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.

(Miami Herald)   Judge orders father to pay $7,645 in legal fees for mother trying to collect child support. Correction: ...orders prosecutors to pay $7,645 to father being extorted by the system   (miamiherald.com) divider line 187
    More: Florida, child support, legal fees, prosecutors, Department of Revenue, Florida Attorney General, freedom of movement, Miami, collects  
•       •       •

17178 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jul 2013 at 4:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-06 12:14:22 PM
Impressive!  Kudos to the judge.
 
2013-07-06 12:24:06 PM
"We are not appealing the judge's order despite a belief in the merits of our position," said spokesman Ed Griffith

There may be people with fewer morals than a prosecutor, but most of them are in jail.
 
2013-07-06 02:20:30 PM
Should have a HERO tag
 
2013-07-06 03:47:05 PM
Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?
 
2013-07-06 04:02:45 PM
"We are not appealing the judge's order despite a belief in the merits of our position," said spokesman Ed Griffith.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/07/3222595/miami-judge-calls-child - support.html#storylink=cpy
We'd have our assess handed to us and be subjected to further scoldings and embarrassment for our biased incompetence.

/translated by BING
 
2013-07-06 04:40:19 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?


In a family court case?

images.encyclopediadramatica.se
 
2013-07-06 04:41:49 PM
In December 2010, Maya-Schehtman went to the State Attorney's Office and filed a routine sworn-affidavit alleging her ex-husband was late on child support.

Schehtman, the judge later found, filed documents with the court and prosecutors showing the affidavit was wrong. Prosecutors nevertheless "certified" the delinquent child support, reporting it through a computer system to the Florida Department of Revenue.



Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/07/3222595/miami-judge-calls-child - support.html#storylink=cpy
She should be in jail. Maybe the prosecutors too.
 
2013-07-06 04:42:14 PM
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-06 04:42:58 PM
GOOD
 
2013-07-06 04:45:55 PM
How can he be out of work and be a CEO simultaneously?
 
2013-07-06 04:46:45 PM
Maybe I can send a copy of this article to the jackasses in Kansas that keep reporting me for unpaid child support from when my ex moved there. I keep providing copies of records that it was in fact withheld from my wages by the state of Missouri (where the order existed) and paid through them, yet they 'clear it up' and a few months later we start all over again....

/Think the DMV is incompetent? You should see the people over at Child Support Enforcement.
 
2013-07-06 04:49:34 PM

AngryDragon: Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?

In a family court case?

[images.encyclopediadramatica.se image 500x389]


I don't get it. Maybe I'm stupid.

She lied... impacted her ex's ability to run his business or make money... and cost the State $7,000 plus the cost of all the man hours she wasted...

I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?
 
2013-07-06 04:50:28 PM
Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.
 
2013-07-06 04:50:44 PM
Didn't go far enough. Knowingly pursuing frivolous litigation should be reviewed by the State Bar.
 
2013-07-06 04:55:12 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: AngryDragon: Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?

In a family court case?

[images.encyclopediadramatica.se image 500x389]

I don't get it. Maybe I'm stupid.

She lied... impacted her ex's ability to run his business or make money... and cost the State $7,000 plus the cost of all the man hours she wasted...

I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?


img.wonderhowto.com
 
2013-07-06 04:57:11 PM

Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.


What about a black father?

Oh... right.

Nevermind.
 
2013-07-06 04:57:43 PM

Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.


Except for a fetus.
 
2013-07-06 05:00:01 PM
Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?
 
2013-07-06 05:00:37 PM

atomic-age: How can he be out of work and be a CEO simultaneously?


If he's the CEO of a small business that involves frequent travel, then his business effectively stops.  How is that hard to get?  Not all CEO's are in charge of Fortune 500 companies.
 
2013-07-06 05:02:27 PM

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?


You sound scared. What are you afraid of?
 
2013-07-06 05:04:02 PM

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-06 05:04:32 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: AngryDragon: Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?

In a family court case?

[images.encyclopediadramatica.se image 500x389]

I don't get it. Maybe I'm stupid.

She lied... impacted her ex's ability to run his business or make money... and cost the State $7,000 plus the cost of all the man hours she wasted...

I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?


That's so sexist!

Apparently the courts in Florida are a joke.
 
2013-07-06 05:04:47 PM
"Each."
 
2013-07-06 05:05:30 PM
Go figure Florida is usually the state of crazy but is the only one with that deals with child custody and support cases with sanity.
 
2013-07-06 05:07:13 PM

Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.


Except for the kid(s) that have to deal with their dumbfark parents using them as pawns in a game they had no part in.

/at least in my experience
 
2013-07-06 05:07:15 PM
This woman should be given a life sentence, the prosecutor as well.  Send a message.
 
2013-07-06 05:07:46 PM

Warlordtrooper: Go figure Florida is usually the state of crazy but is the only one with that deals with child custody and support cases with sanity.

 
2013-07-06 05:07:58 PM

buzzcut73: Maybe I can send a copy of this article to the jackasses in Kansas that keep reporting me for unpaid child support from when my ex moved there. I keep providing copies of records that it was in fact withheld from my wages by the state of Missouri (where the order existed) and paid through them, yet they 'clear it up' and a few months later we start all over again....

/Think the DMV is incompetent? You should see the people over at Child Support Enforcement.


Maybe if you were a well to do businessman in Latin america with lawyer money to burn this could get all cleared up. hang in there bro.
 
2013-07-06 05:08:25 PM
Justice?  Justice would have added three 0's to the end of that number.  $8 grand? They earned much over lunch.
 
2013-07-06 05:09:36 PM
This is why those "Men's Rights" movements are so stupid, because every now and then one of them only gets a little farked instead of completely farked.
 
2013-07-06 05:12:16 PM

GORDON: This is why those "Men's Rights" movements are so stupid, because every now and then one of them only gets a little farked instead of completely farked.


And what man is bothered by a little farking... amirite?!!?
 
2013-07-06 05:12:37 PM

Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.


I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.
 
2013-07-06 05:12:58 PM

BizarreMan: Impressive!  Kudos to the judge.


That is, quite simply, the dumbest police I've ever heard - "hey, it's an affidavit, and no one's ever lied on one of those - let's just go ahead and report him as a deadbeat dad and hose his passport for months." No investigation, no due process, just punish him solely on the say-so of another party and no other evidence.

And, where's the follow-up where the wife is now charged with falsifying an affidavit and committing fraud? She writes a $7K check and walks off after basically lying for months? That's bullshiat, right there. The social bias against men for child support issues, to the point of having the "deadbeat dad" nickname, is bad enough without having some form of verification to confirm that status before punishing men for it.
 
2013-07-06 05:13:54 PM

FormlessOne: the dumbest police policy I've ever heard


FTFM.
 
2013-07-06 05:14:27 PM
i1172.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-06 05:14:47 PM

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?


Whores' what?
 
2013-07-06 05:17:14 PM

AngryDragon: Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?

In a family court case?


Yeah, if they started putting everyone in jail who lied in family court they'd never be able to finish a trial.  Practically everyone involved in those disputes is lying or incompetent.  On the other hand, wanna take a guess why nobody respects family court?
 
2013-07-06 05:17:18 PM

jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.


I never got married and don't have any kids... I'd say YOU'RE doing it wrong too.
 
2013-07-06 05:19:30 PM

budrojr: AngryDragon: Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?

In a family court case?

Yeah, if they started putting everyone in jail who lied in family court they'd never be able to finish a trial.  Practically everyone involved in those disputes is lying or incompetent.  On the other hand, wanna take a guess why nobody respects family court?


Never been there... didn't know. Makes sense now. TY.

So.. yeah... ignorant or stupid... I is one.
 
2013-07-06 05:20:02 PM

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?


Bingo.  And thanks for playing the "who's going to be the most obtuse, smarmy poster" game.  If you win, we'll let you know.  Now go sit in the audience and shut it.
 
2013-07-06 05:20:19 PM

GORDON: This is why those "Men's Rights" movements are so stupid, because every now and then one of them only gets a little farked instead of completely farked.


 They are kind of redundant, as its a problem society has already found a solution to. Come on. Push them far enough and guys simply just drink themselves to death, or eat a bullet. Nice and quiet, no mess. Sure, maybe in the odd case one goes down in a shootout with the cops, but then its ok because you can just retroactively dismiss them as nuts in the first place so no one needs to care.

  Women are smart enough to band together in groups, raise huge amounts of cash, and play the PR game about any slight to their 'sisters', real or imagined, until its taken care of to their satisfaction. Even to the point of using that power to marginalize and/or remove rights from others, particularly men.
 Guys and that whole independent and tough thing they are taught means they shun any of their own in trouble, and those that are in trouble won't ask. Guys no longer have rights simply because we won't fight for them.
 
2013-07-06 05:20:51 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.

I never got married and don't have any kids... I'd say YOU'RE doing it wrong too.


I will give you a pass because I think you are funny, but I am pretty happy with the way my life is going. Thanks!
 
2013-07-06 05:22:29 PM

jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.


Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.

#exceptionnottherule
 
2013-07-06 05:22:36 PM

budrojr: Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?

Bingo.  And thanks for playing the "who's going to be the most obtuse, smarmy poster" game.  If you win, we'll let you know.  Now go sit in the audience and shut it.


Actually, this is the thread where we mock and vilify people for standing up for their best interests instead of our best interests.
 
2013-07-06 05:25:39 PM
Oh man.  I end up in a lot of those threads.  You'd think I'd learn to recognize them better.
 
2013-07-06 05:28:16 PM

budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.

Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.

#exceptionnottherule


I have heard some pretty bad stories, so I know historically it is pretty biased, but more recently most dads I know who got "screwed by the system" either don't understand the motivations of Family court, didn't assert and or protect their rights or are just plain bitter.

That being said for every valid "Dad got screwed" story I hear exactly zero "Mom got screwed story", but considering myself and the two divorced dad's I work with ended up with similar results I can't help but roll my eyes when I hear someone assert that Dads can't get a fair shake.

I will admit that Colorado is a bit more progressive than a lot of states, so I had that going for me. And access to the funds to wage a bitter battle if I needed to.
 
2013-07-06 05:30:17 PM

WhippingBoy: budrojr: Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?

Bingo.  And thanks for playing the "who's going to be the most obtuse, smarmy poster" game.  If you win, we'll let you know.  Now go sit in the audience and shut it.

Actually, this is the thread where we mock and vilify people for standing up for their best interests instead of our best interests.


That's the whole problem, it is about the best interests of the kids. Too many parents forget this and try to "win".
 
2013-07-06 05:31:05 PM

FormlessOne: BizarreMan: Impressive!  Kudos to the judge.

That is, quite simply, the dumbest police I've ever heard - "hey, it's an affidavit, and no one's ever lied on one of those - let's just go ahead and report him as a deadbeat dad and hose his passport for months." No investigation, no due process, just punish him solely on the say-so of another party and no other evidence.

And, where's the follow-up where the wife is now charged with falsifying an affidavit and committing fraud? She writes a $7K check and walks off after basically lying for months? That's bullshiat, right there. The social bias against men for child support issues, to the point of having the "deadbeat dad" nickname, is bad enough without having some form of verification to confirm that status before punishing men for it.


We can't hold women responsible for their actions, that would just be sexist.
 
2013-07-06 05:32:43 PM

jst3p: Pray 4 Mojo: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.

I never got married and don't have any kids... I'd say YOU'RE doing it wrong too.

I will give you a pass because I think you are funny, but I am pretty happy with the way my life is going. Thanks!


Thank you for thinking I am funny... and for probably realizing I was not really serious.

/Also... Yay for happy life!
 
2013-07-06 05:33:28 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: AngryDragon: Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?

In a family court case?

[images.encyclopediadramatica.se image 500x389]

I don't get it. Maybe I'm stupid.

She lied... impacted her ex's ability to run his business or make money... and cost the State $7,000 plus the cost of all the man hours she wasted...

I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?


"The judge's unusually scathing order sanctions prosecutors and Schehtman's ex-wife, ordering them to each pay $7,645 in legal fees."  So she's paying half of his legal costs and the State's paying the other half.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/07/3222595/miami-judge-calls-child - support.html#storylink=cpy
It's up to the State to prosecute her criminally if it chooses to do so.   Can the State recover its $7645 from her? IDK.  Seems like her affidavitdid not make the State wrongfully stonewall the guy after it learned that her statement was false.  That was the State's choice, or negligence if you want to be charitable.
 
2013-07-06 05:33:34 PM

budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.

Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.

#exceptionnottherule


I have full custody of the three kids, and she pays $300/month for child support. And my lawyer constantly reminds me to keep documenting everything as she could walk into court any given day and demand custody be returned (even after 5 years) and she'd likely get temporary custody.

So yeah, even the lawyers know fathers are below felons in the system.
 
2013-07-06 05:35:03 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?


Probably because they have to prove that she lied and this wasn't just a mistake on her part. And in a case like this I'm pretty sure that will be extremely hard unless they have her on tape talking about her plan.
 
2013-07-06 05:37:39 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: GORDON: This is why those "Men's Rights" movements are so stupid, because every now and then one of them only gets a little farked instead of completely farked.

And what man is bothered by a little farking... amirite?!!?


teh reddit nerd
 
2013-07-06 05:39:57 PM

budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.
I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.
Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.
#exceptionnottherule


No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

Oh wait--I'm a woman, therefore it couldn't have happened that way. Carry on, Fark.
 
2013-07-06 05:42:00 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: AngryDragon: Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?

In a family court case?

[images.encyclopediadramatica.se image 500x389]

I don't get it. Maybe I'm stupid.

She lied... impacted her ex's ability to run his business or make money... and cost the State $7,000 plus the cost of all the man hours she wasted...

I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?


That would be a hardship and not in the interest of justice.  You know, FOR THE CHILDREN!

Let's not consider that the mother is a C*** who is setting a great example for her kids while defrauding an innocent man and the state.
 
2013-07-06 05:45:31 PM

cryinoutloud: budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.
I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.
Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.
#exceptionnottherule

No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

Oh wait--I'm a woman, therefore it couldn't have happened that way. Carry on, Fark.


I'm sorry you had a rough time, but statistics, how do they work?

My ex was addicted to drugs without any means of support and she STILL got custody.  Apparently a father with a clean record and successful career who volunteers his time to both the community and his child's school was a less capable parent than someone who was so drugged out of her mind that she would spend days at a time in bed.  And she received spousal support for 3 years.

Seems legit.
 
2013-07-06 05:52:41 PM

AngryDragon: cryinoutloud: budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.
I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.
Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.
#exceptionnottherule

No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

Oh wait--I'm a woman, therefore it couldn't have happened that way. Carry on, Fark.

I'm sorry you had a rough time, but statistics, how do they work?

My ex was addicted to drugs without any means of support and she STILL got custody.  Apparently a father with a clean record and successful career who volunteers his time to both the community and his child's school was a less capable parent than someone who was so drugged out of her mind that she would spend days at a time in bed.  And she received spousal support for 3 years.

Seems legit.


i'm addicted to drugs too.  i take an aspirin every once and awhile
 
2013-07-06 05:54:45 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?


Isn't that exactly what the prosecutors get to do - pay the guy with other people's money and get on with their lives?
 
2013-07-06 05:56:16 PM

jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.


I saw the order from Children Services of my best friend years ago during his divorce. He made 50.1% of their income, she made 49.9%. The state says that $900/month is what it took to raise a child. With shared custody, they were going to make him pay her $452 a month. FOR. SHARED. CUSTODY. It took an actual farking lawyer to get the shiat cleared up.
 
2013-07-06 05:57:46 PM
A victory for reproductive rights.
 
2013-07-06 05:58:08 PM

AngryDragon: Pray 4 Mojo: AngryDragon: Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?

In a family court case?

[images.encyclopediadramatica.se image 500x389]

I don't get it. Maybe I'm stupid.

She lied... impacted her ex's ability to run his business or make money... and cost the State $7,000 plus the cost of all the man hours she wasted...

I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?

That would be a hardship and not in the interest of justice.  You know, FOR THE CHILDREN!

Let's not consider that the mother is a C*** who is setting a great example for her kids while defrauding an innocent man and the state.


Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?
 
Rat
2013-07-06 05:58:14 PM
 
2013-07-06 06:01:39 PM

AngryDragon: My ex was addicted to drugs without any means of support and she STILL got custody.  Apparently a father with a clean record and successful career who volunteers his time to both the community and his child's school was a less capable parent than someone who was so drugged out of her mind that she would spend days at a time in bed.  And she received spousal support for 3 years.

Seems legit.


Seems you had a shiatty lawyer or a corrupt judge; maybe both. Tough break, especially for the kids.

Family law does not attract the best legal pros.  It's nightmarish work and doesn't pay as well as other specialities.  Go figger.

/yeah, divorce fees are steep, but like hospital bills they can be hard to collect.
//in addition to white male privilege, I now feel guilty about an equitable, mostly amicable post-divorce life.
 
2013-07-06 06:03:10 PM
But.. it's florida.. and it's progressive, and it's justice, and, and... my brain can't handle this!

images.wikia.com
 
2013-07-06 06:03:33 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Pray 4 Mojo: I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?

Isn't that exactly what the prosecutors get to do - pay the guy with other people's money and get on with their lives?


Yes. Yes it is. However... had Crazy McGee not filed a false affidavit... they never woulda been involved.
 
2013-07-06 06:04:51 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: But.. it's florida.. and it's progressive, and it's justice, and, and... my brain can't handle this!

[images.wikia.com image 555x406]


they're paying teh contents of a savings account.  to get pot
 
2013-07-06 06:06:57 PM

jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?


I think the logic was that he'd already accepted responsibility as the kid's father... and they weren't gonna let him off the hook now.
 
2013-07-06 06:07:19 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

What about a black father?

Oh... right.

Nevermind.


Those don't exist
 
2013-07-06 06:08:11 PM

BizarreMan: Impressive!  Kudos to the judge.


img1.fark.net


NEVER thought I'd post that, but there it is.
 
2013-07-06 06:09:34 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

I think the logic was that he'd already accepted responsibility as the kid's father... and they weren't gonna let him off the hook now.


I think there was truth to that. That he did accept the kid as his. Until the kid started growing ginger hair, and both he and the mother were blonde. Then the paternity test came and he wasn't the father.
 
2013-07-06 06:09:36 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: BarkingUnicorn: Pray 4 Mojo: I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?

Isn't that exactly what the prosecutors get to do - pay the guy with other people's money and get on with their lives?

Yes. Yes it is. However... had Crazy McGee not filed a false affidavit... they never woulda been involved.


That's why she's paying her share.  The prosecutors are paying for failing to correct the error after they learned of the error, and for misusing the courts in an effort to deny any error.  That's not on her, it's on them.

Ex-wife and prosecutors (plural) each ordered to pay $7645.  I wonder if that means more than one $7645 payment from prosecutors?
 
2013-07-06 06:09:53 PM

jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?


Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml

Here is one example, google shows many more:

http://www.khou.com/news/Houston-man-forced-to-pay-child-support-for -c hild-that-DNA-proves-isnt-his-124472429.html
 
2013-07-06 06:12:18 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Pray 4 Mojo: BarkingUnicorn: Pray 4 Mojo: I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?

Isn't that exactly what the prosecutors get to do - pay the guy with other people's money and get on with their lives?

Yes. Yes it is. However... had Crazy McGee not filed a false affidavit... they never woulda been involved.

That's why she's paying her share.  The prosecutors are paying for failing to correct the error after they learned of the error, and for misusing the courts in an effort to deny any error.  That's not on her, it's on them.

Ex-wife and prosecutors (plural) each ordered to pay $7645.  I wonder if that means more than one $7645 payment from prosecutors?


What got me is the prosecutor who is all "well, we're not going to appeal even though we're 100% right." No you aren't you farking tard and you need to be voted out in the next election cycle. The guy showed you PROOF that he wasn't what she claimed, and you STILL pursued the matter. You job is to prosecute for justice, not for the win.
 
2013-07-06 06:13:56 PM

jst3p: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml

Here is one example, google shows many more:

http://www.khou.com/news/Houston-man-forced-to-pay-child-support-for -c hild-that-DNA-proves-isnt-his-124472429.html


Yup, that's the case.
 
2013-07-06 06:14:05 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

I think the logic was that he'd already accepted responsibility as the kid's father... and they weren't gonna let him off the hook now.


Yup.  Never talk to the cops, and never admit paternity without a paternity test.  Unless you're married to her; then even the test won't matter.   The overriding concern is that the kid get as much support as possible that doesn't come from taxpayers.
 
2013-07-06 06:14:33 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?


Ho ho ho, you innocent fool. She has no penis therefore cannot currently be charged or prosecuted in a family court, didn`t you know?

This is a good story. It shows hope for equality in the world.

Do you hear that noise? It`s the lack of radical feminists who will avoid this thread like the plague because this sort of thing never happens ever.

The State Attorney Office's said the case has sparked change in internal policy. Now, the office does not report back child support payments to Tallahassee based only on a sworn affidavit - instead, prosecutors wait for a court order.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/07/3222595/miami-judge-calls-child - support.html#storylink=cpy
Wow, you mean they no longer completely disrupt a persons life based on nothing more than a statement from someone likely to want to disrupt their life, they wait for legal confirmation of the facts?

*head asplode*
 
2013-07-06 06:15:08 PM

AngryDragon: cryinoutloud: budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.
I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.
Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.
#exceptionnottherule

No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

Oh wait--I'm a woman, therefore it couldn't have happened that way. Carry on, Fark.

I'm sorry you had a rough time, but statistics, how do they work?

My ex was addicted to drugs without any means of support and she STILL got custody.  Apparently a father with a clean record and successful career who volunteers his time to both the community and his child's school was a less capable parent than someone who was so drugged out of her mind that she would spend days at a time in bed.  And she received spousal support for 3 years.

Seems legit.


Why would you let your kids be raised by someone like that? The interests of your child should come before the judges decision or whatever the law says.
 
2013-07-06 06:15:36 PM

jayphat: BarkingUnicorn: Pray 4 Mojo: BarkingUnicorn: Pray 4 Mojo: I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?

Isn't that exactly what the prosecutors get to do - pay the guy with other people's money and get on with their lives?

Yes. Yes it is. However... had Crazy McGee not filed a false affidavit... they never woulda been involved.

That's why she's paying her share.  The prosecutors are paying for failing to correct the error after they learned of the error, and for misusing the courts in an effort to deny any error.  That's not on her, it's on them.

Ex-wife and prosecutors (plural) each ordered to pay $7645.  I wonder if that means more than one $7645 payment from prosecutors?

What got me is the prosecutor who is all "well, we're not going to appeal even though we're 100% right." No you aren't you farking tard and you need to be voted out in the next election cycle. The guy showed you PROOF that he wasn't what she claimed, and you STILL pursued the matter. You job is to prosecute for justice, not for the win.


I believe they said their position "has merit."  IDK what their position is, but evidently they don't think it's a winner.
 
2013-07-06 06:18:39 PM

jayphat: BarkingUnicorn: Pray 4 Mojo: BarkingUnicorn: Pray 4 Mojo: I'm not saying they need to lock her up... but she just writes a check for $7k (which is probably his farking money to begin with) and gets to go on with her life?

Isn't that exactly what the prosecutors get to do - pay the guy with other people's money and get on with their lives?

Yes. Yes it is. However... had Crazy McGee not filed a false affidavit... they never woulda been involved.

That's why she's paying her share.  The prosecutors are paying for failing to correct the error after they learned of the error, and for misusing the courts in an effort to deny any error.  That's not on her, it's on them.

Ex-wife and prosecutors (plural) each ordered to pay $7645.  I wonder if that means more than one $7645 payment from prosecutors?

What got me is the prosecutor who is all "well, we're not going to appeal even though we're 100% right." No you aren't you farking tard and you need to be voted out in the next election cycle. The guy showed you PROOF that he wasn't what she claimed, and you STILL pursued the matter. You job is to prosecute for justice, not for the win.


Have a friend that worked as an assistant D.A for a while. He said what he quickly learned in the prosecutors office is that it isn't about justice, it is about winning. He said that there were plenty of cases that they either knew flat out that a person was innocent or they had enough doubt to point to innocence, but they still went after the person because they knew they could get them to take a plea.
 
2013-07-06 06:19:49 PM
Where's the farking hero tag for the judge?
 
2013-07-06 06:20:33 PM

JesusJuice: AngryDragon: cryinoutloud: budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.
I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.
Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.
#exceptionnottherule

No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

Oh wait--I'm a woman, therefore it couldn't have happened that way. Carry on, Fark.

I'm sorry you had a rough time, but statistics, how do they work?

My ex was addicted to drugs without any means of support and she STILL got custody.  Apparently a father with a clean record and successful career who volunteers his time to both the community and his child's school was a less capable parent than someone who was so drugged out of her mind that she would spend days at a time in bed.  And she received spousal support for 3 years.

Seems legit.

Why would you let your kids be raised by someone like that? The interests of your child should come before the judges decision or whatever the law says.


Because any suggestion of her being unfit would have resulted in a restraining order?  Because I preferred to not be in jail for kidnapping?   Because a felony arrest would have ended my career even if I had been acquitted?  "Family Court" is horrific for a responsible father, especially if the mother isn't.

The positive outcome is that my son and I have a wonderful relationship and he comes to me for all guidance, despite the retarded ruling.  He was old enough to understand what was happening and so the damage was minimized.  I feel sorry for any father in a similar situation with little kids.
 
2013-07-06 06:23:58 PM
An in case there are any young farkers out there who have not learned this lesson:

Stay away from the South American chicks. Just stay away.
 
2013-07-06 06:27:21 PM

ongbok: Have a friend that worked as an assistant D.A for a while. He said what he quickly learned in the prosecutors office is that it isn't about justice, it is about winning. He said that there were plenty of cases that they either knew flat out that a person was innocent or they had enough doubt to point to innocence, but they still went after the person because they knew they could get them to take a plea.


Your friend worked for a DA who withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense "plenty of times?"  Or was he just talking about opinions flying around the office?
 
2013-07-06 06:27:24 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: An in case there are any young farkers out there who have not learned this lesson:

Stay away from the South American chicks. Just stay away.


but what if they have big boobs and make a video called Brazil01.avi
 
2013-07-06 06:29:47 PM

AngryDragon: JesusJuice: AngryDragon: cryinoutloud: budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.
I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.
Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.
#exceptionnottherule

No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

Oh wait--I'm a woman, therefore it couldn't have happened that way. Carry on, Fark.

I'm sorry you had a rough time, but statistics, how do they work?

My ex was addicted to drugs without any means of support and she STILL got custody.  Apparently a father with a clean record and successful career who volunteers his time to both the community and his child's school was a less capable parent than someone who was so drugged out of her mind that she would spend days at a time in bed.  And she received spousal support for 3 years.

Seems legit.

Why would you let your kids be raised by someone like that? The interests of your child should come before the judges decision or whatever the law says.

Because any suggestion of her being unfit would have resulted in a restraining order?  Because I preferred to not be in jail for kidnapping?   Because a felony arrest would have ended my career even if I had been acquitted?  "Family Court" is horrific for a responsible father, especially if the mother isn't.

The positive outcome is that my son and I have a wonderful relationship and he comes to me for all guidance, despite the retarded ruling.  He was old enough to understand what was happening and so the damage was minimized.  I feel sorry for any father in a similar situation with little kids.


The tree that bends survives the storm.  The tree that doesn't bend breaks.
 
2013-07-06 06:31:05 PM

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion?


That was eloquently covered in the web comments from TFA.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-06 06:37:16 PM

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?


I have no children yet, nor have I an ex wife. I'm pretty far left leaning with gender equality issues. Shiat, I even stand up for the transgendered here which is pretty much a lost cause on Fark. That said, you'd have to be pretty ducking blind not to see how biased courts are to the mother in child support and custody cases. It's absolutely horrible and you should feel bad for what you've said.
 
2013-07-06 06:38:03 PM

wambu: Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion?

That was eloquently covered in the web comments from TFA.

[i.imgur.com image 618x197]


The Apostles put it more eloquently:  Matthew 19:9-10

 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

That passage always cracks me up!
 
2013-07-06 06:40:07 PM
Having seen the nature of family court, it'll be a cold day in hell before I divorce my husband, and even then, he's getting custody of any kids we may produce. Dude makes more than I do and college is expensive.
 
2013-07-06 06:40:17 PM

Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.


Except his children, of course, which aren't even party to the legal actions that affect them. Children can't sue for child support, can't collect child support in their own name, have no legal claim to child support collected on their behalf, have not standing to contest their custody arrangements, etc., etc., etc.
 
2013-07-06 06:40:38 PM

picturescrazy: Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?

I have no children yet, nor have I an ex wife. I'm pretty far left leaning with gender equality issues. Shiat, I even stand up for the transgendered here which is pretty much a lost cause on Fark. That said, you'd have to be pretty ducking blind not to see how biased courts are to the mother in child support and custody cases. It's absolutely horrible and you should feel bad for what you've said.


This.  The fact that I fully support my gay and female friends in their struggle for equality before the law is somewhat dimmed by the fact that when I call out that same inequality in custody cases, all of a sudden I'm a misogynist.

It's pretty disgusting.
 
2013-07-06 06:42:40 PM

BarkingUnicorn: The Apostles put it more eloquently: Matthew 19:9-10

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."


Ima borrow that.

Thanks!
 
2013-07-06 06:44:42 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?


Because nothing ever happens to the custodial parent who abuses the system.

buzzcut73: Maybe I can send a copy of this article to the jackasses in Kansas that keep reporting me for unpaid child support from when my ex moved there. I keep providing copies of records that it was in fact withheld from my wages by the state of Missouri (where the order existed) and paid through them, yet they 'clear it up' and a few months later we start all over again...


Maybe your ex keeps making the claim to cause you trouble.

jst3p: I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.


When the parents are reasonable the system usually works.  It's extremely biased towards the custodial parents who abuses the system, though.

jst3p: I have heard some pretty bad stories, so I know historically it is pretty biased, but more recently most dads I know who got "screwed by the system" either don't understand the motivations of Family court, didn't assert and or protect their rights or are just plain bitter.


Admittedly cases from a decade ago:

#1:  She applies for welfare, neglecting to mention the child support she's receiving.  The state turns around and goes after him to recover the payments.  He points out that he was paying child support, her application is fraudulent, he did nothing wrong.  They didn't care, he ended up paying it as it was cheaper than paying the lawyer and he probably would have lost anyway.

#2:  She talks him into moving to where she has family--oops, what she was really after was a divorce in front of a friendly judge.  She gets 100% of marital assets and a child support award based on his former income that simply can't be met locally.  Dirty as all hell but since she got all the assets he has no way to appeal so she wins anyway.  That one backfired because instead of paying he went off the radar.
 
2013-07-06 06:45:54 PM

BarkingUnicorn: ongbok: Have a friend that worked as an assistant D.A for a while. He said what he quickly learned in the prosecutors office is that it isn't about justice, it is about winning. He said that there were plenty of cases that they either knew flat out that a person was innocent or they had enough doubt to point to innocence, but they still went after the person because they knew they could get them to take a plea.

Your friend worked for a DA who withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense "plenty of times?"  Or was he just talking about opinions flying around the office?


They didn't hold anything back, they just go after people who they know they can get to take a plea. For example there are many people that can't afford a lawyer, but make too much to get a public defender, or can't afford to have to keep going to court to fight a charge. They know that if they pile charges on a person like this, regardless of whether or not they are guilty or innocent, the person will likely take a plea to lesser charges that doesn't involve jail time.
 
2013-07-06 06:50:43 PM
One of the biggest problems in family courts is they award child support based on "potential" to earn.  So if you made big bucks when the divorced started, but got laid off and took a shiat job afterwards (which happened to a lot of people when the economy went into the shiatter), the courts don't care.  Your potential is all that matters.  Because the courts refuse to consider economic reality, fathers who are trying their best under bad circumstances, living out of their cars or a shelter, are still considered dead-beat dads even though they send almost every penny they earn to their kids.
 
2013-07-06 06:52:23 PM

AngryDragon: picturescrazy: Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?

I have no children yet, nor have I an ex wife. I'm pretty far left leaning with gender equality issues. Shiat, I even stand up for the transgendered here which is pretty much a lost cause on Fark. That said, you'd have to be pretty ducking blind not to see how biased courts are to the mother in child support and custody cases. It's absolutely horrible and you should feel bad for what you've said.

This.  The fact that I fully support my gay and female friends in their struggle for equality before the law is somewhat dimmed by the fact that when I call out that same inequality in custody cases, all of a sudden I'm a misogynist.

It's pretty disgusting.


What I get a kick of is those self-same hypocritical bigots that belittle you will, in the same breath, assure you that what they're doing is for your benefit also.

Kind of like when I eat an extravagant meal and let the homeless pick from my garbage. My selfish gluttony is for their benefit, too.
 
2013-07-06 06:53:52 PM

ongbok: Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?

Probably because they have to prove that she lied and this wasn't just a mistake on her part. And in a case like this I'm pretty sure that will be extremely hard unless they have her on tape talking about her plan.


I disagree.  It wouldn't be hard to prove she lied.  "Your honor, here are the cancelled checks showing she cashed them at her bank."  If the woman can't remember cashing child support checks every month and isn't capable of reviewing her account which would be an easy reminder that she did get the money, then we have to discuss her ability to care for the children.  Her competence is questionable.
 
2013-07-06 06:59:19 PM
I hope he does pursue a civil suit for all the money he is out since he couldn't work.  Bankrupt the biotch, and the Prosecutors.
 
2013-07-06 07:02:19 PM

Loren: Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Because nothing ever happens to the custodial parent who abuses the system.

buzzcut73: Maybe I can send a copy of this article to the jackasses in Kansas that keep reporting me for unpaid child support from when my ex moved there. I keep providing copies of records that it was in fact withheld from my wages by the state of Missouri (where the order existed) and paid through them, yet they 'clear it up' and a few months later we start all over again...

Maybe your ex keeps making the claim to cause you trouble.

#1:  She applies for welfare, neglecting to mention the child support she's receiving.  The state turns around and goes after him to recover the payments.  He points out that he was paying child support, her application is fraudulent, he did nothing wrong.  They didn't care, he ended up paying it as it was cheaper than paying the lawyer and he probably would have lost anyway.


This is what happened in my case. She applied for welfare, the state went after me to get it back since there was a support order, even though I'd been paying it. Every few months it comes back because, by God, they're going to get their money from somebody, I guess. Their reply is usually something along the lines of "Well, Missouri CSE should have been sending it on to us". Well, that's not really my problem, is it? Once the payment is made, how the hell am I supposed to control what the collecting state does with it?

She doesn't live in KS anymore, nor do I. KS tried to report it to the state I live in now, and thankfully here I've found one decent caseworker and one decent attorney in the local CSE office that have basically told KS that they aren't going to pursue it, because KS can't substantiate their claim. Still, it resides on my credit report, which sucks.

Most recently, I've gotten a letter from KS saying that if I open an educational savings account in her name with the state, they'll knock two dollars off of my "arrears" for every dollar I put in it. I may just do that, because at least it will benefit my daughter and will finally get the BS debt off the books. So yeah, I'll probably just pay it that way cause it's in the long run less headache than going to Bumfark, KS for a family court hearing that I'd probably lose anyway.
 
2013-07-06 07:02:25 PM

jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.


 you obviously have money. so if you needed, you could hire decent legal representation. if your not, your ex-wife didn't hire some feminist attorney which would take it pro-bono or on contingency because she has an axe to grind, and wants to hammer you like a tent peg.
/don't be so smug. you were one of the lucky ones.
// I always laugh to myself, take out your wedding album, look at the picture where you and your ex have that first dance. all the love, and you promise to care for each other no matter what.
///what a farkin joke it all is. today no one wants to persevere, as soon as sh*t starts to get tough, it's "i'm outta here, you'll hear from my attorney"
////my parents generation (for the most part) tried their best to keep their vows
//enjoy it gay folk, you are no different then the straights.
 
2013-07-06 07:04:30 PM

AngryDragon: cryinoutloud: budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.
I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.
Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.
#exceptionnottherule

No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

Oh wait--I'm a woman, therefore it couldn't have happened that way. Carry on, Fark.

I'm sorry you had a rough time, but statistics, how do they work?

My ex was addicted to drugs without any means of support and she STILL got custody.  Apparently a father with a clean record and successful career who volunteers his time to both the community and his child's school was a less capable parent than someone who was so drugged out of her mind that she would spend days at a time in bed.  And she received spousal support for 3 years.

Seems legit.


Yep.  Same thing happened to my brother.  He'd make his support payments, she'd spend it on drugs, the electricity and phone would get turned off for non-payment.   Of course the kids were going hungry. This happened so many times we lost count.  She failed multiple court mandated drug tests and the biatch STILL got to keep custody.  She finally screwed up bad enough that the idiot judge couldn't ignore it and gave my brother custody of his three kids.  By then, the oldest was a complete thug, actively involved in a gang, and too far gone to be a useful member of society.  He's in and out of prison on a regular basis.  At least his two other kids are awesome.
 
2013-07-06 07:12:40 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

I think the logic was that he'd already accepted responsibility as the kid's father... and they weren't gonna let him off the hook now.


And you would defend that "logic"  Why should a man have to pay for a child that's not his, involuntarily of course.  (if he wants to be a father and support the kid despite it not being his, then more power to him, he just shouldn't be forced to)
 
2013-07-06 07:13:19 PM

ongbok: BarkingUnicorn: ongbok: Have a friend that worked as an assistant D.A for a while. He said what he quickly learned in the prosecutors office is that it isn't about justice, it is about winning. He said that there were plenty of cases that they either knew flat out that a person was innocent or they had enough doubt to point to innocence, but they still went after the person because they knew they could get them to take a plea.

Your friend worked for a DA who withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense "plenty of times?"  Or was he just talking about opinions flying around the office?

They didn't hold anything back, they just go after people who they know they can get to take a plea. For example there are many people that can't afford a lawyer, but make too much to get a public defender, or can't afford to have to keep going to court to fight a charge. They know that if they pile charges on a person like this, regardless of whether or not they are guilty or innocent, the person will likely take a plea to lesser charges that doesn't involve jail time.


Hm.  The one time I was charged with a crime, I argued that I could not afford a lawyer.  Public defender's office didn't want to rep me because I earned more than the poverty level.  I argued that being able to survive and being able to afford an attorney were not the same thing.  The judge told me, "Hire a lawyer or proceed pro se."  I told him that I had tried but could not find a lawyer who would take what I could afford as a retainer.  I said I was incompetent to defend myself and that if I was forced to do so under these circumstances, a conviction would likely be overturned on appeal. (Never mind where I'd get the money for an appeal.)

Lo and behold!  He found a slush fund from which to pay for a private attorney.  It only took six hearings over nine months.

/ Charge was dropped the day the trial was to begin.
// Cost me only the bail bondsman's fee & 8 hours in jail
/// I plead the Fifth
 
2013-07-06 07:14:37 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Why isn't the ex-wife facing criminal charges?

Isn't knowingly lying in a sworn affidavit perjury?

Dafuq?


The general feeling is, they don't want to have a chilling effect on women who genuinely need to file charges against their exes who are deadbeats refusing to pay child support. The majority of cases are not like this; most cases actually are either deadbeat dads (or moms--seen those too) or else just honest mistakes by both parties and no need for penalties. So in the rare cases where someone is knowingly lying, the courts are reluctant to levy penalties because they don't want everyone else to be afraid to bring legitimate cases to court.

That said, I suspect the father's attorney in this case is urging him to take her to the cleaners in a civil suit for emotional damages. My advice would be to walk away, but I tend to believe in clean breaks.
 
2013-07-06 07:20:23 PM

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?


2/10, especially since none of those things had happened in the thread before you.  It's more likely that people will genuinely accuse the court of misogyny for not just going along with her story.
 
2013-07-06 07:20:43 PM

meintx2001: I hope he does pursue a civil suit for all the money he is out since he couldn't work.  Bankrupt the biotch, and the Prosecutors.


Might get prosecutors on criminal misconduct charges, if the State wants to prosecute them.  But they're immune from civil liability.

Spending money to get her money ends with both of you having less money for your kid(s).
 
2013-07-06 07:26:02 PM

Warlordtrooper: Pray 4 Mojo: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

I think the logic was that he'd already accepted responsibility as the kid's father... and they weren't gonna let him off the hook now.

And you would defend that "logic"  Why should a man have to pay for a child that's not his, involuntarily of course.  (if he wants to be a father and support the kid despite it not being his, then more power to him, he just shouldn't be forced to)


Easy there Turbo...
 
2013-07-06 07:33:24 PM

atomic-age: How can he be out of work and be a CEO simultaneously?


Because he cannot do the work, but his company can hire or subcontract someone to do it and as the owner, he can still profit? And because reporters are idiots.
 
2013-07-06 07:35:17 PM

Warlordtrooper: Pray 4 Mojo: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

I think the logic was that he'd already accepted responsibility as the kid's father... and they weren't gonna let him off the hook now.

And you would defend that "logic"  Why should a man have to pay for a child that's not his, involuntarily of course.  (if he wants to be a father and support the kid despite it not being his, then more power to him, he just shouldn't be forced to)


Once you become a parent, you're not allowed to quit.  The kid did not defraud you and doesn't deserve to lose support.  Might be nice if, after child support ends, you were allowed sue the lying parent to get it back without shorting the kid.  But that would rarely result in full recovery, I imagine.
 
2013-07-06 07:40:45 PM
BTW... Has anybody else googled this dad and found his FB page?

He's a Grand Wizard level douche.

/Could just be a standard "Miami" level douche though.
//Hard to tell down there
 
2013-07-06 07:42:14 PM

Aigoo: atomic-age: How can he be out of work and be a CEO simultaneously?

Because he cannot do the work, but his company can hire or subcontract someone to do it and as the owner, he can still profit? And because reporters are idiots.


He was the CEO of nothing much.  His job was business development.  Hiring someone with similar skills and contacts on a contract that ends "whenever I get my passport back" would be impractical.
 
2013-07-06 07:42:43 PM

picturescrazy: Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?

I have no children. I'm pretty far left leaning with gender equality issues. Shiat, I even stand up for the transgendered here which is pretty much a lost cause on Fark. That said, you'd have to be pretty ducking blind not to see how biased courts are to the mother in child support and custody cases. It's absolutely horrible and you should feel bad for what you've said.


A thousand times this. I have seen mothers with criminal histories as long as I am tall for every drug under the sun be granted custody and child support over a father with no criminal record, full-time job, stable home life, and damned good parenting skills just because she is a woman. It's ridiculous. You, Bigger Leftist Internet Dumbass, are just that. Or trolling. Not sure which. Don't care, either.


/woman
//don't have, can't have, don't want kids
///family court custody/support laws need fixed, and judges need replaced--badly
 
2013-07-06 07:43:33 PM

OgreMagi: One of the biggest problems in family courts is they award child support based on "potential" to earn.  So if you made big bucks when the divorced started, but got laid off and took a shiat job afterwards (which happened to a lot of people when the economy went into the shiatter), the courts don't care.  Your potential is all that matters.  Because the courts refuse to consider economic reality, fathers who are trying their best under bad circumstances, living out of their cars or a shelter, are still considered dead-beat dads even though they send almost every penny they earn to their kids.


Well, the problem is, there's a child in all that mess. Courts wouldn't care so much (and often don't) when it's just a husband and wife biatching over alimony; but if dad is not paying CHILD support, the court has no mercy because the presumption is that that payment would be going to the child's care. So if dad isn't paying for his child--regardless of why--the court's view is that it doesn't matter whether dad and mom are married, dad would have to support the kid either way. If they were married and dad had a crappy job, he'd still be supporting the child, right? If he'd had a good job in March and a crappy job in September, why should that matter? It would still cost X dollars to feed and clothe Junior, right?

And sadly, decent dads get screwed by deadbeats who game the system. For every dad living on the street so he can send every dime he makes to his kids, there's one like the asshole I saw in Child Support Services blithely telling the judge how he hadn't worked for two years because he was a screenwriter and nobody was buying his scripts. The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support. It's thanks to idiots like him that guys who really do want to pay support but just can't do it get no breaks in court.
 
2013-07-06 07:45:06 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Aigoo: atomic-age: How can he be out of work and be a CEO simultaneously?

Because he cannot do the work, but his company can hire or subcontract someone to do it and as the owner, he can still profit? And because reporters are idiots.

He was the CEO of nothing much.  His job was business development.  Hiring someone with similar skills and contacts on a contract that ends "whenever I get my passport back" would be impractical.


Of course it would, but so would prosecuting someone who doesn't actually owe 3 grand in child support to the tune of fourteen grand.

Impractical and idiotic doesn't mean anything when you consider that this took place in Florida. :D
 
2013-07-06 07:45:59 PM

Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.


LOL! wut?
 
2013-07-06 07:47:06 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: BTW... Has anybody else googled this dad and found his FB page?

He's a Grand Wizard level douche.

/Could just be a standard "Miami" level douche though.
//Hard to tell down there


His favorite book is "A Brief History of Time"??

Man, what an asshole.
 
2013-07-06 07:47:41 PM

Aigoo: BarkingUnicorn: Aigoo: atomic-age: How can he be out of work and be a CEO simultaneously?

Because he cannot do the work, but his company can hire or subcontract someone to do it and as the owner, he can still profit? And because reporters are idiots.

He was the CEO of nothing much.  His job was business development.  Hiring someone with similar skills and contacts on a contract that ends "whenever I get my passport back" would be impractical.

Of course it would, but so would prosecuting someone who doesn't actually owe 3 grand in child support to the tune of fourteen grand.

Impractical and idiotic doesn't mean anything when you consider that this took place in Florida. :D


Oh, it can take place anywhere.  Prosecutors don't spend their own money.  I doubt these damages will come out of their personal pockets.
 
2013-07-06 07:49:07 PM

Kyosuke: Pray 4 Mojo: BTW... Has anybody else googled this dad and found his FB page?

He's a Grand Wizard level douche.

/Could just be a standard "Miami" level douche though.
//Hard to tell down there

His favorite book is "A Brief History of Time"??

Man, Christ, what an asshole.


Get your memes straight.

Executives only have time for the elevator pitch.  A long history of Time is TL;DR.
 
2013-07-06 07:50:39 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?


Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.
 
2013-07-06 07:50:51 PM
OH, GUYS!  I KNOW THE FEELING


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-06 07:55:20 PM

atomic-age: How can he be out of work and be a CEO simultaneously?


Being a CEO is not "work".
 
2013-07-06 08:00:57 PM

Aigoo: BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?

Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.


That's not the same at all.   Gyrfalcom seems to be talking about taking money from Mom's paycheck to pay back to her as child support!
 
2013-07-06 08:04:16 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Aigoo: BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?

Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.

That's not the same at all.   Gyrfalcom seems to be talking about taking money from Mom's paycheck to pay back to her as child support!


Oh, wait... new wife, not ex wife.  Shiat, I need new glasses...
 
2013-07-06 08:09:25 PM
Awesome!

/csb

Back in the late 60s/early 70s my paternal grandfather paid child support to my paternal grandmother. Prior to their divorce, she packed up the kids one day and fled with her lover (a friend of his in the Navy with him). My Nana then fled back home to West Virginia, and as far as my grandfather knew they were living with her parents in Oak Hill. Each month he wrote out a check and mailed it to her parent's home, and each month the check was duly cashed.

Fast forward a couple years. My grandpa has no idea where his two sons are, his ex-wife isn't talking to him, and he is paying his child support when BAM! he is served with a court order claiming he has not paid. So he gathered up all of the canceled checks and brought them to court. When the judge saw the proof he asked my grandfather if there was anything he could do; my grandfather told him that he had no idea where his boys were and he would like visitation. My Nana refused to tell the judge where she was and also refused to allow visitation. So the judge told him that until she allowed him to see his sons, he didn't have to pay child support.

/end csb
 
2013-07-06 08:10:31 PM

CliChe Guevara: GORDON: This is why those "Men's Rights" movements are so stupid, because every now and then one of them only gets a little farked instead of completely farked.

 They are kind of redundant, as its a problem society has already found a solution to. Come on. Push them far enough and guys simply just drink themselves to death, or eat a bullet. Nice and quiet, no mess. Sure, maybe in the odd case one goes down in a shootout with the cops, but then its ok because you can just retroactively dismiss them as nuts in the first place so no one needs to care.

  Women are smart enough to band together in groups, raise huge amounts of cash, and play the PR game about any slight to their 'sisters', real or imagined, until its taken care of to their satisfaction. Even to the point of using that power to marginalize and/or remove rights from others, particularly men.
 Guys and that whole independent and tough thing they are taught means they shun any of their own in trouble, and those that are in trouble won't ask. Guys no longer have rights simply because we won't fight for them.


Well, that and they're labeled 'mysoginists' if they try to change things.
 
2013-07-06 08:10:49 PM

cryinoutloud: budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.
I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.
Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.
#exceptionnottherule

No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

Oh wait--I'm a woman, therefore it couldn't have happened that way. Carry on, Fark.


Of all the things that never happened, this never happened the most.
 
2013-07-06 08:13:21 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Aigoo: BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?

Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.

That's not the same at all.   Gyrfalcom seems to be talking about taking money from Mom's paycheck to pay back to her as child support!


No, Gyrfalcon means the NEW wife, not the ex-wife.
 
2013-07-06 08:14:13 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

What about a black father?

Oh... right.

Nevermind.


Try a lesbian parent.
 
2013-07-06 08:14:21 PM

BarkingUnicorn: BarkingUnicorn: Aigoo: BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?

Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.

That's not the same at all.   Gyrfalcom seems to be talking about taking money from Mom's paycheck to pay back to her as child support!

Oh, wait... new wife, not ex wife.  Shiat, I need new glasses...


Dammit, I shoulda read faster... LOL
 
2013-07-06 08:16:16 PM

Anastacya: Awesome!

/csb

Back in the late 60s/early 70s my paternal grandfather paid child support to my paternal grandmother. Prior to their divorce, she packed up the kids one day and fled with her lover (a friend of his in the Navy with him). My Nana then fled back home to West Virginia, and as far as my grandfather knew they were living with her parents in Oak Hill. Each month he wrote out a check and mailed it to her parent's home, and each month the check was duly cashed.

Fast forward a couple years. My grandpa has no idea where his two sons are, his ex-wife isn't talking to him, and he is paying his child support when BAM! he is served with a court order claiming he has not paid. So he gathered up all of the canceled checks and brought them to court. When the judge saw the proof he asked my grandfather if there was anything he could do; my grandfather told him that he had no idea where his boys were and he would like visitation. My Nana refused to tell the judge where she was and also refused to allow visitation. So the judge told him that until she allowed him to see his sons, he didn't have to pay child support.

/end csb


Genuinely curious how that ended.
 
2013-07-06 08:21:45 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Pray 4 Mojo: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

What about a black father?

Oh... right.

Nevermind.

Try a lesbian parent.


I have a couple of friends going through that. One (female) has been unofficially labelled "father" and is getting the business that father usually gets in this state (Illinois).

Thing is, she is neither married as marriage equality has not been passed yet in Illinois, and she has not taken any type of parental custody. She just moved in with her girlfriend for a couple of years. Now the state is trying to say that there was some kind of de facto adoption so the state in't left holding the bag on the two kids.
 
2013-07-06 08:23:33 PM

Anastacya: Awesome!

/csb

Back in the late 60s/early 70s my paternal grandfather paid child support to my paternal grandmother. Prior to their divorce, she packed up the kids one day and fled with her lover (a friend of his in the Navy with him). My Nana then fled back home to West Virginia, and as far as my grandfather knew they were living with her parents in Oak Hill. Each month he wrote out a check and mailed it to her parent's home, and each month the check was duly cashed.

Fast forward a couple years. My grandpa has no idea where his two sons are, his ex-wife isn't talking to him, and he is paying his child support when BAM! he is served with a court order claiming he has not paid. So he gathered up all of the canceled checks and brought them to court. When the judge saw the proof he asked my grandfather if there was anything he could do; my grandfather told him that he had no idea where his boys were and he would like visitation. My Nana refused to tell the judge where she was and also refused to allow visitation. So the judge told him that until she allowed him to see his sons, he didn't have to pay child support.

/end csb


Damn.  That's bad.

My uncle got screwed by his ex, where she said she was sending the kids to private school, actually sent them to public school, and pocketed the however many thousands over about a decade.

/Dad also got screwed, but that's what happens when you're making $46K, Mom is making $90K, they set the child support based on that (and it's MI, so they're incompetent), and then you drop down to $30K, and Mom's still spending the shared expenses money like they're combining for $135K and sticking Dad for half the bill.  Other than never paying Dad his own shared expenses money, I don't think she ever pulled anything
 
2013-07-06 08:24:58 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

I think the logic was that he'd already accepted responsibility as the kid's father... and they weren't gonna let him off the hook now.


If I pay you with counterfeit money, you've accepted it and have to deal with the consequences.
 
2013-07-06 08:26:47 PM

OgreMagi: If I pay you with counterfeit money, you've accepted it and have to deal with the consequences.


Just as long as you're in prison for passing monopoly money.
 
2013-07-06 08:30:42 PM
I wouldn't really call what happened to the father 'extortion'.

/nits, I pick them
 
2013-07-06 08:32:01 PM

Gyrfalcon: And sadly, decent dads get screwed by deadbeats who game the system. For every dad living on the street so he can send every dime he makes to his kids, there's one like the asshole I saw in Child Support Services blithely telling the judge how he hadn't worked for two years because he was a screenwriter and nobody was buying his scripts. The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support. It's thanks to idiots like him that guys who really do want to pay support but just can't do it get no breaks in court.


Here's the whole problem with that situation.  You're the man, ergo you are guilty.  In family court, a man is guilty until he can prove his innocence.  And beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt often isn't good enough.  It has to be "so farking not guilty that the judge might be disciplined if he rules against him."
 
2013-07-06 08:33:28 PM

atomic-age: How can he be out of work and be a CEO simultaneously?


Ask Romney.
 
2013-07-06 08:35:50 PM

R.A.Danny: OgreMagi: If I pay you with counterfeit money, you've accepted it and have to deal with the consequences.

Just as long as you're in prison for passing monopoly money.


Nope.  Since you accepted the phoney money, you're the one who has to go to prison, biatch.  That's the logic of a woman lying about the paternity of the child.

Actually, I did read of a case where the judge did it right.  The father didn't discover he wasn't the father until the wife tried to use that fact to gain full custody.  The father didn't care, he had raised the kids as his own and loved them regardless of who the father was.  The mother was a major c00nt and the judge knew it.  The kids didn't want to be with her, either.  He gave the father full custody.  Sometimes the family court gets it right.  I just wish it was more often.
 
2013-07-06 08:48:03 PM

OgreMagi: Actually, I did read of a case where the judge did it right.  The father didn't discover he wasn't the father until the wife tried to use that fact to gain full custody.  The father didn't care, he had raised the kids as his own and loved them regardless of who the father was.  The mother was a major c00nt and the judge knew it.  The kids didn't want to be with her, either.  He gave the father full custody.  Sometimes the family court gets it right.  I just wish it was more often.


Usually the only thing the courts care about is that the kids don't end up on the public dole, thus costing the state money. Right or wrong rarely matter even a little bit so it's nice to see a happy ending.
 
2013-07-06 08:48:08 PM

Gyrfalcon: The general feeling is, they don't want to have a chilling effect on women who genuinely need to file charges against their exes who are deadbeats refusing to pay child support. The majority of cases are not like this; most cases actually are either deadbeat dads (or moms--seen those too) or else just honest mistakes by both parties and no need for penalties. So in the rare cases where someone is knowingly lying, the courts are reluctant to levy penalties because they don't want everyone else to be afraid to bring legitimate cases to court.


Understandable the first time around.  Not the next time.

Anastacya: Fast forward a couple years. My grandpa has no idea where his two sons are, his ex-wife isn't talking to him, and he is paying his child support when BAM! he is served with a court order claiming he has not paid. So he gathered up all of the canceled checks and brought them to court. When the judge saw the proof he asked my grandfather if there was anything he could do; my grandfather told him that he had no idea where his boys were and he would like visitation. My Nana refused to tell the judge where she was and also refused to allow visitation. So the judge told him that until she allowed him to see his sons, he didn't have to pay child support.


Judges don't do that sort of thing anymore.  She can withhold visitation all she wants and child support is unaffected.
 
2013-07-06 08:55:59 PM

jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.


Yes. Failed marriage and kids with a broken home. You win parent of the year, congrats.
 
2013-07-06 09:00:50 PM

Loren: Gyrfalcon: The general feeling is, they don't want to have a chilling effect on women who genuinely need to file charges against their exes who are deadbeats refusing to pay child support. The majority of cases are not like this; most cases actually are either deadbeat dads (or moms--seen those too) or else just honest mistakes by both parties and no need for penalties. So in the rare cases where someone is knowingly lying, the courts are reluctant to levy penalties because they don't want everyone else to be afraid to bring legitimate cases to court.

Understandable the first time around.  Not the next time.

Anastacya: Fast forward a couple years. My grandpa has no idea where his two sons are, his ex-wife isn't talking to him, and he is paying his child support when BAM! he is served with a court order claiming he has not paid. So he gathered up all of the canceled checks and brought them to court. When the judge saw the proof he asked my grandfather if there was anything he could do; my grandfather told him that he had no idea where his boys were and he would like visitation. My Nana refused to tell the judge where she was and also refused to allow visitation. So the judge told him that until she allowed him to see his sons, he didn't have to pay child support.

Judges don't do that sort of thing anymore.  She can withhold visitation all she wants and child support is unaffected.


Yea, I know. It was more of waxing poetic about the past.
 
2013-07-06 09:29:43 PM

R.A.Danny: Benevolent Misanthrope: Pray 4 Mojo: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

What about a black father?

Oh... right.

Nevermind.

Try a lesbian parent.

I have a couple of friends going through that. One (female) has been unofficially labelled "father" and is getting the business that father usually gets in this state (Illinois).

Thing is, she is neither married as marriage equality has not been passed yet in Illinois, and she has not taken any type of parental custody. She just moved in with her girlfriend for a couple of years. Now the state is trying to say that there was some kind of de facto adoption so the state in't left holding the bag on the two kids.


Not only that, but if my past experience is any indication, she's on the hook for child support but has absolutely no right to visitation or any other marital or parental rights.

There's a reason I've stayed out of relationships with women who have children.  I've never seen it be anything but trouble in the end.  Ever.  It only seems to work when they adopt children together.
 
2013-07-06 09:36:12 PM

R.A.Danny: Try a lesbian parent.

I have a couple of friends going through that. One (female) has been unofficially labelled "father" and is getting the business that father usually gets in this state (Illinois).

Thing is, she is neither married as marriage equality has not been passed yet in Illinois, and she has not taken any type of parental custody. She just moved in with her girlfriend for a couple of years. Now the state is trying to say that there was some kind of de facto adoption so the state in't left holding the bag on the two kids.


Did the mother die or something?  Why is the state on the hook for the two kids?  This story makes no farking sense the way you've told it.
 
2013-07-06 09:45:19 PM

BarkingUnicorn: R.A.Danny: Try a lesbian parent.

I have a couple of friends going through that. One (female) has been unofficially labelled "father" and is getting the business that father usually gets in this state (Illinois).

Thing is, she is neither married as marriage equality has not been passed yet in Illinois, and she has not taken any type of parental custody. She just moved in with her girlfriend for a couple of years. Now the state is trying to say that there was some kind of de facto adoption so the state in't left holding the bag on the two kids.

Did the mother die or something?  Why is the state on the hook for the two kids?  This story makes no farking sense the way you've told it.


One lady gets pregnant, frozen pop, twins. She hooks up with another very nice lady, they're a lovely couple. In Illinois they can't get married, but they cohabitated for five years, and the kids are now six. Now they are splitting up. it's very sad. I'm friends with both of them so I am not taking sides here, but I am kinda sickened by the traction that the birth mother is getting in getting child support for kids that are hers and hers alone.

I am all for marriage equality, but they were never married. There was no adoption. Whether you are male or female you shouldn't get nailed with child support because you temporarily cohabitated with a woman with children.
 
2013-07-06 09:56:16 PM

jst3p: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml


You're misreading it.

Texas, like most states, has a 60 day time limit to *rescind* a signed acknowledgment of paternity, the legal document that establishes paternity for children born outside a marriage.

In other words, if you sign the legal papers admitting paternity you only have 60 days to change your mind. If both parents don't don't sign the acknowledgment then someone would need to file a paternity proceeding to establish legal paternity.

/If you want a DNA test get it before you sign the document making you permanently the legal father.
 
2013-07-06 09:59:30 PM

Willas Tyrell: jst3p: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml

You're misreading it.

Texas, like most states, has a 60 day time limit to *rescind* a signed acknowledgment of paternity, the legal document that establishes paternity for children born outside a marriage.

In other words, if you sign the legal papers admitting paternity you only have 60 days to change your mind. If both parents don't don't sign the acknowledgment then someone would need to file a paternity proceeding to establish legal paternity.

/If you want a DNA test get it before you sign the document making you permanently the legal father.


Paternity tests should be given at birth. I wonder how much push back there would be on a proposal to make this the law?
 
2013-07-06 10:04:06 PM

dv-ous: Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?

Whores' what?


Discussion.  Don't you agree that the most qualified women to discuss whether a woman feels something about or due to sexual congress are whores?  Put them in a room, let them talk it out, and I'm sure they will come up with a thoughtful, cogent treatise on such matters.
 
2013-07-06 10:09:52 PM

OgreMagi: Willas Tyrell: jst3p: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml

You're misreading it.

Texas, like most states, has a 60 day time limit to *rescind* a signed acknowledgment of paternity, the legal document that establishes paternity for children born outside a marriage.

In other words, if you sign the legal papers admitting paternity you only have 60 days to change your mind. If both parents don't don't sign the acknowledgment then someone would need to file a paternity proceeding to establish legal paternity.

/If you want a DNA test get it before you sign the document making you permanently the legal father.

Paternity tests should be given at birth. I wonder how much push back there would be on a proposal to make this the law?


Be an interesting idea. Currently in California, it actually says in the laws that whoever is named on the birth certificate is the legal father, or whoever had access to the mother within 200 days prior to the birth. (Access--a lovely term) It's very archaic. And the burden is on the father currently to ask for DNA testing or otherwise deny parentage if he's got reason to believe he's not the father--and there's a limited window to do it.

It might be time to start, or at least repealing the presumption of paternity.
 
2013-07-06 10:10:17 PM

R.A.Danny: One lady gets pregnant, frozen pop, twins. She hooks up with another very nice lady, they're a lovely couple. In Illinois they can't get married, but they cohabitated for five years, and the kids are now six. Now they are splitting up. it's very sad. I'm friends with both of them so I am not taking sides here, but I am kinda sickened by the traction that the birth mother is getting in getting child support for kids that are hers and hers alone.

I am all for marriage equality, but they were never married. There was no adoption. Whether you are male or female you shouldn't get nailed with child support because you temporarily cohabitated with a woman with children.


I would love to  see the State's arguments.  The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes.  Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905.  There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.
 
2013-07-06 10:13:54 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I would love to  see the State's arguments.  The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes.  Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905.  There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.


It isn't in the state's hands yet, and as far as a divorce it really never will be. It's the women's lawyers going at it. I think the mother wants the ex to walk away from the house and the equity  therein.
 
2013-07-06 10:17:28 PM

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Willas Tyrell: jst3p: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml

You're misreading it.

Texas, like most states, has a 60 day time limit to *rescind* a signed acknowledgment of paternity, the legal document that establishes paternity for children born outside a marriage.

In other words, if you sign the legal papers admitting paternity you only have 60 days to change your mind. If both parents don't don't sign the acknowledgment then someone would need to file a paternity proceeding to establish legal paternity.

/If you want a DNA test get it before you sign the document making you permanently the legal father.

Paternity tests should be given at birth. I wonder how much push back there would be on a proposal to make this the law?

Be an interesting idea. Currently in California, it actually says in the laws that whoever is named on the birth certificate is the legal father, or whoever had access to the mother within 200 days prior to the birth. (Access--a lovely term) It's very archaic. And the burden is on the father currently to ask for DNA testing or otherwise deny parentage if he's got reason to believe he's not the father--and there's a limited window to do it.

It might be time to start, or at least repealing the presumption of paternity.


Just imagine a potential father requesting a paternity test at birth.  Think how the mother would react.  Making it the law removes major biatch-fest the father is going to get.

Two outcomes if he makes the demand.

1. The mother knows there's a chance he isn't the father, so she will scream bloody murder in hopes that he'll change his mind.
2. The mother knows she hasn't cheated, so she's going to scream bloody murder for him daring to question her fidelity.

Either way, he's not getting any for a good long time.
 
2013-07-06 10:24:28 PM

ongbok: Have a friend that worked as an assistant D.A for a while. He said what he quickly learned in the prosecutors office is that it isn't about justice, it is about winning. He said that there were plenty of cases that they either knew flat out that a person was innocent or they had enough doubt to point to innocence, but they still went after the person because they knew they could get them to take a plea.


And we wonder why there are shiatloads of unemployed people around who can't get jobs.  Give everyone a criminal record and they'll have to go back to figuring out which person actually has merit to do a job instead of cutting the guy who pissed in an alleyway 25 years ago because misdemeanor.
 
2013-07-06 10:42:18 PM

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Willas Tyrell: jst3p: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml

You're misreading it.

Texas, like most states, has a 60 day time limit to *rescind* a signed acknowledgment of paternity, the legal document that establishes paternity for children born outside a marriage.

In other words, if you sign the legal papers admitting paternity you only have 60 days to change your mind. If both parents don't don't sign the acknowledgment then someone would need to file a paternity proceeding to establish legal paternity.

/If you want a DNA test get it before you sign the document making you permanently the legal father.

Paternity tests should be given at birth. I wonder how much push back there would be on a proposal to make this the law?

Be an interesting idea. Currently in California, it actually says in the laws that whoever is named on the birth certificate is the legal father


But to get on the birth certificate there needs to be either a marriage, court order or the same document as required in Texas (an acknowledgment of paternity). This is a pretty unified national standard.

The point that any woman who just gave birth would be less than happy with any putative father asking for a DNA test is well taken.

BarkingUnicorn: R.A.Danny: One lady gets pregnant, frozen pop, twins. She hooks up with another very nice lady, they're a lovely couple. In Illinois they can't get married, but they cohabitated for five years, and the kids are now six. Now they are splitting up. it's very sad. I'm friends with both of them so I am not taking sides here, but I am kinda sickened by the traction that the birth mother is getting in getting child support for kids that are hers and hers alone.

I am all for marriage equality, but they were never married. There was no adoption. Whether you are male or female you shouldn't get nailed with child support because you temporarily cohabitated with a woman with children.

I would love to  see the State's arguments.  The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes.  Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905.  There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.


I bet they're making an equitable estoppel pitch - that the non custodial "parent" held herself out as they child's mother, and that in doing so committed themselves to a lifelong parent-child relationship.

This has been shot down pretty solidly with same gendered couples, usually in the sad context of the noncustodial non-parent losing out on any visitation with a child they've been essentially co-parenting for years.
 
2013-07-06 10:46:33 PM
The comment from his new lawyer, Heller, at the bottom of the article implied to me that they were readying some kind of counter legal action against the state. I look forward to that followup.
 
2013-07-06 11:07:36 PM

OgreMagi: Just imagine a potential father requesting a paternity test at birth. Think how the mother would react. Making it the law removes major biatch-fest the father is going to get.

Two outcomes if he makes the demand.

1. The mother knows there's a chance he isn't the father, so she will scream bloody murder in hopes that he'll change his mind.
2. The mother knows she hasn't cheated, so she's going to scream bloody murder for him daring to question her fidelity.

Either way, he's not getting any for a good long time.


That's why the laws haven't been touched, I'm guessing. Sounds like something a women's rights organization would challenge--"It puts the woman at too much risk if the baby isn't the putative father's." Which it might. But as you point out, if the father does ask for a test, it destroys things from his end, regardless.

Actually, it should be done anyway in case the hospital screws up--those cases of misplaced babies that happened a few years back that led to everyone getting wristbands on both wrists to make sure the right baby went home with the right mom. I could see a law where the hospital is required to do DNA testing, and keeps the results confidential unless they are requested by one or both parents; at least cut the wait time down.
 
2013-07-06 11:08:04 PM

buzzcut73: Most recently, I've gotten a letter from KS saying that if I open an educational savings account in her name with the state, they'll knock two dollars off of my "arrears" for every dollar I put in it. I may just do that, because at least it will benefit my daughter and will finally get the BS debt off the books. So yeah, I'll probably just pay it that way cause it's in the long run less headache than going to Bumfark, KS for a family court hearing that I'd probably lose anyway.


I'd pay very, very careful attention to that.  Because you might find that it 'resets' the collection clock, they can seize it, it doesn't actually count for '2 to 1', etc...

Looking up Kansas law, they have 2 years after emancipation of the child, though it appears they can reset the clock 'with appropriate action'.  They might be attempting to do that.

Gyrfalcon: If he'd had a good job in March and a crappy job in September, why should that matter? It would still cost X dollars to feed and clothe Junior, right?


Except that if they were still married household expenses would be less as they'd be shared, and Junior would get to suck up the loss in living standards along with the rest of the family.  Indeed, depending on how far down the family goes, they'd become eligible for various amounts of welfare to ensure that Junior still gets a good diet WITHOUT trying to hit dad up for more money that he doesn't have because he lost his job when the factory shut down.

sharphead: Being a CEO is not "work".


It is when you're also the only employee.  Or only 1 of 3 people working in the business.  You still need a CEO/Owner, the company is actually a way to shield personal assets in case the business goes under.

But then, if you look at it another way, you ARE very much correct.  If you're the CEO of a company with no business(in this case because you can't travel internationally to do your thing because they shut down your passport), no employees, and no assets, you're still the CEO, but there's no income from being a CEO, so it's not 'work', in that it's not returning assets in exchange for time/labor.

Loren: Judges don't do that sort of thing anymore. She can withhold visitation all she wants and child support is unaffected.


Uh, incorrect.  I've known SEVERAL men who've managed to win custody due to the mother being incompetent/refusing visitation.  It's tough, but doable.

Of course, the deal today would be the judge cites her for contempt of court and puts her in jail until she fesses up where the kids are.  I mean, it's recognized today that in such a case she might not actually have possession of them anymore - or they might even be dead in her basement or something.
 
2013-07-06 11:10:46 PM
farkers - only one page into this thread and wanted to chime in before sunday starts

TO those men who truly care about their children's welfare? thank you - sincerely

I am sorry that you are still fighting an uphill societal battle - the one that insists you may not be "as good as" your child's mother. I am sorry that, for some of you, your ex's lie out of anger and jealousy and fear you will "turn" your jointly-made children against them - or who try to turn the children you love against you.

There are men - lots of them - who adore their children - and (at least this one) women respect that

Those of you who may be dicks because "that stupid biatch did so and so"? your children don't care what YOUR reasons are - they only want a dad and - pssst - sexist anger isn't helping your fight - especially in court.

Dads are important - keep trying, even until your kids are grown
 
2013-07-06 11:17:29 PM

AngryDragon: cryinoutloud: budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.
I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.
Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.
#exceptionnottherule

No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

Oh wait--I'm a woman, therefore it couldn't have happened that way. Carry on, Fark.

I'm sorry you had a rough time, but statistics, how do they work?

My ex was addicted to drugs without any means of support and she STILL got custody.  Apparently a father with a clean record and successful career who volunteers his time to both the community and his child's school was a less capable parent than someone who was so drugged out of her mind that she would spend days at a time in bed.  And she received spousal support for 3 years.

Seems legit.


What seems legit is that you, such an upstanding successful man of the community, were dumb enough to put your dick into and then a ring on the finger of an unemployed drug addict.
 
2013-07-06 11:22:44 PM

R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: I would love to  see the State's arguments.  The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes.  Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905.  There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.

It isn't in the state's hands yet, and as far as a divorce it really never will be. It's the women's lawyers going at it. I think the mother wants the ex to walk away from the house and the equity  therein.


Well, the non-mother's lawyer should stop pumping up his bill and tell the mother's lawyer to go fark himself on this child support nonsense.

They bought a house together without a contract specifying what happens if they split?  Brilliant!
 
2013-07-06 11:39:03 PM

BarkingUnicorn: R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: I would love to  see the State's arguments.  The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes.  Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905.  There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.

It isn't in the state's hands yet, and as far as a divorce it really never will be. It's the women's lawyers going at it. I think the mother wants the ex to walk away from the house and the equity  therein.

Well, the non-mother's lawyer should stop pumping up his bill and tell the mother's lawyer to go fark himself on this child support nonsense.

They bought a house together without a contract specifying what happens if they split?  Brilliant!


Yeah, two women with advanced degrees, both making well into six figures and they know nothing about money. They're both wonderful people, but I don't get it either.
 
2013-07-06 11:51:40 PM

GORDON: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.

Yes. Failed marriage and kids with a broken home. You win parent of the year, congrats.


Yeah, I should have chosen a wife who wouldn't cheat on me with her WoW guild leader. I accept responsibility for that poor choice. That being said they are much better off in this "broken" home, trust me.
 
2013-07-07 12:07:04 AM

R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: I would love to  see the State's arguments.  The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes.  Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905.  There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.

It isn't in the state's hands yet, and as far as a divorce it really never will be. It's the women's lawyers going at it. I think the mother wants the ex to walk away from the house and the equity  therein.

Well, the non-mother's lawyer should stop pumping up his bill and tell the mother's lawyer to go fark himself on this child support nonsense.

They bought a house together without a contract specifying what happens if they split?  Brilliant!

Yeah, two women with advanced degrees, both making well into six figures and they know nothing about money. They're both wonderful people, but I don't get it either.


OK, now I feel a tugging on my leg.
 
2013-07-07 12:09:57 AM

jst3p: GORDON: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.

Yes. Failed marriage and kids with a broken home. You win parent of the year, congrats.

Yeah, I should have chosen a wife who wouldn't cheat on me with her WoW guild leader. I accept responsibility for that poor choice. That being said they are much better off in this "broken" home, trust me.


Should never have married a gamer girl.  They're all trouble.
 
2013-07-07 12:17:35 AM

BarkingUnicorn: jst3p: GORDON: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.

Yes. Failed marriage and kids with a broken home. You win parent of the year, congrats.

Yeah, I should have chosen a wife who wouldn't cheat on me with her WoW guild leader. I accept responsibility for that poor choice. That being said they are much better off in this "broken" home, trust me.

Should never have married a gamer girl.  They're all trouble.


In the end, it was worth the ride.
 
2013-07-07 01:14:00 AM

BarkingUnicorn: ongbok: BarkingUnicorn: ongbok: Have a friend that worked as an assistant D.A for a while. He said what he quickly learned in the prosecutors office is that it isn't about justice, it is about winning. He said that there were plenty of cases that they either knew flat out that a person was innocent or they had enough doubt to point to innocence, but they still went after the person because they knew they could get them to take a plea.

Your friend worked for a DA who withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense "plenty of times?"  Or was he just talking about opinions flying around the office?

They didn't hold anything back, they just go after people who they know they can get to take a plea. For example there are many people that can't afford a lawyer, but make too much to get a public defender, or can't afford to have to keep going to court to fight a charge. They know that if they pile charges on a person like this, regardless of whether or not they are guilty or innocent, the person will likely take a plea to lesser charges that doesn't involve jail time.

Hm.  The one time I was charged with a crime, I argued that I could not afford a lawyer.  Public defender's office didn't want to rep me because I earned more than the poverty level.  I argued that being able to survive and being able to afford an attorney were not the same thing.  The judge told me, "Hire a lawyer or proceed pro se."  I told him that I had tried but could not find a lawyer who would take what I could afford as a retainer.  I said I was incompetent to defend myself and that if I was forced to do so under these circumstances, a conviction would likely be overturned on appeal. (Never mind where I'd get the money for an appeal.)

Lo and behold!  He found a slush fund from which to pay for a private attorney.  It only took six hearings over nine months.

/ Charge was dropped the day the trial was to begin.
// Cost me only the bail bondsman's fee & 8 hours in jail
/// I plead the Fifth


The Public Pretenders are just expediters for the prosecution anyway. They rarely help anyone.
 
2013-07-07 01:14:38 AM

BarkingUnicorn: I said I was incompetent to defend myself and that if I was forced to do so under these circumstances, a conviction would likely be overturned on appeal.


Nice. This made me laugh. If I were a judge the sophistication of this statement would make me raise my eyebrows as to your incompetence to proceed pro se, but they're not the same thing.

Your story is interesting. I work on the civil side (well, I did in school, I'm studying for the bar now), and we have to turn away many grey-area clients who I know don't make enough to pay for their own representation, but who still don't make our stringent income cut-off. I'd never really thought much about the obvious fact that a similar grey area exists in the criminal sphere.
 
2013-07-07 01:21:15 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Aigoo: BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?

Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.

That's not the same at all.   Gyrfalcom seems to be talking about taking money from Mom's paycheck to pay back to her as child support!


The guy's NEW wife's income. Not the one owed....
 
2013-07-07 03:42:47 AM

Gyrfalcon: Be an interesting idea. Currently in California, it actually says in the laws that whoever is named on the birth certificate is the legal father, or whoever had access to the mother within 200 days prior to the birth. (Access--a lovely term) It's very archaic. And the burden is on the father currently to ask for DNA testing or otherwise deny parentage if he's got reason to believe he's not the father--and there's a limited window to do it.


Just curious, do you know the actual legal code for that? I'm looking through the Family Code, and the only thing I can find that comes close is a man cohabitating with a woman who gives birth is automatically presumed to be the father (California Family Code 7540).
 
2013-07-07 03:44:54 AM
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a female prosecutor would take the case to such an extreme against a working father.

Shocked, I tell you.
 
2013-07-07 03:53:30 AM

Ranger Rover: Nice. This made me laugh. If I were a judge the sophistication of this statement would make me raise my eyebrows as to your incompetence to proceed pro se, but they're not the same thing.


I took it as he's competent enough to stand trial, also competent enough to realize that he's not a lawyer, thus can't mount an effective defense.  HOWEVER, he is thus competent enough to make a right royal pain of himself while in prison for whatever during the appeals process.

The results of which is likely to be 'give him a new trial' as the right to representation is set in stone at this point.  The cost of 2 trials, one without representation, one with, plus the appeals court's time, plus the slap to the judge for having held an arguably flawed trial, etc...

Personally, I hate how the very trial itself is used today as a form of punishment.  Even a misdemeanor trial can easily cost 10X as much as the maximum penalty.  Where's the justice in that?

Personally, I'd pass a requirement that public defenders are appointed to EVERYONE, and that the PD office must be funded at least equally to the prosecutor's.  Every dollar the prosecution spends trying to convict you is a dollar your defense can spend fighting it.
 
2013-07-07 03:58:59 AM

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?


Don't you have a penis to go suck?
 
2013-07-07 04:59:58 AM

rzrwiresunrise: I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a female prosecutor would take the case to such an extreme against a working father.

Shocked, I tell you.


Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are really your parents.
 
2013-07-07 06:18:15 AM
You know, none of this "child support" crap would even exist if we all just pitched in and gave all children a government stipend, because all children deserve equitable support from society. Then there wouldn't be any need to argue about who owes what for which children -- those arguments would all be reduced to the same arguments we already have about how taxes should be levied.

You could fund such a system by taxing whoever it is you want to hold responsible for the costs of raising children -- you can tax people for producing children, or fund it from general revenue to hold us all accountable, or whatever methodology you think is relevant to produce the economic outcomes you want -- but it's insane that we force some children to suffer just because their parents are poor/separated/non-citizens/etc.

It would also help unravel this ridiculous conflation of divorce and child support. Children are not a party to any divorce and their care should not be subject to such proceedings; removing the financial support of children from the equation would go a long way toward more just outcomes for everyone -- men, women, children, and the rest of society would all benefit from reducing divorce to the inverse of marriage.
 
2013-07-07 06:26:00 AM

OgreMagi: rzrwiresunrise: I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a female prosecutor would take the case to such an extreme against a working father.

Shocked, I tell you.

Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are really your parents.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-07 09:53:12 AM

Gyrfalcon: That's why the laws haven't been touched, I'm guessing. Sounds like something a women's rights organization would challenge--"It puts the woman at too much risk if the baby isn't the putative father's." Which it might. But as you point out, if the father does ask for a test, it destroys things from his end, regardless.

Actually, it should be done anyway in case the hospital screws up--those cases of misplaced babies that happened a few years back that led to everyone getting wristbands on both wrists to make sure the right baby went home with the right mom. I could see a law where the hospital is required to do DNA testing, and keeps the results confidential unless they are requested by one or both parents; at least cut the wait time down.


I'd simply make it that he doesn't sign the birth certificate at all.  The only way to get his name on it is a DNA test or his signature on paperwork that makes it his kid even though he knows it's not (sperm donor, adoption etc.)

Firethorn: Loren: Judges don't do that sort of thing anymore. She can withhold visitation all she wants and child support is unaffected.

Uh, incorrect. I've known SEVERAL men who've managed to win custody due to the mother being incompetent/refusing visitation. It's tough, but doable.


I said child support is unaffected.  Once in a while custody is, though.
 
2013-07-07 10:47:08 AM

parasol: farkers - only one page into this thread and wanted to chime in before sunday starts

TO those men who truly care about their children's welfare? thank you - sincerely

I am sorry that you are still fighting an uphill societal battle - the one that insists you may not be "as good as" your child's mother. I am sorry that, for some of you, your ex's lie out of anger and jealousy and fear you will "turn" your jointly-made children against them - or who try to turn the children you love against you.

There are men - lots of them - who adore their children - and (at least this one) women respect that

Those of you who may be dicks because "that stupid biatch did so and so"? your children don't care what YOUR reasons are - they only want a dad and - pssst - sexist anger isn't helping your fight - especially in court.

Dads are important - keep trying, even until your kids are grown


I have no kids, but this is why I have you favorited.
 
2013-07-07 10:59:01 AM

parasol: farkers - only one page into this thread and wanted to chime in before sunday starts

TO those men who truly care about their children's welfare? thank you - sincerely

I am sorry that you are still fighting an uphill societal battle - the one that insists you may not be "as good as" your child's mother. I am sorry that, for some of you, your ex's lie out of anger and jealousy and fear you will "turn" your jointly-made children against them - or who try to turn the children you love against you.

There are men - lots of them - who adore their children - and (at least this one) women respect that

Those of you who may be dicks because "that stupid biatch did so and so"? your children don't care what YOUR reasons are - they only want a dad and - pssst - sexist anger isn't helping your fight - especially in court.

Dads are important - keep trying, even until your kids are grown


except that in some cases the father isn't the biological father of the child, yet is still being forced by the courts to pay for the child as if he is.
 
2013-07-07 01:16:41 PM

Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.



A white father.

/thats racist
 
2013-07-07 03:43:29 PM

OgreMagi: Just imagine a potential father requesting a paternity test at birth. Think how the mother would react. Making it the law removes major biatch-fest the father is going to get.

Two outcomes if he makes the demand.

1. The mother knows there's a chance he isn't the father, so she will scream bloody murder in hopes that he'll change his mind.
2. The mother knows she hasn't cheated, so she's going to scream bloody murder for him daring to question her fidelity.

Either way, he's not getting any for a good long time.


I intend to insist on paternity testing, myself, much like the way the best car companies ask professional drivers to test them or the people who make that really nice paint send some to home-improvement shows for the pros to try. I consider it proof of quality workmanship. Even if there's no question, it's still nice to know for dead sure.

That, and a paternity test reveals blood type and a number of other cool genetic things, which could be helpful for one or another of Future Kid's science-fair projects.
 
2013-07-07 04:24:56 PM
Here are the rules, guys.  Remember this whenever you have sex.

1. If she gets knocked up, even if you took precautions, you are responsible for child support.
2. If she lies about birth control and gets knocked up, you are responsible for child support.
3. If she turkey basts herself with the condom contents that she fished out of the garbage, you are responsible for child support.
4. If you aren't the father, you are responsible for child support.
5. If she rapes you, you are responsible for child support.
6. You have no say at any time in the decision about abortion, but you are still responsible for child support.
7. If you don't want to be responsible for child support, keep your dick in your pants, and you are still responsible for child support.
8. Saying a woman should keep her legs closed is misogynistic, and you are responsible for child support.
 
2013-07-07 05:34:25 PM

OgreMagi: Here are the rules, guys.  Remember this whenever you have sex.

1. If she gets knocked up, even if you took precautions, you are responsible for child support.
2. If she lies about birth control and gets knocked up, you are responsible for child support.
3. If she turkey basts herself with the condom contents that she fished out of the garbage, you are responsible for child support.
4. If you aren't the father, you are responsible for child support.
5. If she rapes you, you are responsible for child support.
6. You have no say at any time in the decision about abortion, but you are still responsible for child support.
7. If you don't want to be responsible for child support, keep your dick in your pants, and you are still responsible for child support.
8. Saying a woman should keep her legs closed is misogynistic, and you are responsible for child support.


9.  Dating a woman who has a child that's not yours,  You bet you are responsible for child support.
 
2013-07-07 05:49:43 PM

Warlordtrooper: OgreMagi: Here are the rules, guys.  Remember this whenever you have sex.

1. If she gets knocked up, even if you took precautions, you are responsible for child support.
2. If she lies about birth control and gets knocked up, you are responsible for child support.
3. If she turkey basts herself with the condom contents that she fished out of the garbage, you are responsible for child support.
4. If you aren't the father, you are responsible for child support.
5. If she rapes you, you are responsible for child support.
6. You have no say at any time in the decision about abortion, but you are still responsible for child support.
7. If you don't want to be responsible for child support, keep your dick in your pants, and you are still responsible for child support.
8. Saying a woman should keep her legs closed is misogynistic, and you are responsible for child support.

9.  Dating a woman who has a child that's not yours,  You bet you are responsible for child support.


10. If a woman pulls your name out of the phone book and puts it down as the father of the child on the birth certificate, you are responsible for child support.

That really happened to some guy.  He had never met the woman and suddenly his salary was being garnished.  Because he didn't object to his name on the birth certificate in a timely manner, the law makes him the father.  There is no legal requirement to inform anyone they are being named on the birth certificate.  He was forced to mount an expensive legal fight. I never did learn of the outcome.
 
2013-07-07 09:43:31 PM

OgreMagi: Warlordtrooper: OgreMagi: Here are the rules, guys.  Remember this whenever you have sex.

1. If she gets knocked up, even if you took precautions, you are responsible for child support.
2. If she lies about birth control and gets knocked up, you are responsible for child support.
3. If she turkey basts herself with the condom contents that she fished out of the garbage, you are responsible for child support.
4. If you aren't the father, you are responsible for child support.
5. If she rapes you, you are responsible for child support.
6. You have no say at any time in the decision about abortion, but you are still responsible for child support.
7. If you don't want to be responsible for child support, keep your dick in your pants, and you are still responsible for child support.
8. Saying a woman should keep her legs closed is misogynistic, and you are responsible for child support.

9.  Dating a woman who has a child that's not yours,  You bet you are responsible for child support.

10. If a woman pulls your name out of the phone book and puts it down as the father of the child on the birth certificate, you are responsible for child support.

That really happened to some guy.  He had never met the woman and suddenly his salary was being garnished.  Because he didn't object to his name on the birth certificate in a timely manner, the law makes him the father.  There is no legal requirement to inform anyone they are being named on the birth certificate.  He was forced to mount an expensive legal fight. I never did learn of the outcome.


holy titty farking christ.
 
2013-07-07 10:23:01 PM

OgreMagi: 10. If a woman pulls your name out of the phone book and puts it down as the father of the child on the birth certificate, you are responsible for child support.


If she jots down a random half-remembered name and yours sounds somewhat similar, you are responsible for child support.

Happened to an Asian guy down in California; he didn't know until his income started being garnished.  They told him they'd notified him; they mailed the letter first class to where he was 3 addresses and 3 years before and considered that 'good enough'.  They said 'your time to protest was past', etc...

It ended up taking quite a bit of lawyer work to demand a blood test(hint:  Baby quite obviously fully black, he was asian), and prove that he wasn't the father and that no, they hadn't legally notified him.  He still never got the garnished wages back, which had gone to the state, not the mother, in compensation for benefits paid.
 
2013-07-07 10:38:51 PM

Firethorn: OgreMagi: 10. If a woman pulls your name out of the phone book and puts it down as the father of the child on the birth certificate, you are responsible for child support.

If she jots down a random half-remembered name and yours sounds somewhat similar, you are responsible for child support.

Happened to an Asian guy down in California; he didn't know until his income started being garnished.  They told him they'd notified him; they mailed the letter first class to where he was 3 addresses and 3 years before and considered that 'good enough'.  They said 'your time to protest was past', etc...

It ended up taking quite a bit of lawyer work to demand a blood test(hint:  Baby quite obviously fully black, he was asian), and prove that he wasn't the father and that no, they hadn't legally notified him.  He still never got the garnished wages back, which had gone to the state, not the mother, in compensation for benefits paid.


It's cases like this that convinced me that the family courts will fark men in the ass without lube.  Not the tendency to give custody to women.  Not the lack of enforcement of visitation for the father.  It's when it's so completely obvious to a blind moron with severe brain trauma that they screwed up, and they still refuse to back down without an expensive court battle that we learn exactly where we stand.
 
2013-07-08 12:20:58 AM
As a former CSEA attorney who has had multiple run ins with Florida on interstate cases, I applaud the decision. One of the reasons for the existence of CSEAs is that someone needs to track the payments.  If FL is still relying on the Mom's "information" as opposed to THEIR OWN farkING COMPUTERS, they were plainly asking for this outcome.
 
Displayed 187 of 187 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report