11:12 PM
I'm a horrible human being. I won't lie. But it's not because I pay child support.

in Fall of 2011, at the start of the semester, I received a letter from the Texas OAG explaining that I needed to submit for paternity testing as I may be someone's father. Fantastic. Phone call negotiation, testing, and a court trial, and it turns out I am.

My son was 3 years old at the time the letter reached me. The mother had never contacted me to inform me I have a son. After the trial she told me (out front of the courthouse), "Didn't you get the email? I sent you an email a year ago!"

An email. From her hotmail. Which probably went to my spam box. And that was well over a year after he was born.

We used protection- I wore a condom.

It's easy to say someone is bad because they pay or owe child support, but as a single male that pays his, and paid all his arrears for three years off a college students budget (many scholarships went into that), I'll say that it's a dubious logic, and rightly bullshiat.

Further, until recently, the Texas OAG has yet to respond to two (2) certified letters stating that the mother refuses to uphold my visitation rights. She still violates them. I didn't see him but one (1) time until this January. The various Attorney General's offices only see males as Wallets. We're the wallets.

So he's behind $29,000. OK, he's also living in a shiat-sty. Are people that pay child support expected to give every last penny? Does anyone *really* believe $750 a month goes directly into my *less-than-half* portion of raising my son, when child care is free, and I pay for all medical? That's more than I live off a month, and I'm a full time college student, with two medical conditions. We po' here.
 
2013-03-28 05:12:54 PM

dudemanbro: He looks like an ok guy to me....


the10mostknown.com
 
2013-03-28 05:15:33 PM

Jim_Callahan: what_now: so..why's he playing the lotto?

Because a lottery ticket is like one damned dollar and probably the cheapest form of entertainment on the planet, so it's exactly the kind of thing you do for entertainment when you don't have money?


Cheapest? Hardly. Not in practice anyway. The average American household with an income of under $13,000 spends about $645 a year on lottery tickets [link]. That's probably a lot more than any other entertainment expense that doesn't involve drugs or hookers.
 
2013-03-28 05:15:46 PM
The level of salty nuts jealous butthurt in this thread is well over 9000.

I love it how people call lotto a tax on the poor.. oh $2 a week is going to farking break me.
 
2013-03-28 05:16:54 PM

bunner: Car_Ramrod: There are a lot of angry men in this Fark thread.

Or is that redundant?

Don't forget the amateur projectionists!


Hey, those years in the AV Club at high school paid off. Don't hate.
 
2013-03-28 05:18:40 PM

Skyrmion: Jim_Callahan: what_now: so..why's he playing the lotto?

Because a lottery ticket is like one damned dollar and probably the cheapest form of entertainment on the planet, so it's exactly the kind of thing you do for entertainment when you don't have money?

Cheapest? Hardly. Not in practice anyway. The average American household with an income of under $13,000 spends about $645 a year on lottery tickets [link]. That's probably a lot more than any other entertainment expense that doesn't involve drugs or hookers.


Holy shiat balls ... I think I might buy $20 of lotto tickets a year on a heavy year that has a few huge jackpots ... people actually spent an AVERAGE of $645/year ... holy balls ...
 
2013-03-28 05:18:45 PM

Skyrmion: Cheapest? Hardly. Not in practice anyway. The average American household with an income of under $13,000 spends about $645 a year on lottery tickets [link]. That's probably a lot more than any other entertainment expense that doesn't involve drugs or hookers.


Or two seriously crappy beers each, every other day.
 
2013-03-28 05:21:49 PM

what_now: drewogatory: Why should he pay a dime more than he owes?

Because he fathered five children. When you do that, when you make the conscious decision to have your own farking basketball team, you support them.


Drewrogatory did not ask "why should he pay a dime?", they asked "why should he pay a dime more than he owes?"
If he owes X in child support for the children he fathered (after getting a paternity test) then that's what he should pay now that he has the money, not X+$$$ because you think he should.
Reading comprehension can be a very good thing.
 
2013-03-28 05:22:21 PM
These CS threads both depress and annoy me.  Half of you farkers don't know what you're talking about, and the other half make assumptions that predispose you to a half-cocked snap judgment that has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.  What entitles you to judge that person? Especially based on the couple of facts in TFA.

Any child support situation is a bad deal all around, that's the bottom line.  Without a doubt the system is biased and flawed; that doesn't automatically mean that anyone who owes back CS has been shafted by the system any more than the simple fact of owing CS makes him/her a "deadbeat."

Every situation is different.  One thing that we as individuals can do better than the courts is keep an open mind, try to be supportive of both sides in one of these situations. But instead, it's like people are worse than the courts.  Like I said, it both depresses and annoys me.
 
2013-03-28 05:25:46 PM

Roman Fyseek: NephilimNexus: I can see a guy who is given $338,000,000 and then throwing away half of it away in the name of instant gratification being exactly the sort of guy who would owe thirty grand in back child support.

Invested properly, the 1/2 of the award immediately is *far* better than taking the monthly payout for 20 years.


Also, if you don't expect to live for 20 more years, there's little reason to not get control of as much of the payout as possible.
 
2013-03-28 05:26:03 PM

Wodan11: These CS threads both depress and annoy me.  Half of you farkers don't know what you're talking about, and the other half make assumptions that predispose you to a half-cocked snap judgment that has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.  What entitles you to judge that person? Especially based on the couple of facts in TFA.

Any child support situation is a bad deal all around, that's the bottom line.  Without a doubt the system is biased and flawed; that doesn't automatically mean that anyone who owes back CS has been shafted by the system any more than the simple fact of owing CS makes him/her a "deadbeat."

Every situation is different.  One thing that we as individuals can do better than the courts is keep an open mind, try to be supportive of both sides in one of these situations. But instead, it's like people are worse than the courts.  Like I said, it both depresses and annoys me.


Are you trying to say that we, as a culture, should direct ourselves to reflective, critical thought and open mindedness and compassion?  Wait, WWE RAW is on.  Later.
 
2013-03-28 05:27:50 PM

over_and_done: Also, if you don't expect to live for 20 more years, there's little reason to not get control of as much of the payout as possible.


And less reason not to utilize as much as possible to improve the circumstances of those you will leave behind.
 
2013-03-28 05:30:41 PM

puffy999: Most people who win the lottery have something going against them. If they have no criminal or legal foibles, they generally fall into one of two categories: gambling addicts or greedy excess spenders with too much money already, but think they need more for some idiotic reason. I highly doubt this man fell into the latter category (though clearly he has legal financial trouble), considering nearly everywhere a person who has a job will be required to, eventually, pay child support unless he goes from job to job and literally either makes nothing or is paid under the table.

So, yeah, now this man will not only EASILY be able to pay off his debts, but his child will be taken care of.

Here comes the part where, because this is the US, someone will now say that a) his child support should be increased to a million bucks a year, and/or b) the mother of said child deserves some of this lottery windfall because she had to deal with the financial pain and suffering of not receiving his money, while simultaneously, if her luck is down and out, receiving literally every single legal allowable financial government benefit under the sun, assuming the child is under 18.

/most people don't argue in favor of the final paragraph above
//my experience is from that of the child going through the divorce, though an older teenager, so some of the above has applied to me
///dad should have been out on his ass, not mom


Maybe not a million bucks a year, but an increase of child support should happen. If it was me, I'd pay off the 29K and then negotiate with the ex-wife directly in order to keep the state out of it, because if the state gets involved it gets expensive and hardly anybody gets any money.
 
2013-03-28 05:32:44 PM
the only recorded history, and you can discount it if you please, of somebody coming back from the grave was Lazarus.  And, as far as we know, the first thing he did wasn't to try and mooch 20 shekels off of Jesus to pay off the bills that he racked up while dead.  Think of just how amazing it would be if we actually used money for what it was designed to do.
 
2013-03-28 05:33:19 PM

sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.


Came here to say that.  If the guy's employment suffered because of the economy, he could easily rack up that much in owed money.  The family courts almost never reduce payments despite economic reality.

On the other hand, if the guy was just a douche and simply didn't pay, I hope they slap on a huge penalty and interest.
 
2013-03-28 05:33:20 PM

what_now: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

so..why's he playing the lotto?


Because it's a dirt-cheap way to win $300 million... This story would be better if he had made it up on his own, but there really wasn't time, they figured it out immediately. That's where I'd reserve judgement on the whole good person/bad person thing.
 
2013-03-28 05:34:10 PM

xanadian: Ya know, it's funny when someone immediately jumps to the conclusion that just because he's a dude and owes child support that he must be a bad person.

Either submitter is trolling or is a woman.


Well, he IS also Brown...
 
2013-03-28 05:34:15 PM

Slaves2Darkness: if the state gets involved it gets expensive and hardly anybody gets any money.


except the state and they have a piss poor track record of fiscal responsibility.
 
2013-03-28 05:35:38 PM

what_now: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

so..why's he playing the lotto?



If he hadn't played, he couldn't have won.

Because he did, he can now pay in full.

/The system works


;-)
 
2013-03-28 05:37:13 PM

99.998er: J.G. Wentworth



My dad punched that bastard.  They were cousins and J.G. made a crude remark about my grandmother.
 
2013-03-28 05:41:32 PM

TrollingForColumbine: As someone who has owed as much as 10k in back child support, I can easily see how this person could be a good person and still owe back support. The mechanism for collecting child support are designed to favor the the custodial parent. So changing support is often cumbersome and expensive. Add on top of this the fact that changes in judgments do not always get communicated to the collecting operations or to the  federal level where tax returns can be garnished. I have been through the mill on this several time in the state of illinois.

/has been current with support for many years
//often the back support is due to court/state error and not non payment
///I hope he give the mother of the child 2 million the child 4 and takes them on a cruise


And don't forget the mother can just lie and say payments were never made.
 
2013-03-28 05:43:59 PM

libranoelrose: TrollingForColumbine: As someone who has owed as much as 10k in back child support, I can easily see how this person could be a good person and still owe back support. The mechanism for collecting child support are designed to favor the the custodial parent. So changing support is often cumbersome and expensive. Add on top of this the fact that changes in judgments do not always get communicated to the collecting operations or to the  federal level where tax returns can be garnished. I have been through the mill on this several time in the state of illinois.

/has been current with support for many years
//often the back support is due to court/state error and not non payment
///I hope he give the mother of the child 2 million the child 4 and takes them on a cruise

And don't forget the mother can just lie and say payments were never made.


Cancelled checks or documents from the bank showing there were bank transfers will shut her down real fast.  If you pay her in cash, you are an idiot.
 
2013-03-28 05:46:26 PM

SearchN: tylerdurden217: xanadian: Ya know, it's funny when someone immediately jumps to the conclusion that just because he's a dude and owes child support that he must be a bad person.

Either submitter is trolling or is a woman.

Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.

Easy enough.

A friend of mine met a woman. Went on a few dates, did the sexual thing with her, and then found out she was married. He dumped her immediately.

Few years goes by, and a man shows up at his door with a notice saying he needs to take a paternity test. He then finds out he has a 3 year old. During that time, he didn't know he had a child, but due to the test showing a match, he now owes back child support.

/Poor bastard. Both him and his child.


In some States, a husband is the father no matter what paternity tests show. In others, child support starts when an application for it is filed, and is rarely made retroactive.
 
2013-03-28 05:47:34 PM
Has  nobody read any other articles on this guy? His business burned down in 2009 and he lost his house because of it. That  might have something to do with him missing child support payments. It doesn't mean he's not a bad person - he very well could be - but there's always more than meets the eye with this stuff.

And yeah, each of his non-custodial kids should be getting $1m trust funds and a healthy chunk of his inheritance.
 
2013-03-28 05:48:05 PM
Look at the industry we've created around bringing innocent babies into this cheap little world.  :  \
 
2013-03-28 05:50:22 PM

ultraholland: what_now: so..why's he playing the lotto?

Really? Your argument is that he spent $2 on a lotto ticket?


It's "Judge Judy" justice:  excuses are like assholes; everybody has one and nobody wants to hear it.
 
2013-03-28 05:53:24 PM
what's important is to bring up our children to know that the vindictive call the shots, one half of the equation that brought them into the world is the enemy and to think of money as a god.
 
2013-03-28 05:55:17 PM

bunner: Thespecialistkc: Beg all you want, it doesn't matter

Read all you want, you'll probably still just keep shining that projector on me.

Thespecialistkc: Lose your job you still have to pay "X".

I'm gonna cut your hand off.  Now go make me a sandwich.  The high white horse musings of the self proclaimed pious have never amounted to squat, either.  I'm gonna guess you pat yourself on the back regularly for never having been beaten and sodomized in a concrete toilet by recidivist criminals because you're poor.   :  )  To be honest, neither have I but it's still a pretty piss poor society that would allow it, don't you think?


All I can say to that, and I quote - "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. "
 
2013-03-28 05:58:01 PM

kronicfeld: Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame.


This is the kind of crap lawyers tell themselves to assuage their guilt over the injustices they inflict. He didn't move for a reduction because he didn't have any money to hire a lawyer.

And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.

We're still in a shaky recovery from the 2nd greatest economic calamity in American history, you know.
 
2013-03-28 06:05:01 PM
OgreMagi:
Cancelled checks or documents from the bank showing there were bank transfers will shut her down real fast.  If you pay her in cash, you are an idiot.

LOL. Cancelled checks or documents from the bank don't mean anything. If you didn't send your check to the official state collection office, you didn't pay. They won't even look at any evidence to the contrary.
 
2013-03-28 06:06:30 PM

Meesterjojo: Further, until recently, the Texas OAG has yet to respond to two (2) certified letters stating that the mother refuses to uphold my visitation rights. She still violates them. I didn't see him but one (1) time until this January. The various Attorney General's offices only see males as Wallets. We're the wallets.


I don't know how it works in Texas, but where I live, it's the responsibility of the parent seeking visitation to file a motion to show cause to enforce visitation rights. Women, of course, get all the state help they need to collect their child support. But the state won't lift a finger to help a father see his child.
 
2013-03-28 06:12:14 PM

Thespecialistkc: All I can say to that, and I quote - "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. "


So, "I like movies and somebody said something in a movie that was really funny so I put it up here and said it applies to you, so HAH!!"?  Works for me.
 
2013-03-28 06:13:53 PM

weiserfireman: In my State, any parent that is unemployed is treated as earning minimum wage for child support calculations.

I had 50/50 custody with my ex for many years.   She kept suing for readjustments asking for $400-$500 per month for 1 kid, because all of her friends told her that is what she deserved.

She was always shocked when the support was ordered at $75-$150 because that is what the formula said she got.  Now I have 100% custody, and she gets 0.

My State also has a maximum child support of $63000 per year.    Yes, his ex will ask for a readjustment and will probably get it.

I wonder if New Jersey has a maximum child support level


Why isn't she paying YOU?
 
2013-03-28 06:14:54 PM

John Buck 41: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

I'm sure this has been mentioned but he apparently scraped up enough for a Powerball ticket.

F**k this a**hole.


How much is a Powerball ticket? $2?
 
2013-03-28 06:17:04 PM
I..I can't believe this thread. We have 200 comments about how terrible it is that men are such victims for willingly having a child with a "crazy person". This is amazing.
 
2013-03-28 06:17:21 PM
bugontherug:

I don't know how it works in Texas, but where I live, it's the responsibility of the parent seeking visitation to file a motion to show cause to enforce visitation rights. Women, of course, get all the state help they need to collect their child support. But the state won't lift a finger to help a father see his child.

Not only that, there is no real enforcement mechanism anyhow, at least not like there is with support. Fall behind in support, you automatically lose your drivers license, and any professional license you may have, usually without a hearing. You can also be tossed in jail until you see a judge to explain why you're behind.

Refuse visitation, you go in front of the judge who tells you that you have to start letting the kids visit the NCP. If you violate that, then you might have to go in front of the judge again, to be told again. You won't go to jail, still be able to drive to your hearing though.
 
2013-03-28 06:18:10 PM

ramblinwreck: John Buck 41: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

I'm sure this has been mentioned but he apparently scraped up enough for a Powerball ticket.

F**k this a**hole.

How much is a Powerball ticket? $2?


the only people that we've been taught to nail up higher than the people "stupid" enough to buy a Lottery ticket and not win, are the ones that buy a lottery ticket and have the audacity to actually win
 
2013-03-28 06:21:42 PM
I can't read all the comments tho I tried. but no matter what this piece of shiat pays this other piece of shiat, if you think any kids involved still won't grow up in abject poverty, you don't live in America. in a year that 150mm is long gone.
 
2013-03-28 06:25:16 PM

what_now: I..I can't believe this thread. We have 200 comments about how terrible it is that men are such victims for willingly having a child with a "crazy person". This is amazing.


That's right, little lady. Sometimes people have a different point of view than your own. Isn't it maddening?
 
2013-03-28 06:27:20 PM
It is funny to see the hate that would normally be focused on this guy for whatever (because he one the lotto) instead is focused on marriage/wives/child support.

All because it was mentioned he was behind on his payments. Grrr, that guy has also been victimized!  Now I'm on his side!
 
xcv
2013-03-28 06:28:00 PM

PiffMan420: The guy ran a farking bodega in Passiac. His entire business is selling Dutchmasters, booze, Newports......and lotto tickets. Of course, you might play yourself on a lark after clicking off Powerball tickets all day.

My advice for this guy: Cut a check and hire a expensive attorney before you lose everything from baby-mama drama. Hide cash offshore if you have to.


He owned a bodega yet never even bothered applying for a lottery license or beer distribution. Every day he'd go to the liquor store down the street to buy beer and lotto. No surprise he was broke before he got the winning ticket and will probably be broke again in his lifetime.
 
2013-03-28 06:30:58 PM

xcv: PiffMan420: The guy ran a farking bodega in Passiac. His entire business is selling Dutchmasters, booze, Newports......and lotto tickets. Of course, you might play yourself on a lark after clicking off Powerball tickets all day.

My advice for this guy: Cut a check and hire a expensive attorney before you lose everything from baby-mama drama. Hide cash offshore if you have to.

He owned a bodega yet never even bothered applying for a lottery license or beer distribution. Every day he'd go to the liquor store down the street to buy beer and lotto. No surprise he was broke before he got the winning ticket and will probably be broke again in his lifetime.


Poor guy.  Probably couldn't afford a license or a proper way to buy beer because of some biatch demanding child support.  He offered to have it aborted, what more does she want?

/half the dudes here
 
2013-03-28 06:33:09 PM

buzzcut73: OgreMagi:
Cancelled checks or documents from the bank showing there were bank transfers will shut her down real fast.  If you pay her in cash, you are an idiot.

LOL. Cancelled checks or documents from the bank don't mean anything. If you didn't send your check to the official state collection office, you didn't pay. They won't even look at any evidence to the contrary.


Not true. I appealed and the mediator said the payments were obviously for child support. So now she's just using the money I send to the state to pay her lawyers to sue me for more money. My son doesn't see a dime of it, and he's a fulltime student with a part time job. It's surreal.
 
2013-03-28 06:35:56 PM

libranoelrose: buzzcut73: OgreMagi:
Cancelled checks or documents from the bank showing there were bank transfers will shut her down real fast.  If you pay her in cash, you are an idiot.

LOL. Cancelled checks or documents from the bank don't mean anything. If you didn't send your check to the official state collection office, you didn't pay. They won't even look at any evidence to the contrary.

Not true. I appealed and the mediator said the payments were obviously for child support. So now she's just using the money I send to the state to pay her lawyers to sue me for more money. My son doesn't see a dime of it, and he's a fulltime student with a part time job. It's surreal.


Those situations are a shame. There should be better oversight to ensure the kids are getting the benefit.
 
2013-03-28 06:36:26 PM
Ironically he now has the potential to cause more long term harm to his kids with the $150M than he did by not paying the $29K.

/My money's on their average life expectancy having gone down.
 
2013-03-28 06:37:28 PM
If you have not divorced with kids, kindly shut the hell up.

And don't even get me started on this or I swear I will wall o text.

Just don't.
 
2013-03-28 06:39:07 PM

bugontherug: what_now: I..I can't believe this thread. We have 200 comments about how terrible it is that men are such victims for willingly having a child with a "crazy person". This is amazing.

That's right, little lady. Sometimes people have a different point of view than your own. Isn't it maddening?


The OP has a response that is typical coming from feminists. They rarely want to hear other viewpoints and express their regarding the situation and cannot believe anyone thinks differently. Often, it's followed by ad hominem attacks and other aggressive (active or passive) behavior that would not be tolerated if they were men.
 
2013-03-28 06:40:24 PM

ongbok: I have a friend who was 35k in arrearages  before his daughter was 6 months old.

How did that happen you ask. Well when his daughter was born he went and petitioned the state to set child support payments.  When his daughter was about a month old she got an ear infection and had to be admitted to the hospital. He had health insurance for his daughter, but instead of using his health insurance his daughter's mother used her medicaid or medicare, what ever it is, card because his health insurance had a $75 copay and she didn't want to pay it. He didn't find out about this until 2 months later when they were at the child support hearing and they told him he had an arrearage of 35k. So I guess if the article was about him and it said that he owed child support of 35k - what ever he paid off, dating back to 2008, some of you would be screaming that he was a deadbeat also.

And for those of you saying that he should have asked for a reduction if he couldn't pay, the court doesn't automatically give out reductions. I know a few people that ask for reductions when they were laid off and couldn't find work, or found other jobs that paid far less than they were making before, and refused reductions and told to get two or three jobs if they had to.


Indeed, if I take my case to court, there's a significant chance that the judge will order me to get a second job, even though I'm meeting 100% of my child-support obligations, and about 60% of my spousal obligations.  Which would be monumentally unfair, given that I already work full-time, and my ex refuses to work, even though she is doubly-qualified as a pharmacy technician, and even worked in that field until her skank lawyer advised her to stop.

The "system" isn't about fairness or taking care of people who need to be taken care of.  It's about punishment.  Reasonableness plays no part.
 
2013-03-28 06:42:02 PM

ramblinwreck: bugontherug: what_now: I..I can't believe this thread. We have 200 comments about how terrible it is that men are such victims for willingly having a child with a "crazy person". This is amazing.

That's right, little lady. Sometimes people have a different point of view than your own. Isn't it maddening?

The OP has a response that is typical coming from feminists. They rarely want to hear other viewpoints and express their regarding the situation and cannot believe anyone thinks differently. Often, it's followed by ad hominem attacks and other aggressive (active or passive) behavior that would not be tolerated if they were men.


Ugh, my bracketed text for "insert emotion here" disappeared... Fail
 
2013-03-28 06:46:49 PM

buzzcut73: Refuse visitation, you go in front of the judge who tells you that you have to start letting the kids visit the NCP. If you violate that, then you might have to go in front of the judge again, to be told again. You won't go to jail, still be able to drive to your hearing though.


A judge can order fines on a motion and order to show cause. If you don't pay those fines, eventually you can go to jail, in theory. But it isn't nearly as efficient at jailing visitation deniers as Family Services is at jailing guys who can't afford an attorney to get their child support payments reduced. Which is kind of sad, because between men who can't afford unreasonable child support payments, and women who deny their children their constitutional right to a relationship with their father, the women are the objectively worse people.
 
2013-03-28 07:02:55 PM
I lived a charmed live with respect to child support.  The ex and I used the State's Excel spreadsheet to recalculate our obligations annually, filed a modification petition pro se, and it was approved.   Never couldn't pay, never felt it was unfair or misused, never had a quarrel over it.  When our son came to live with me full time, the ex paid in her turn without any struggle.
 
2013-03-28 07:04:13 PM
He's only bad if he doesn't pay now that he has the means.
 
2013-03-28 07:05:44 PM
http://www.fark.com/comments/7671033/83297480#c83297480" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ongbok: I have a friend who was 35k in arrearages before his daughter was 6 months old.

How did that happen you ask. Well when his daughter was born he went and petitioned the state to set child support payments. When his daughter was about a month old she got an ear infection and had to be admitted to the hospital. He had health insurance for his daughter, but instead of using his health insurance his daughter's mother used her medicaid or medicare, what ever it is, card because his health insurance had a $75 copay and she didn't want to pay it. He didn't find out about this until 2 months later when they were at the child support hearing and they told him he had an arrearage of 35k. So I guess if the article was about him and it said that he owed child support of 35k - what ever he paid off, dating back to 2008, some of you would be screaming that he was a deadbeat also.

And for those of you saying that he should have asked for a reduction if he couldn't pay, the court doesn't automatically give out reductions. I know a few people that ask for reductions when they were laid off and couldn't find work, or found other jobs that paid far less than they were making before, and refused reductions and told to get two or three jobs if they had to.


I don't see how this is possible. It is quite normal to submit health insurance claims after the fact.
 
2013-03-28 07:09:42 PM

sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.


If he has money for lottery tickets, he has money for child support.

// Now he has money for both.
 
2013-03-28 07:14:19 PM

what_now: I..I can't believe this thread. We have 200 comments about how terrible it is that men are such victims for willingly having a child with a "crazy person". This is amazing.


Take your Feminazi crap to Jezebel or some other "girl power" site where facts, logic, fairness and nuance are replaced with the female inclination of complete insanity. The guy lost everything in a fire in 2009, and as a result was unable to pay his child support. This may make him a deadbeat in the eyes of idiots such as yourselves, but those of us with functioning brains are able to see the debate goes a little bit deeper than that.

Now, speaking of fires, why don't you go die in one?
 
2013-03-28 07:14:33 PM

John Buck 41: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

I'm sure this has been mentioned but he apparently scraped up enough for a Powerball ticket.

F**k this a**hole.


Yes because he spent $2 on a powerball ticket means he has enough money to pay $26k in child support or whatever it was. Plus if you actually read the farking article...it doesn't say he NEVER paid child support. He is behind on child support, sure, but he has PAID child support. Also, right in the article, it says the state will take out the back support that he owes before he is released his winnings, so that back support will be paid before he even gets his money.
 
2013-03-28 07:15:39 PM

BarkingUnicorn: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

TFA doesnt say he hasn't paid any child support.  It says there's a deficiency.  While I am death on people who refuse to pay (and people who refuse to file claims on their children's behalf), I'm not prepared to lynch people who do the best they can.  IDK what this guy is.


^ this ~ but I lean towards this guy being a douche because he hadn't paid support in years and was buying a non essential item.

And there are some dads who can't afford to pay...but they do other things to help parent. One of my female friends had a one night stand, and got pregnant. Kept the baby. She and the father have never really had a 'relationship' though, but he takes care of his kid. When he lost his job, she called him up and told him she wasn't going to report it to the court or anything. Just wanted him to do what he could once he was back on his feet. Didn't even go for back support, forgave those months. Flash forward to 2009, she lost her job. Dad started sending her more money, because he could now afford to. And it made the difference in getting them by til they were back on their feet. Wish I knew more people with sense like this.

If you shiat out a kid, you should always put them first. IDK, seems to me so many people don't.
 
2013-03-28 07:19:40 PM

BMFPitt: If he has money for lottery tickets, he has money for child support.


Are you willing to extend your standards to welfare recipients?  Because a buck or two a week is so much money, right?
 
2013-03-28 07:23:07 PM

Lady Indica: BarkingUnicorn: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

TFA doesnt say he hasn't paid any child support.  It says there's a deficiency.  While I am death on people who refuse to pay (and people who refuse to file claims on their children's behalf), I'm not prepared to lynch people who do the best they can.  IDK what this guy is.

^ this ~ but I lean towards this guy being a douche because he hadn't paid support in years and was buying a non essential item.


Can you read? Do you know what the words "He lost everything in a fire in 2009" means? Do you realize that 2009 is the same year he fell behind? Do you suppose the two events just might be related?

Can I make an entire post filled with nothing but questions?
 
2013-03-28 07:28:54 PM

umad: Lady Indica: BarkingUnicorn: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

TFA doesnt say he hasn't paid any child support.  It says there's a deficiency.  While I am death on people who refuse to pay (and people who refuse to file claims on their children's behalf), I'm not prepared to lynch people who do the best they can.  IDK what this guy is.

^ this ~ but I lean towards this guy being a douche because he hadn't paid support in years and was buying a non essential item.

Can you read? Do you know what the words "He lost everything in a fire in 2009" means? Do you realize that 2009 is the same year he fell behind? Do you suppose the two events just might be related?

Can I make an entire post filled with nothing but questions?


Can you?
 
2013-03-28 07:33:19 PM

what_now: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

so..why's he playing the lotto?


To try to make money? Looks of it he did.
 
2013-03-28 07:33:48 PM

Lady Indica: BarkingUnicorn: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

TFA doesnt say he hasn't paid any child support.  It says there's a deficiency.  While I am death on people who refuse to pay (and people who refuse to file claims on their children's behalf), I'm not prepared to lynch people who do the best they can.  IDK what this guy is.

^ this ~ but I lean towards this guy being a douche because he hadn't paid support in years and was buying a non essential item.

And there are some dads who can't afford to pay...but they do other things to help parent. One of my female friends had a one night stand, and got pregnant. Kept the baby. She and the father have never really had a 'relationship' though, but he takes care of his kid. When he lost his job, she called him up and told him she wasn't going to report it to the court or anything. Just wanted him to do what he could once he was back on his feet. Didn't even go for back support, forgave those months. Flash forward to 2009, she lost her job. Dad started sending her more money, because he could now afford to. And it made the difference in getting them by til they were back on their feet. Wish I knew more people with sense like this.

If you shiat out a kid, you should always put them first. IDK, seems to me so many people don't.


In many states that can't happen.

In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.
 
2013-03-28 07:40:59 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Pick: I just know he isn't going to only give $29K. I bet he gives them a $1 million. If he is a good hearted man.

He may end up "giving" much more when this year's support obligation is recalculated.  And a thoughtful family court judge will order it placed in trust for the children, with an income stream to  the custodial parent(s) for the kids' reasonable support until they turn 18.


Well you don't know what child support is, now do ya?

/you're right though.

He won 156 million? 31 million to the kids, 10 million now, 21 million when they turn 18.
 
2013-03-28 07:41:09 PM

kronicfeld: Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.


If you have no money how do you pay for the lawyer to press for said reduction?

Bippal: The judge even said once that the sperm donor would get special consideration because of a tour of duty in Iraq.


That SHOULD be limited to 'court proceedings are on hold until he gets back'.
 
2013-03-28 07:41:57 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.


its that way in ohio too...
 
2013-03-28 07:43:26 PM

Lady Indica: BarkingUnicorn: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

TFA doesnt say he hasn't paid any child support.  It says there's a deficiency.  While I am death on people who refuse to pay (and people who refuse to file claims on their children's behalf), I'm not prepared to lynch people who do the best they can.  IDK what this guy is.

^ this ~ but I lean towards this guy being a douche because he hadn't paid support in years and was buying a non essential item.

And there are some dads who can't afford to pay...but they do other things to help parent.


Like buying the kid a $2 toy in hope of stimulating his mind, or a $2 lottery ticket in hope of doing very well by the kid.

Those who say Powerball is a waste of money should consider the odds that a $2 bus ride will result in a successful job interview these days.  Then compare the job's payoff to the jackpot's and calculate the expected value of each $2 "investment."
 
2013-03-28 07:47:33 PM

Madbassist1: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

its that way in ohio too...


It sucks because neither parent has any say in the matter. I know of a case where the divorce was amicable and the custodial parent didn't want ANY child support.

State said too damn bad... because they wanted their cut, of course.

/I love WV, but the government has their hand out at every turn
//I have to pay yearly property tax on a truck I have owned for 20 years
 
2013-03-28 07:47:38 PM
He'll be a dead beat asshole if all he gives his kids is 29K from such a haul.
 
2013-03-28 07:49:59 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.


Are you referring to the $25 annual fee for CSE services, including the Family Support Registry?  That's a federal thing, enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Thank Bush.
 
2013-03-28 07:51:51 PM

OgreMagi: BMFPitt: If he has money for lottery tickets, he has money for child support.

Are you willing to extend your standards to welfare recipients?  Because a buck or two a week is so much money, right?


Yes, although it is less cockpunch-worthy if they don't have kids.
 
2013-03-28 07:53:18 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: Madbassist1: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

its that way in ohio too...

It sucks because neither parent has any say in the matter. I know of a case where the divorce was amicable and the custodial parent didn't want ANY child support.

State said too damn bad... because they wanted their cut, of course.

/I love WV, but the government has their hand out at every turn
//I have to pay yearly property tax on a truck I have owned for 20 years


My ex pays me support. I just gave her the card.
 
2013-03-28 07:55:01 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

Are you referring to the $25 annual fee for CSE services, including the Family Support Registry?  That's a federal thing, enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Thank Bush.


No, that's not what hes talking about. The state takes one or two percent off the top for 'processing'. that's what he's talking about. In fairness, it gives the state incentive to enforce the law,.
 
2013-03-28 07:56:09 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: Madbassist1: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

its that way in ohio too...

It sucks because neither parent has any say in the matter. I know of a case where the divorce was amicable and the custodial parent didn't want ANY child support.

State said too damn bad... because they wanted their cut, of course.


State said, "It's not your money to refuse, asshole."  It's the child's.  If the custodial parent has no use for it, it belongs in a savings account for the child.
 
2013-03-28 07:56:59 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

Are you referring to the $25 annual fee for CSE services, including the Family Support Registry?  That's a federal thing, enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Thank Bush.


I'm not sure, but I think WV takes a percentage. I'm not in that boat, thank the FSM, but I'll check with my buddy that is.
 
2013-03-28 07:58:32 PM

Madbassist1: a_room_with_a_moose: Madbassist1: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

its that way in ohio too...

It sucks because neither parent has any say in the matter. I know of a case where the divorce was amicable and the custodial parent didn't want ANY child support.

State said too damn bad... because they wanted their cut, of course.

/I love WV, but the government has their hand out at every turn
//I have to pay yearly property tax on a truck I have owned for 20 years

My ex pays me support. I just gave her the card.


Why don't you put your child's money in a savings account for your child's future?
 
2013-03-28 07:58:45 PM

lymond01: Stuff happens, sure, but I hope he puts the kid and the mothet through life


Why the mother? It's called child support not alimony.
 
2013-03-28 07:59:27 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: Madbassist1: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

its that way in ohio too...

It sucks because neither parent has any say in the matter. I know of a case where the divorce was amicable and the custodial parent didn't want ANY child support.

State said too damn bad... because they wanted their cut, of course.

State said, "It's not your money to refuse, asshole."  It's the child's.  If the custodial parent has no use for it, it belongs in a savings account for the child.


The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.
 
2013-03-28 08:02:54 PM

what_now: Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.


I'll go one step further, and say he's a failure of humanity and a disgrace to the human race. So, naturally, he'd win the lotto. Nobody wins the lottery that deserves to. Nobody except that elderly couple I recall awhile back who donated it all to charity. You never have a person who thinks "I can help so many people with this money." Instead it's "Wow, I can buy so much bling and drugs now! YOLO" Frakkin disgraces.
 
2013-03-28 08:03:12 PM

Lando Lincoln: On the plus side, he can now pay that. So that's good.


Yes. That's all that matters. He won't be a deadbeat dad anymore.

same_old_mess: My ex-wife has to pay me child support, so I'm getting a kick.....


My ex-sister-in-law (skanky adulterous biatch) owes my older brother about as much as the Powerball winner owes in back child support payments. Said biatch never had any money to make said payments, but somehow she ALWAYS had enough money to buy herself a new car every few years, nice clothes, manicures, pedicures, spend $$ on dry cleaning, and throw huge parties for herself (and an annual birthday party for her son, who she had custody of two weekends each month, but always dumped off with her mom or some other relative because she was too busy partying).

My nephew is now 22. The Biatch remarried years ago, has a 7-year-old daughter with the poor sap who fell for her, and dumps the kid off with others every weekend so she can go partying.

I also have female friends who were screwed by their ex-husbands when it came to child support, in case anyone thinks I'm taking sides.
 
2013-03-28 08:03:44 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: Madbassist1: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

its that way in ohio too...

It sucks because neither parent has any say in the matter. I know of a case where the divorce was amicable and the custodial parent didn't want ANY child support.

State said too damn bad... because they wanted their cut, of course.

State said, "It's not your money to refuse, asshole."  It's the child's.  If the custodial parent has no use for it, it belongs in a savings account for the child.

The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.


For himself or the kids, I might add.

Also, CS is for the cost of raising the kid(s), not to put in a savings account for their adulthood. It won't be needed for college because the non-custodial parent will be on the hook for that, also.

I'm starting to think you may be overly judgmental, but I'm willing to keep the jury out on that one.
 
2013-03-28 08:04:01 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Why don't you put your child's money in a savings account for your child's future


a_room_with_a_moose: The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.


...
 
2013-03-28 08:06:48 PM
Jim_Callahan:
Because a lottery ticket is like one damned dollar and probably the cheapest form of entertainment on the planet

I thought we'd already established the cheapest entertainment on the planet was surfing porn at the public library?  As well as being an excellent way to avoid becoming a parent in the first place.

BarkingUnicorn:
Those who say Powerball is a waste of money should consider the odds that a $2 bus ride will result in a successful job interview these days.

Ooh, look at Mr. Big here, who actually gets interviews when he applies for jobs.  Must be all special or something.  Just the other week, I applied for a job, and they sent three men to beat me with a sock full of snooker balls, in my own driveway.  I was ecstatic that they had noticed my resume.
 
2013-03-28 08:08:02 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

Are you referring to the $25 annual fee for CSE services, including the Family Support Registry?  That's a federal thing, enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Thank Bush.

I'm not sure, but I think WV takes a percentage. I'm not in that boat, thank the FSM, but I'll check with my buddy that is.


There are welfare programs that have to be paid back, and repayments are taken out of child support payments as  they are from any other income. IDK if your buddy has collected such benefits.  Costs of enforcing child support orders may also be recoverable from the recipient, too.  But it's not just "fark you, because we can."
 
2013-03-28 08:08:04 PM

No Such Agency: Jim_Callahan:
Because a lottery ticket is like one damned dollar and probably the cheapest form of entertainment on the planet

I thought we'd already established the cheapest entertainment on the planet was surfing porn at the public library?  As well as being an excellent way to avoid becoming a parent in the first place.

BarkingUnicorn:
Those who say Powerball is a waste of money should consider the odds that a $2 bus ride will result in a successful job interview these days.

Ooh, look at Mr. Big here, who actually gets interviews when he applies for jobs.  Must be all special or something.  Just the other week, I applied for a job, and they sent three men to beat me with a sock full of snooker balls, in my own driveway.  I was ecstatic that they had noticed my resume.


You, sir (or madam) just got faved!
 
2013-03-28 08:11:31 PM

Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: Why don't you put your child's money in a savings account for your child's future

a_room_with_a_moose: The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.

...


What part of "it's the child''s money" don't you motherfarkers get??
 
2013-03-28 08:14:47 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

Are you referring to the $25 annual fee for CSE services, including the Family Support Registry?  That's a federal thing, enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Thank Bush.

I'm not sure, but I think WV takes a percentage. I'm not in that boat, thank the FSM, but I'll check with my buddy that is.

There are welfare programs that have to be paid back, and repayments are taken out of child support payments as  they are from any other income. IDK if your buddy has collected such benefits.  Costs of enforcing child support orders may also be recoverable from the recipient, too.  But it's not just "fark you, because we can."


It kind of is, actually. Why should someone making their payments or, in cases where no payment was asked for (or needed) subsidize the other deadbeats?

Especially since all of the rest of us are subsiding them in the form of our taxes (which I have never begrudged). Taking money for those programs out of CS payments is making non-custodials pay twice, once in their taxes, again with their CS payments.
 
2013-03-28 08:17:30 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: Why don't you put your child's money in a savings account for your child's future

a_room_with_a_moose: The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.

...

What part of "it's the child''s money" don't you motherfarkers get??


What part of the custodial parent had all the money he needed to provide the children with everything the could want or need.

In that case, it was about the state making money, plain and simple.
 
2013-03-28 08:18:13 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: Why don't you put your child's money in a savings account for your child's future

a_room_with_a_moose: The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.

...

What part of "it's the child''s money" don't you motherfarkers get??


You're the one who isnt getting it. my ex was forced to pay me support. She's unemployed and dont have a pot to piss in. I made 250k last year. Situations like that become unconscionable. No way am I gonna take her money. My kids have a 529. I don't need her money, why would me (or anyone else) demand 50 bucks a week from her? Damn the bloodlust!
 
2013-03-28 08:19:01 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: Why don't you put your child's money in a savings account for your child's future

a_room_with_a_moose: The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.

...

What part of "it's the child''s money" don't you motherfarkers get??

What part of the custodial parent had all the money he needed to provide the children with everything the could want or need.

In that case, it was about the state making money, plain and simple.


...want or need did you not get?

/hit post too soon, sorry.
 
2013-03-28 08:26:41 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: State said, "It's not your money to refuse, asshole." It's the child's. If the custodial parent has no use for it, it belongs in a savings account for the child.

The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.

For himself or the kids, I might add.

Also, CS is for the cost of raising the kid(s), not to put in a savings account for their adulthood. It won't be needed for college because the non-custodial parent will be on the hook for that, also.


Your opinion is at odds with all child support statutes.  Child support is not based upon the cost of keeping a kid alive until he's 18.  It is based upon the presumption that parents have an obligation to devote a certain proportion of their incomes to their kids, whether it's spent on their current needs or saved for their future needs.  Both parents, not just one.  Neither parent has the right to deny a child its birthright.
 
2013-03-28 08:27:57 PM

Masta Kronix: shda5582: Why am I not surprised he's mexican?

Probably because you hold racist views and use race as a metric to judge others.


If I was racist, I would have said something about how he was going to spend it all on blow and/or guns back home.

/Also, would like to know how someone pegged the area I live in, given that there's nothing on fark about where I live.
//Not paranoid, just curious.
 
2013-03-28 08:28:38 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: State said, "It's not your money to refuse, asshole." It's the child's. If the custodial parent has no use for it, it belongs in a savings account for the child.

The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.

For himself or the kids, I might add.

Also, CS is for the cost of raising the kid(s), not to put in a savings account for their adulthood. It won't be needed for college because the non-custodial parent will be on the hook for that, also.

Your opinion is at odds with all child support statutes.  Child support is not based upon the cost of keeping a kid alive until he's 18.  It is based upon the presumption that parents have an obligation to devote a certain proportion of their incomes to their kids, whether it's spent on their current needs or saved for their future needs.  Both parents, not just one.  Neither parent has the right to deny a child its birthright.


you should never judge things in terms of absolutes
 
2013-03-28 08:29:11 PM
i hope the dead beat bastard chokes on the money.

/prolly just envious
 
2013-03-28 08:32:43 PM

tylerdurden217: xanadian: Ya know, it's funny when someone immediately jumps to the conclusion that just because he's a dude and owes child support that he must be a bad person.

Either submitter is trolling or is a woman.

Please describe a scenario in which a person avoids paying child support for years and is still a good person.


My ex-girlfriend's baby-daddy was too broke to pay child support for a long time. When he got his shiat together, he offered to start paying, but she wouldn't take it because she hates him.

/ She hates her kids more.
// Which is why I left.
 
2013-03-28 08:33:33 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

Are you referring to the $25 annual fee for CSE services, including the Family Support Registry?  That's a federal thing, enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Thank Bush.

I'm not sure, but I think WV takes a percentage. I'm not in that boat, thank the FSM, but I'll check with my buddy that is.

There are welfare programs that have to be paid back, and repayments are taken out of child support payments as  they are from any other income. IDK if your buddy has collected such benefits.  Costs of enforcing child support orders may also be recoverable from the recipient, too.  But it's not just "fark you, because we can."

It kind of is, actually. Why should someone making their payments or, in cases where no payment was asked for (or needed) subsidize the other deadbeats?

Especially since all of the rest of us are subsiding them in the form of our taxes (which I have never begrudged). Taking money for those programs out of CS payments is making non-custodials pay twice, once in their taxes, again with their CS payments.


Actually, it makes no difference in what the non-custodial parent pays; it comes out of what the child receives via the custodial parent.  And that's another reason I hate GW and his minions.

But its a fee for services rendered and received, not a tax subsidizing others.
 
2013-03-28 08:34:48 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: State said, "It's not your money to refuse, asshole." It's the child's. If the custodial parent has no use for it, it belongs in a savings account for the child.

The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.

For himself or the kids, I might add.

Also, CS is for the cost of raising the kid(s), not to put in a savings account for their adulthood. It won't be needed for college because the non-custodial parent will be on the hook for that, also.

Your opinion is at odds with all child support statutes.  Child support is not based upon the cost of keeping a kid alive until he's 18.  It is based upon the presumption that parents have an obligation to devote a certain proportion of their incomes to their kids, whether it's spent on their current needs or saved for their future needs.  Both parents, not just one.  Neither parent has the right to deny a child its birthright.


My opinion may be at odds with the system that is making money off of their own decisions?

I'm shocked. The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.
 
2013-03-28 08:35:01 PM

Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: State said, "It's not your money to refuse, asshole." It's the child's. If the custodial parent has no use for it, it belongs in a savings account for the child.

The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.

For himself or the kids, I might add.

Also, CS is for the cost of raising the kid(s), not to put in a savings account for their adulthood. It won't be needed for college because the non-custodial parent will be on the hook for that, also.

Your opinion is at odds with all child support statutes.  Child support is not based upon the cost of keeping a kid alive until he's 18.  It is based upon the presumption that parents have an obligation to devote a certain proportion of their incomes to their kids, whether it's spent on their current needs or saved for their future needs.  Both parents, not just one.  Neither parent has the right to deny a child its birthright.

you should never judge things in terms of absolutes


Or in terms of universal jurisprudence, evidently.
 
2013-03-28 08:35:19 PM
If he paid the child support, he never would have had the money for the lotto ticket,

I predict the ex will have him in court soon seeking million$.
 
2013-03-28 08:36:58 PM

Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: Why don't you put your child's money in a savings account for your child's future

a_room_with_a_moose: The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.

...

What part of "it's the child''s money" don't you motherfarkers get??

You're the one who isnt getting it. my ex was forced to pay me support. She's unemployed and dont have a pot to piss in. I made 250k last year. Situations like that become unconscionable. No way am I gonna take her money. My kids have a 529. I don't need her money, why would me (or anyone else) demand 50 bucks a week from her? Damn the bloodlust!


Plus it doesn't benefit the children for one parent to be destitute when they are being fully supported by another parent who can. Obviously there's exceptions for people who refuse to work, or are abusers of some sort...but generally speaking ^ this is the absolute right thing to do for the kids.

As well as the right thing to do period, IMO.

/thinks  Madbassist1 kids are lucky
 
2013-03-28 08:38:17 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

Are you referring to the $25 annual fee for CSE services, including the Family Support Registry?  That's a federal thing, enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Thank Bush.

I'm not sure, but I think WV takes a percentage. I'm not in that boat, thank the FSM, but I'll check with my buddy that is.

There are welfare programs that have to be paid back, and repayments are taken out of child support payments as  they are from any other income. IDK if your buddy has collected such benefits.  Costs of enforcing child support orders may also be recoverable from the recipient, too.  But it's not just "fark you, because we can."

It kind of is, actually. Why should someone making their payments or, in cases where no payment was asked for (or needed) subsidize the other deadbeats?

Especially since all of the rest of us are subsiding them in the form of our taxes (which I have never begrudged). Taking money for those programs out of CS payments is making non-custodials pay twice, once in their taxes, again with their CS payments.

Actually, it makes no difference in what the non-custodial parent pays; it comes out of what the child receives via the custodial parent.  And that's another reason I hate GW and his minions.

But its a fee for services rendered and received, not a tax subsidizing others.


Even when the services were not wanted or needed? Also, why did you mention welfare (presumably to support the kids of deadbeat parents)?

It is about the state making bank. And lawyers.
 
2013-03-28 08:39:10 PM
a_room_with_a_moose:

The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.

It's not about what the CP needs; it's about what is owed to the kids by both parents.
 
2013-03-28 08:42:53 PM

Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: Why don't you put your child's money in a savings account for your child's future

a_room_with_a_moose: The custodial parent was loaded and didn't need it.

...

What part of "it's the child''s money" don't you motherfarkers get??

You're the one who isnt getting it. my ex was forced to pay me support. She's unemployed and dont have a pot to piss in. I made 250k last year. Situations like that become unconscionable. No way am I gonna take her money. My kids have a 529. I don't need her money, why would me (or anyone else) demand 50 bucks a week from her? Damn the bloodlust!


It's not about what you need.  It's not about your sympathy for her.  It's not about you at all!
 
2013-03-28 08:49:03 PM

sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.


Unless he has something that shows the kid isn't his. He's a dick!
 
2013-03-28 08:50:59 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

Are you referring to the $25 annual fee for CSE services, including the Family Support Registry?  That's a federal thing, enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Thank Bush.

I'm not sure, but I think WV takes a percentage. I'm not in that boat, thank the FSM, but I'll check with my buddy that is.

There are welfare programs that have to be paid back, and repayments are taken out of child support payments as  they are from any other income. IDK if your buddy has collected such benefits.  Costs of enforcing child support orders may also be recoverable from the recipient, too.  But it's not just "fark you, because we can."

It kind of is, actually. Why should someone making their payments or, in cases where no payment was asked for (or needed) subsidize the other deadbeats?

Especially since all of the rest of us are subsiding them in the form of our taxes (which I have never begrudged). Taking money for those programs out of CS payments is making non-custodials pay twice, once in their taxes, again with their CS payments.

Actually, it makes no difference in what the non-custodial parent pays; it comes out of what the child receives via the custodial parent.  And that's another reason I hate GW and his minions.

But its a fee for services rendered and received, not a tax subsidizing others.

Even when the services were not wanted or needed? Also, why did you mention welfare (presumably to support the kids of deadbeat parents)?

It is about the state making bank. And lawyers.


No, you can avoid being charged the fees by not using the services.  The law that charges a $25 fee for having a case open with CSE also allows you to close the case and avoid the fee.

I mentioned welfare because some forms of it have to be paid back out of future income.  Child support is counted as income for such purposes and docked accordingly.  If you resent having your taxes subsidize deadbeat parents, then you should be glad to get some taxes back when they do pay support.
 
2013-03-28 08:52:37 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose:

The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.

It's not about what the CP needs; it's about what is owed to the kids by both parents.


Keep telling yourself that.

In the case I mentioned and in madbassest1's case, the kids don't need it, wouldn't miss it.

I hate the idea that If my wife and I were to split and satisfactorily work everything out between us in terms of support and custody that the state would still get involved against our wishes to pay for an unneeded child advocate and services we didn't want or need.

You sound like a lawyer or a person getting payments.

If the money is for the kids, why doesn't the state make sure the money is spent on the kids, because, in many cases, none of it is spent on the kids.

Bloated system is bloated - and not very effective.
 
2013-03-28 08:55:47 PM

stuffy: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Unless he has something that shows the kid isn't his. He's a dick!


So a guy that loses his job and gets behind on his child support payments because HE HAS NO FARKING MONEY is a dick?  Of course it's his fault.  He should not have farked up the economy so much that it resulted in massive unemployment.  What a dick!
 
2013-03-28 08:58:29 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

Are you referring to the $25 annual fee for CSE services, including the Family Support Registry?  That's a federal thing, enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Thank Bush.

I'm not sure, but I think WV takes a percentage. I'm not in that boat, thank the FSM, but I'll check with my buddy that is.

There are welfare programs that have to be paid back, and repayments are taken out of child support payments as  they are from any other income. IDK if your buddy has collected such benefits.  Costs of enforcing child support orders may also be recoverable from the recipient, too.  But it's not just "fark you, because we can."

It kind of is, actually. Why should someone making their payments or, in cases where no payment was asked for (or needed) subsidize the other deadbeats?

Especially since all of the rest of us are subsiding them in the form of our taxes (which I have never begrudged). Taking money for those programs out of CS payments is making non-custodials pay twice, once in their taxes, again with their CS payments.

Actually, it makes no difference in what the non-custodial parent pays; it comes out of what the child receives via the custodial parent.  And that's another reason I hate GW and his minions.

But its a fee for services rendered and received, not a tax subsidizing others.

Even when the services were not wanted or needed? Also, why did you mention welfare (presumably to support the kids of deadbeat parents)?

It is about the state making bank. And lawyers.

No, you can avoid being charged the fees by not using the services.  The law that charges a $25 fee for having a case open with CSE also allows you to close the case and avoid the fee.

I mentioned welfare because some forms of it have to be paid back out of future income.  Child support is counted as income for such purposes and docked accordingly.  If you resent having your taxes subsidize deadbeat parents, then you should be glad to get some taxes back when they do pay support.


I never get any taxes back and I specifically said I don't resent paying taxes. Also, in WV you get no choice about using those services. Divorce with kids, kids get advocate, you must pay to the state, state gives custodial parent money after taking their percent.

State makes bank, regardless of whether the parents have worked it out already or not.

Been fun. Gotta put the kids to bed and give the wife a call. She is away this week.
 
2013-03-28 08:59:10 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose:

The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.

It's not about what the CP needs; it's about what is owed to the kids by both parents.


My wife doesn't work.  I guess I should tell her that she isn't living up to her financial obligations to our child (I won't cause she's got that crazy Latin blood).

What's "owed to the kids" is a loving and nurturing childhood in which they are provided for in the best manner that their parents can afford.   If the custodial parent is able to provide financially for the child and doesn't need the money from the other parent, that shouldn't be a problem.  It is far more important for the non-custodial parent to continue to be in the child's life than to pay 100 bucks a month into a savings account, especially if it means working some menial job in order to just pay the support but miss out on time with the children.
 
2013-03-28 09:06:38 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose:

The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.

It's not about what the CP needs; it's about what is owed to the kids by both parents.

Keep telling yourself that.

In the case I mentioned and in madbassest1's case, the kids don't need it, wouldn't miss it.

I hate the idea that If my wife and I were to split and satisfactorily work everything out between us in terms of support and custody that the state would still get involved against our wishes to pay for an unneeded child advocate and services we didn't want or need.

You sound like a lawyer or a person getting payments.

If the money is for the kids, why doesn't the state make sure the money is spent on the kids, because, in many cases, none of it is spent on the kids.

Bloated system is bloated - and not very effective.


The entire legal system will keep telling you that.

So it's OK for me to raid my kid's piggy bank because he won't miss it and doesn't need it?

I paid child support for 10 years and received it for six.  Never had the slightest problem in either position because my ex and I understood what child support is and we both love our son.

You and I are in no position to say what is spent on most kids.  The courts get into that only in the most blatant neglect cases because otherwise, bitter and greedy payers would be demanding audits every month, trying to lower their payments and/or just make the ex's life Hell.
 
2013-03-28 09:07:55 PM

No Such Agency: BarkingUnicorn:
Those who say Powerball is a waste of money should consider the odds that a $2 bus ride will result in a successful job interview these days.

Ooh, look at Mr. Big here, who actually gets interviews when he applies for jobs.  Must be all special or something.  Just the other week, I applied for a job, and they sent three men to beat me with a sock full of snooker balls, in my own driveway.  I was ecstatic that they had noticed my resume.


That's standard procedure when you apply to the LAPD.
 
2013-03-28 09:08:06 PM

dark brew: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose:

The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.

It's not about what the CP needs; it's about what is owed to the kids by both parents.

My wife doesn't work.  I guess I should tell her that she isn't living up to her financial obligations to our child (I won't cause she's got that crazy Latin blood).

What's "owed to the kids" is a loving and nurturing childhood in which they are provided for in the best manner that their parents can afford.   If the custodial parent is able to provide financially for the child and doesn't need the money from the other parent, that shouldn't be a problem.  It is far more important for the non-custodial parent to continue to be in the child's life than to pay 100 bucks a month into a savings account, especially if it means working some menial job in order to just pay the support but miss out on time with the children.


I like the way you think. You made my point in a much better manner than I could have.
 
2013-03-28 09:13:12 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose:

The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.

It's not about what the CP needs; it's about what is owed to the kids by both parents.

Keep telling yourself that.

In the case I mentioned and in madbassest1's case, the kids don't need it, wouldn't miss it.

I hate the idea that If my wife and I were to split and satisfactorily work everything out between us in terms of support and custody that the state would still get involved against our wishes to pay for an unneeded child advocate and services we didn't want or need.

You sound like a lawyer or a person getting payments.

If the money is for the kids, why doesn't the state make sure the money is spent on the kids, because, in many cases, none of it is spent on the kids.

Bloated system is bloated - and not very effective.

The entire legal system will keep telling you that.

So it's OK for me to raid my kid's piggy bank because he won't miss it and doesn't need it?

I paid child support for 10 years and received it for six.  Never had the slightest problem in either position because my ex and I understood what child support is and we both love our son.

You and I are in no position to say what is spent on most kids.  The courts get into that only in the most blatant neglect cases because otherwise, bitter and greedy payers would be demanding audits every month, trying to lower their payments and/or just make the ex's life Hell.


Good for you. In WV, the state would have taken a cut of every one of those payments.

People that can work this shiat out without courts and lawyers and the state playing middle man with the payments should have every right to do so. In WV, they do not.

The crap about the piggy bank makes no sense.
 
2013-03-28 09:18:17 PM
"So it's OK for me to raid my kid's piggy bank because he won't miss it and doesn't need it?"

BTW, I know more than one minor that had their non-divorced parents dip into their savings accounts and it was perfectly legal. Wrong but legal. Bad analogy.

Nite
 
2013-03-28 09:22:08 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: dark brew: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose:

The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.

It's not about what the CP needs; it's about what is owed to the kids by both parents.

My wife doesn't work.  I guess I should tell her that she isn't living up to her financial obligations to our child (I won't cause she's got that crazy Latin blood).

What's "owed to the kids" is a loving and nurturing childhood in which they are provided for in the best manner that their parents can afford.   If the custodial parent is able to provide financially for the child and doesn't need the money from the other parent, that shouldn't be a problem.  It is far more important for the non-custodial parent to continue to be in the child's life than to pay 100 bucks a month into a savings account, especially if it means working some menial job in order to just pay the support but miss out on time with the children.

I like the way you think. You made my point in a much better manner than I could have.


My deadbeat dad ended up owing about 18K for my brother and I that he never paid.  My mother didn't make a lot but we got by.  I would have rather my dad showed up at some of my football games or at least made an effort to be in my life rather than get 9K in a savings account.  Obviously in a perfect world I would have had both, but this ain't a perfect world.
 
2013-03-28 09:27:19 PM

dark brew: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose:

The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.

It's not about what the CP needs; it's about what is owed to the kids by both parents.

My wife doesn't work.  I guess I should tell her that she isn't living up to her financial obligations to our child (I won't cause she's got that crazy Latin blood).

What's "owed to the kids" is a loving and nurturing childhood in which they are provided for in the best manner that their parents can afford.   If the custodial parent is able to provide financially for the child and doesn't need the money from the other parent, that shouldn't be a problem.  It is far more important for the non-custodial parent to continue to be in the child's life than to pay 100 bucks a month into a savings account, especially if it means working some menial job in order to just pay the support but miss out on time with the children.


What's owed to the kids before and after divorce are two entirely different things in the eyes of the law.  Divorced parents are not above the law.  They don't get to decide what's owed to the child financially.  Society evidently likes the law as it is; so-called fathers' rights activists have unsuccessfully tried to change it for decades.

I'll assume the "menial job" that prevents a parent from seeing her kids is a second or third job on top of a full-time primary job.  Otherwise, you're presenting a false dilemma.  That should not happen; if it does, there's a flaw in a judge's judgment. Many years ago, I read of a case in which it was decided that a non-custodial father did not have to work more than 40 hours a week to satisfy his child support obligation.  I can't find it online; it was probably a family court decision that set no precedent.  If you want to fight change in the law, that's one I'd join in.
 
2013-03-28 09:33:41 PM
BarkingUnicorn: It's "Judge Judy" justice: excuses are like assholes; everybody has one and nobody wants to hear it.

I have no idea what this means.
 
2013-03-28 09:38:25 PM

ultraholland: BarkingUnicorn: It's "Judge Judy" justice: excuses are like assholes; everybody has one and nobody wants to hear it.

I have no idea what this means.


JJ's solution to every excuse for not paying your debts is, "Get a JOB!  If one isn't enough, get another JOB!"  Assholes are body orifices from which gases often issue raucously, causing consternation among standers-by.
 
2013-03-28 09:56:49 PM
As someone who is now completely current on child support payments.....I'm getting a, well, you know.
Was about a grand behind during a short time of unemployment, State of Michigan didn't care if I lived under a bridge or not... YOU MUST PAY!
/Mom uses cash for "Entertainment"
//kid still needs clothes and such
///coolest kid in the universe, I love her sooooo much, whatever she needs, she's got it
////claims she is "Spawn of the Devil (me)
//pisses her Mom off when she says so
//I love slashies
 
2013-03-28 10:21:27 PM
Jeez you guys are pretty hard on my woman for her ex husband leaving her. Welcome to fark. Gods forbid she have two kids from the same guy in this day and age .
 
2013-03-28 10:23:18 PM
Oh yea, and I don't know if anyone else had done it , but it's really hard to adopt kids if one of the parents fights it, at least in my state.
 
2013-03-28 10:43:46 PM

Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

Are you referring to the $25 annual fee for CSE services, including the Family Support Registry?  That's a federal thing, enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Thank Bush.

No, that's not what hes talking about. The state takes one or two percent off the top for 'processing'. that's what he's talking about. In fairness, it gives the state incentive to enforce the law,.


And the state's getting rich off this? LOL!

I said in the gas-tax thread, our tax system is overly complicated and contentious because everything has to "make sense" and people don't have any sense.  State needs $X to do what citizens want it to do.  Tax everyone's income progressively and be done with it.  If you want something for your taxes that go to CSE, make a baby, get divorced and get custody.
 
2013-03-28 11:00:05 PM

BarkingUnicorn: .

And the state's getting rich off this? LOL!

I said in the gas-tax thread, our tax system is overly complicated and contentious because everything has to "make sense" and people don't have any sense.  State needs $X to do what citizens want it to do.  Tax everyone's income progressively and be done with it.  If you want something for your taxes that go to CSE, make a baby, get divorced and get custody.


It isn't so much the little bit they skim off of the top (but that's a decent chunk of change too), but when you add in the federal dollars that come in to the state collection agencies, which is based on how much they collect every year, you can see where the state has an interest in being involved in every single case where child support is ordered, whether they need to be an intermediary or not. It is to the point now where in a lot of states, if a divorce happens, there is no option to directly pay the support to the custodial parent...you HAVE to send it to the state for redistribution (with a delay of a week or so). That way the state can say they collected $X00 million in child support, and get their funding from the feds for doing work that in a lot of cases didn't need to be done in the first place.
 
2013-03-28 11:49:06 PM

buzzcut73: BarkingUnicorn: .

And the state's getting rich off this? LOL!

I said in the gas-tax thread, our tax system is overly complicated and contentious because everything has to "make sense" and people don't have any sense.  State needs $X to do what citizens want it to do.  Tax everyone's income progressively and be done with it.  If you want something for your taxes that go to CSE, make a baby, get divorced and get custody.

It isn't so much the little bit they skim off of the top (but that's a decent chunk of change too), but when you add in the federal dollars that come in to the state collection agencies, which is based on how much they collect every year, you can see where the state has an interest in being involved in every single case where child support is ordered, whether they need to be an intermediary or not. It is to the point now where in a lot of states, if a divorce happens, there is no option to directly pay the support to the custodial parent...you HAVE to send it to the state for redistribution (with a delay of a week or so). That way the state can say they collected $X00 million in child support, and get their funding from the feds for doing work that in a lot of cases didn't need to be done in the first place.


Right.  Cops get funding for doing work that in a lot of cases didn't need to be done in the first place.

This chart is based on 2000 data.  It's old, but that was a better time than today so I imagine the situation was a bit rosier for obligees.  "57 percent of the obligors in the nine study states owed $5,000 in arrears or less."  So 43% owed more than $5K. Yeah, I'd make everybody go through the Family Support Registry.

aspe.hhs.gov
 
2013-03-29 12:07:08 AM
If only the bill was printed in Spanish.
 
2013-03-29 12:43:53 AM

kevhead07: As someone who is now completely current on child support payments.....I'm getting a, well, you know.
Was about a grand behind during a short time of unemployment, State of Michigan didn't care if I lived under a bridge or not... YOU MUST PAY!
/Mom uses cash for "Entertainment"
//kid still needs clothes and such
///coolest kid in the universe, I love her sooooo much, whatever she needs, she's got it
////claims she is "Spawn of the Devil (me)
//pisses her Mom off when she says so
//I love slashies


Some states will consider the child's wishes when choosing the custodial parent.  You might want to look into that.

And fark parents who poison their child's relationship with their ex as a form of punishment (note I am being gender neutral).
 
2013-03-29 01:05:14 AM
I'm sorry, has anyone slapped the subby upside his head yet for that headline?

The man's bet bet is to get a loan to pay the 29k so he can collect the lotto and pay off the loan.
 
2013-03-29 01:13:13 AM

a_room_with_a_moose: I hate the idea that If my wife and I were to split and satisfactorily work everything out between us in terms of support and custody that the state would still get involved against our wishes to pay for an unneeded child advocate and services we didn't want or need.


You hate the fact that the state doesn't trust divorcing parents to act in the best interests of their children. I take comfort in the fact that the state protects children's interests.  Apparently, in WV children need more protection than they do elsewhere.

 
2013-03-29 02:06:08 AM
So much confident ignorance for one thread...
 
2013-03-29 02:19:56 AM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: I hate the idea that If my wife and I were to split and satisfactorily work everything out between us in terms of support and custody that the state would still get involved against our wishes to pay for an unneeded child advocate and services we didn't want or need.

You hate the fact that the state doesn't trust divorcing parents to act in the best interests of their children. I take comfort in the fact that the state protects children's interests.  Apparently, in WV children need more protection than they do elsewhere.


Jury is back in. You are just being a prick.

Making the system mandatory for all divorce cases with kids is BS, an overreach of the state and inflexible.

It is like mandatory minimum sentencing. It screws everybody the same even though the offenses may vary. Why even bother with the judge? You could get the same result with a payment table.

If you think it isn't about the money you aren't familiar with WV state government.

You GOTTA be a lawyer. No one else would suck the cock of the legal system as hard as you do.
 
2013-03-29 02:26:21 AM

kronicfeld: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.


If it were so easy.  I had a coworker whose support was based on an old job that he got laid off from.  Then when he got a minimum wage job they kept taking at the old rate so he had $100 a month leftover after they took child support which is why he lived with family members.  The child support office treats you like an asshole, the court proceedings are costly and take forever to get hearings and changes.  Meanwhile his batty ex collects everything he made while neglecting his kid.

I give the guy credit for toughing it out and getting his kid back after his ex went to the nut hut.
 
2013-03-29 02:34:29 AM

BarkingUnicorn: buzzcut73: BarkingUnicorn: .

And the state's getting rich off this? LOL!

I said in the gas-tax thread, our tax system is overly complicated and contentious because everything has to "make sense" and people don't have any sense.  State needs $X to do what citizens want it to do.  Tax everyone's income progressively and be done with it.  If you want something for your taxes that go to CSE, make a baby, get divorced and get custody.

It isn't so much the little bit they skim off of the top (but that's a decent chunk of change too), but when you add in the federal dollars that come in to the state collection agencies, which is based on how much they collect every year, you can see where the state has an interest in being involved in every single case where child support is ordered, whether they need to be an intermediary or not. It is to the point now where in a lot of states, if a divorce happens, there is no option to directly pay the support to the custodial parent...you HAVE to send it to the state for redistribution (with a delay of a week or so). That way the state can say they collected $X00 million in child support, and get their funding from the feds for doing work that in a lot of cases didn't need to be done in the first place.

Right.  Cops get funding for doing work that in a lot of cases didn't need to be done in the first place.

This chart is based on 2000 data.  It's old, but that was a better time than today so I imagine the situation was a bit rosier for obligees.  "57 percent of the obligors in the nine study states owed $5,000 in arrears or less."  So 43% owed more than $5K. Yeah, I'd make everybody go through the Family Support Registry.


The arrears couldn't possibly be because of unrealistic payment expectations and tacked on interest and fees. Of course, to the state, the higher the better because they make more money.

Your analogy of the cops is poor. They make bank all of the time off of asset forfeiture, often with no evidence of drugs OR crime.

Is B. Unicorn a troll, a lawyer, a cock or all three? You decide!
 
2013-03-29 04:03:42 AM
a_room_with_a_moose: .

The purpose of requiring payments through the state is to discourage underpayments and detect them  ASAP.  Underpayment may be unavoidable.  It may be due to the obligor's assholery.  It may be due to a conspiracy between both parents to defraud their children.  Regardless, payments need to be monitored to protect the child's interest and somebody has to pay for that monitoring.

I think it should be all taxpayers, each according to his ability. Children's money should not be garnished to improve its collection.  Thank your dully (sic) elected representatives for that crime against kids, and your fellow voters who don't give a shiat because they are not divorced with children.

A more apt analogy than "minimum sentences" would be car emissions inspections.  Your perfectly maintained car has to go through the same inspection process as  your neighbor's smoke-belching clunker.  You both pay, but only he is denied the right to drive his car.  You both get better air to breathe.
 
2013-03-29 04:57:45 AM

what_now: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

so..why's he playing the lotto?


To win $152 mil.  Duh!
 
2013-03-29 05:04:41 AM

OgreMagi: 99.998er:

J.G. Wentworth
My dad punched that bastard
.


Holy shiat!  I would frame that and hang it on the wall in my office, right next to my dad's picture, if my dad did that to JG Wentworth.
 
2013-03-29 05:52:37 AM
We could eliminate this entire "child support" system and all it's complications with two simple changes:
1. Pay people that raise children (because society has an interest in effective childrearing)
2. Tax people that produce children (because children should not be produced willy-nilly)

That would eliminate all the complications of trying to keep family court orders matched with actual incomes and needs, would simplify the collection of "child support", would help equalize children's access to societal resources, would simplify the administration of all "family-oriented" benefits because children's needs are already meet, etc., etc., etc.

But that would require us to admit that children are actually people who deserve support regardless of the circumstances of their birth, rather than treating children merely as property of and reflection on their parents.
 
2013-03-29 06:02:10 AM

a_room_with_a_moose: Making the system mandatory for all divorce cases with kids is BS


Pretending that children don't have a legitimate legal interest in the divorce of their parents is BS. A divorcing couple might well have reached terms they find agreeable, but that are not suitable for their children -- since children aren't legal people they must have an advocate to represent their interests in such cases.

If you'd like to avoid the advocate part you could just make children legal people and give them claim to the assets being divided, just like banks and other legal people already have. Personally I'd much rather we promoted children to full personhood rather than randomly assigning some advocate for them, but that doesn't seem to be a popular concept.
 
2013-03-29 06:50:25 AM

profplump: a_room_with_a_moose: Making the system mandatory for all divorce cases with kids is BS

Pretending that children don't have a legitimate legal interest in the divorce of their parents is BS. A divorcing couple might well have reached terms they find agreeable, but that are not suitable for their children -- since children aren't legal people they must have an advocate to represent their interests in such cases.

If you'd like to avoid the advocate part you could just make children legal people and give them claim to the assets being divided, just like banks and other legal people already have. Personally I'd much rather we promoted children to full personhood rather than randomly assigning some advocate for them, but that doesn't seem to be a popular concept.


This is the stupidest farking thing I have read in quite awhile.
 
2013-03-29 07:01:31 AM

profplump: a_room_with_a_moose: Making the system mandatory for all divorce cases with kids is BS

Pretending that children don't have a legitimate legal interest in the divorce of their parents is BS. A divorcing couple might well have reached terms they find agreeable, but that are not suitable for their children -- since children aren't legal people they must have an advocate to represent their interests in such cases.

If you'd like to avoid the advocate part you could just make children legal people and give them claim to the assets being divided, just like banks and other legal people already have. Personally I'd much rather we promoted children to full personhood rather than randomly assigning some advocate for them, but that doesn't seem to be a popular concept.


Both you and Unicorn presuppose the the kids have a right to the parents assets.

Legally, parents owe their kids food, clothing, shelter, and school in an environment free from abuse. Nothing more. Plenty of parents cut their kids off and throw them out at 25 (used to be 18). Leaving them nothing in the will. Good parents will do more, but that is not manditory.

Now you want divorced parents to set the kids up with a savings account or give them a share of the parents assets, above and beyond their needs in the above mentioned categories.

No wonder we have such a slew of self-entitled kids.

The system sucks and assumes every parent is a bad parent and won't look after their kids after a divorce. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

It will stay that way because the state has no interest in cutting the cash flow. I'm sure the money from lawyer lobbies helps, also.
 
2013-03-29 10:29:11 AM

sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.



davidvmoore.com
 
2013-03-29 10:52:41 AM

Bippal: As someone engaged to a person owed 7 grand in back support plus 10k in birthing costs getting a kick etc. But she's constantly getting the run around from the courts on getting him to pay anything. The judge even said once that the sperm donor would get special consideration because of a tour of duty in Iraq. Now here we sit, myself raising his kids, him taking off to oregon and knocking up an 18 year old, and us trying to get him to give up legal rights. Id rather him have nothing at all to do with them, it's not like he is anyways.


assets.diylol.com
 
2013-03-29 11:01:05 AM
For every guy biatching about paying child support there is always just as many women who have to raise their child without any financial help from the father.
 
2013-03-29 11:09:48 AM

Why Would I Read the Article: John Buck 41: I'm sure this has been mentioned but he apparently scraped up enough for a Powerball ticket.

F**k this a**hole.

Oh man, he scraped up an entire dollar? That monster!


He's worse than Hitler.
 
2013-03-29 11:21:08 AM

a_room_with_a_moose: Legally, parents owe their kids food, clothing, shelter, and school in an environment free from abuse. Nothing more.


While the parents are married, as you say you are.  After divorce they owe the kids a portion of their incomes from which all the other needs are to be met.  If that portion exceeds the actual cost of maintaining the kids, the rest still belongs to the kids.

I hope you don't learn that the hard way.
 
2013-03-29 11:31:55 AM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: Legally, parents owe their kids food, clothing, shelter, and school in an environment free from abuse. Nothing more.

While the parents are married, as you say you are.  After divorce they owe the kids a portion of their incomes from which all the other needs are to be met.  If that portion exceeds the actual cost of maintaining the kids, the rest still belongs to the kids.

I hope you don't learn that the hard way.


As you say. I say that is unfair. Married parents are not held to the same standard. That makes me think it is more about money than it is about fairness.

My points about unrealistic payment sizes, giving kids more than they need and the bloated mess that is the family court system still stand.

Don't worry about me. I would "accidentally" die in a high speed auto accident before I would put my kids or myself through that. My life insurance would well provide for them.
 
2013-03-29 12:01:03 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: Legally, parents owe their kids food, clothing, shelter, and school in an environment free from abuse. Nothing more.

While the parents are married, as you say you are.  After divorce they owe the kids a portion of their incomes from which all the other needs are to be met.  If that portion exceeds the actual cost of maintaining the kids, the rest still belongs to the kids.

I hope you don't learn that the hard way.

As you say. I say that is unfair. Married parents are not held to the same standard. That makes me think it is more about money than it is about fairness.

My points about unrealistic payment sizes, giving kids more than they need and the bloated mess that is the family court system still stand.

Don't worry about me. I would "accidentally" die in a high speed auto accident before I would put my kids or myself through that. My life insurance would well provide for them.


Real Father-of-the-Generation material here.  He'd kill himself if his wife divorced him.  Not that I believe the hyperbolic blowhard.

I agree that the payment modification process is unrealistic in practice; judges routinely ignore the law. I disagree with the premise that payments, when based upon actual income, are unrealistic or excessive.
 
2013-03-29 12:27:07 PM
After coming back from yesterday and reading through the additional comments I realized two things:
1 - There are a lot of people angry about this topic
2 - Most of those people have NO IDEA how child support / visitation actually works

Is the system 100% fair? No. Are there edge cases of unfair treatment? Yes. Is the system cumbersome and difficult (but not impossible) not navigate? Without a doubt. As the laws vary from state to state you need to educate yourself appropriately and accept a couple of straight up facts:

The state does not care at what level you exist, only that you provide for your children as ordered. Can't afford that car payment and child support payments anymore? Too bad. Enjoy public transportation or a 20 year old beater. Or get another job.

Visitation and child support are not connected. One can not be with held to force compliance with the other. It doesn't work like that.

Both sides abuse and get abused by the system. It happens everyday.

Everyone forgets the court makes decisions in "the best interest of the child". Your personal best interest ceased to exist when that kid popped out, in the court's eyes.

Child support is not a "piggybank" for a child or "money for a child". It is money the non-custodial parent pays to reimburse the custodial parent for the expenses of raising child(ren). The NCP has no say in how the money is spent. If the children are being provided for (and that is a very low-bar, you would be surprised) the CP is free to do whatever he/she likes with the additional funds. If junior is clothed and fed and housed at even a minimal level, CP is free to buy as many cars/suits/purses as they like with the money NCP sends. Yeah it sucks and kids are often on the short end of the stick, but that is how it works.

You had sex like an adult, now you get the second half of the adult equation - responsibility. Kids are expensive. More so when you are parenting from afar. If you don't want to pay, then I suggest you don't have any. Having a kid is 100% preventable.
 
2013-03-29 12:43:45 PM

bunner: The oppressed, protected class fandango applies to the following people.

People with dark skin.  People with a vagina.  People who are gay.  People with billions of dollars.  The rest of you better start kissing the aforementioned asses rosy and cutting checks.

No seriously.

Look into it.


"Study it out" as it were.
 
2013-03-29 01:25:37 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: .

The purpose of requiring payments through the state is to discourage underpayments and detect them  ASAP.  Underpayment may be unavoidable.  It may be due to the obligor's assholery.  It may be due to a conspiracy between both parents to defraud their children.  Regardless, payments need to be monitored to protect the child's interest and somebody has to pay for that monitoring.

I think it should be all taxpayers, each according to his ability. Children's money should not be garnished to improve its collection.  Thank your dully (sic) elected representatives for that crime against kids, and your fellow voters who don't give a shiat because they are not divorced with children.

A more apt analogy than "minimum sentences" would be car emissions inspections.  Your perfectly maintained car has to go through the same inspection process as  your neighbor's smoke-belching clunker.  You both pay, but only he is denied the right to drive his car.  You both get better air to breathe.


I have much more faith in my childs mother and the human race as a whole, for that matter, than you do. Tell ya what. My child is 12 now. mom started paying support when she was 6. 6*52*50 = 15200 or so. That is less than one months salary for me. I find it farking insulting that you think I'm shorting my child in some way by not making life harder on her mother. You are a bitter person, and not only are you completely wrong about my situation, but you're also wrong about encouraging the state to get involved in child support matters without provocation.
 
2013-03-29 02:36:44 PM

Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: .

I have much more faith in my childs mother and the human race as a whole, for that matter, than you do. Tell ya what. My child is 12 now. mom started paying support when she was 6. 6*52*50 = 15200 or so. That is less than one months salary for me. I find it farking insulting that you think I'm shorting my child in some way by not making life harder on her mother. You are a bitter person, and not only are you completely wrong about my situation, but you're also wrong about encouraging the state to get involved in child support matters without provocation.


Again I say, it's not about you.  I am not surprised that a guy who makes $250K thinks it is.  Egotism correlates to income. But for a moment, let's make it about you.  Tell me if I'm wrong about your situation:

1. Your ex has been ordered to pay $50/week to her child.
2. You accept that money with a fiduciary duty to spend it on your child or save it for his/her future  use.
3. You breach that duty by giving the money back to your ex.
4. Your defense is that your opinion of what's fair supersedes the law.

If all that is correct, then you deserve jail more than she does.

The CSE system is as it is because of people like you.
 
2013-03-29 05:16:55 PM
So he owes $152,029,000 in child support? How the fark did that happen? Has he been going around claiming to be Wilt Chamberlain?
 
2013-03-29 05:42:37 PM
tylerdurden217:
"Can't find a job" doesn't cut it. I'm not talking about someone who makes a late payment occasionally .. I'm saving my criticism for those that NEVER pay or are so far behind that the figure is totaling in the thousands or worse yet, 10's of thousands.


And that's the issue. Support laws aren't perfect, and it's certainly possible for someone to be stuck with an monthly order they have no possible way to pay. Even if you have a basis to lower your order it can take months for a court to actually grant your modification, and most jurisdictions don't allow for reimbursement of past support payments.

None of that excuses not paying anything. I've seen non-custodial parents who have almost nothing but still make sure to scrape together a few dollars a month to send, because they want to be able to look their children in the eye when they're adults and be able to honestly say they did their best. The gulf between those NCP's - who might have huge support arrears - and the jerks who blow off their entire obligation is vast.

TFA gives no clues as to which category Mr. Quezada falls into.

/If you have five or more kids by three or more partners there usually isn't a whole lot left over
 
2013-03-30 07:54:36 AM

BarkingUnicorn: The CSE system is as it is because of people like you.


Like I said, you're a bitter person. I also doubt your ability to look at issues in context.
 
2013-03-30 02:32:09 PM
My supervisor's ex just spent approximately $10k in order to get a $50/month increase in child support for the 2 years of support the kid has left.

She was hoping for a lot more, of course, but they totally tried to misapply the law, like using temporary pay while outside the country as part of his base pay, that had already ended when he went to court.
 
2013-03-31 04:49:34 AM

Thespecialistkc: Uh, this dude IS a bad person. Period. Not paying child support makes you a bad person.


www.epm.org
Disagrees.
 
2013-03-31 06:13:38 AM

DrPainMD: Thespecialistkc: Uh, this dude IS a bad person. Period. Not paying child support makes you a bad person.

[www.epm.org image 430x336]
Disagrees.


He's wrong.
 
Displayed 394 of 394 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report