It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Father, 29, in child support court says he has 21 kids

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
A 29 year old man in Knoxville, TN has at least 20 children by 11 women. Now the state of TN is going to have to step in and financially support these children.



Constitutionally, there is nothing the state can do to limit him from having more.


I know there should not be any laws that prohibit people from procreating, but this is ridiculous. This is a huge burden on tax payers. I personally think this man should be sterilized! I know that is wrong of me to think that way, but come on!

Link to Article




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Mudman21
 


There is something seriously wrong with that guy, IMO. I already feel sorry for Jon (with his eight). But this guy is just a moron.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Someone's gonna say it - it might as well be me.

Keep him AWAY from Octo-Mom!

And sorry, as irresponsible and low-life as this guy is - the only way to prevent this kind of thing is to throw the guy in jail or cut off his ability to have kids (*snip snip*).

IMO - Both ideas are so abhorrent it’s not to even to be considered.

peace

[edit on 28-5-2009 by silo13]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Its annoying having freedom with such idiots in the world




[edit on 28-5-2009 by Solomons]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Errrr - seems to me having 21 children involved more than one party and the blame/responsibility should be proportionate.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by leo123]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


Wow, what a good way to bring children into the world feeling a sense of love and compassion.

People can barely help one child in some cases, 21 is a bit, ugh, well I figure he's already decided he's not going to do anythin about it. He'll probably be in prison fairly soon, I don't think he can pay that child support ever.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


Right oh.
It takes 2 to tango.
While I agree the man should be responsible for his litter, why is it that he is the only one burdened with responsibility?
What about the mothers?
No family?
No incomes?
Oh wait, this is Knoxville TN.
It's all so clear now.
Give me a break.
Oh wait, I have to go pay some more taxes now, I don't have time for a break.


[edit on 28/5/2009 by reticledc]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by leo123
Errrr - seems to me having 21 children involved more than one party and the blame/responsibility should be proportionate.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by leo123]


Did the women involved know he had other children. Or is he a sweet talking guy.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Well one thing is he is accountable, imagine how many guys are like him but they move around, maybe because of their job or something.

I wonder how close the extended family will be? There is a chance that it could actually be quite a good thing to grow up with 20 brothers and sisters, maybe compared to other people in a low wage / rent area.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Taking responsibility for one's sexuality involves making a choice to either protect yourself by using protection in case your partner has not chosen to protect themselves, or being willing to accept the probable results if you don't.

Both he, *AND* the women who slept with him who did not protect themselves either, are to blame for the 21 children he has had.

The sad thing is that the mothers of those 21 children will have to fight over the 50% of his Net Income (not Gross) that is the federal maximum that can be garnished from his pay for Child Support. Unless he's clearing 200k a year at his job, then none of them are going to get what the government feels they should be getting (@$4000 annum per child for split/shared/joint custody).

My grand-father sired 54 children that we know of between 4 different women. However, he at least financially supported all of them. Therefore, I don't think it's the number of children that is shocking in this particular case as much as it is that he's just an extreme example of a dead-beat dad who has irresponsibly created more life than he has either the money or time to contribute towards ensuring they are raised well.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
all i have to say is it takes two to tango, its as much his fault as it is the womans.

hes gonna have to pay alot of child support.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
Well one thing is he is accountable, imagine how many guys are like him but they move around, maybe because of their job or something.


Good point. He is at least working and paying 50% of his Net Income to Child Support. He could just bail entirely or not work at all to avoid that financial responsibility altogether. So, he's not entirely a bad person, he just needs to learn what those rubber slickers are used for.

It's not easy trying to live on 25% of your Gross Income (because the Tax Man taketh 25%, Child Support taketh 50%, and he gets the rest). I find it tough doing that myself (I have the maximum taken out for Child Support for a single child that I am the primary custodial parent for), and I make a significant salary that puts me over the median average in the country. I can't imagine a take-home pay of only $262 a month at minimum wage working full-time. For that, he does get my sympathy.

Still, it doesn't excuse him, or his partners, from using some form of protection (unless they're Catholic).



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
i couldn't help but think of the movie Idiocracy and its intro.

It shows a intelligent couples family tree (starting with them) vs the family tree of one red neck. (starting with him)


the intelligent people never feel like there situation is stable enough to reasonably reproduce, while the red neck ends up having about 30kids.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Anyone who has fathered a child that depends on the taxpayers for support should be sterilized. If you cannot control yourself, then measures have to be taken.

[edit on 5-28-2009 by groingrinder]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Fraterormus, your grandfather sired 54 children!?
With only 4 different women?
That would be 17 children for each of them.
Sounds bit far fetched to me. Is the 54 a typo?

It is cases like this which will help to bring about mandatory sterilization laws. Maybe that is why it is getting so much press; to conditon hte public to the need for such laws.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Entirely due to Johnson's Great Society.

Great, isn't it?



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mudman21
A 29 year old man in Knoxville, TN has at least 20 children by 11 women. Now the state of TN is going to have to step in and financially support these children.


The state should not be stepping in. What that means is that the tax payers are going to be forced to pick up the tab. I suggest the state stay out of such matters if they wish to help correct this problem in the long term. Giving money to those who are irresponsible only encourages more irresponsibility.

And even in this extreme case I would not support sterilization. I would reserve that for cases of rape. The guy may be a scoundrel, but it was all consensual. The women who got pregnant are just as much to blame.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Fraterormus, your grandfather sired 54 children!?
With only 4 different women?
That would be 17 children for each of them.
Sounds bit far fetched to me. Is the 54 a typo?


Actually it was a typo. The 54 children part was correct, but it was 5 women. (For an average of 11 children per wife!)

My grand-mother had 13 children with him, of which my father was the first-born. My grand-father told them that he was a traveling salesman, so he was gone a lot, often for long periods of time, but he always sent more than enough money every month to cover everything his family needed.

Turns out, he was just moving between his multiple families, and none of them knew about the others until one of his wives got suspicious and tracked down where he was actually spending his time when he was away from them.

Apparently he had made millions in Cattle Ranching in his youth, or it may he may have inherited it from his father who made millions in Cattle Ranching, but regardless he didn't work at all, and just traveled between families, using the traveling salesman job as a cover to explain his long absences from each.

Once my grand-mother was contacted by one of his other wives and found out about the other families, she booted my grand-father to the curb and we never heard from him again (last I heard, that's what the others did as well).

Unfortunately, my entire family is renown for it's philandering through the generations and my father and I both are the ridicule of family jokes because we only sired 1 child each while my aunts and uncles and cousins all had full families of 7 or more children each.



Originally posted by OhZoneIt is cases like this which will help to bring about mandatory sterilization laws. Maybe that is why it is getting so much press; to conditon hte public to the need for such laws.


I fear that you are perhaps right. It is one thing for society to stigmatize those who have multiple children or children conceived out of wedlock, however, it's another thing altogether to consider sterilization. I personally don't believe that any person, or group of persons, has the right to determine who should or should not be sterilized. The Nazis did that. Those who learned anything from the past realize how that is wrong in so many ways.

However, removing tax breaks for more than 2 children or even penalizing those with more than 2 children, I would be willing to consider as a viable alternative.

Casting shame on those who procreate beyond what their means to support, I'm all for. Public humiliation and social estrangement of those who have become a burden on society, and that's acceptable.

Mandatory Sterilization, however, is where I draw the line and will not tolerate, in good conscience.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
As a female at what point should I run screaming and dive into a pile of profilactics with a can of mace upon meeting this man?


Unless he somehow managed to keep them from knowing his history and what have you. But that would take some serious finegaling.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by nixie_nox]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Absolutely horrendous. This man should be chloroformed and dragged to the nearest vasectomy clinic.

If anyone cares about my opinion, see this post regarding forced birth control..lol....sometimes it's necessary. Damn freaks.

www.abovetopsecret.com...







 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join