Men and Child support. What is the answer?

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Daedal

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Daedal

 

You go ahead and look for those sites that list deadbeat parents, and you'll find both genders. It just happens that the guys rack up bigger bar tabs.

Nice big post about how you are oppressed by women and children. Victims of your own penises apparently.

edit on 2011/6/2 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

I am not arguing the moral issue at hand,but merely the criminality of these claims.They are unconstitutional.

The constitution still doesn't protect you from being a parent, no matter how many times you guys try to force it to say something of the sort. Whoever is telling you it does is lying to you and you're sucking it up because it speaks to your fear.

I think we are looking in the same direction,but seeing different things.I have two children and pay my support.It's just at the current moment the laws are in favor of Woman.It's all a for profit scam the government perpetrates against Men in which Woman have taken the bait.Hopefully one day there will be true equality in Family Law.

It's threads like this that I remain grateful I have never married. (But I do wish I could find a good woman to share life with)

My last fiance tried to take me to the bank. And she made more money than me, as well as being a serial divorcee. Luckily I live in a non common law marriage state. She had accrued over $100,000 in debt all without my help and expected me to pay half. Sucks to be her.

The best revenge is a life well lived.

reply to post by Aeons


I suppose it was naive of me to think men/women would do that to their kids just to be jerks. It honestly never crossed my mind. However, with that said, I'm am very confident those people are in the the lowest percentage possible compared to those that can't afford to pay outrages child support fees. Those people you speak of are dead beats no matter what the CS cost is, whereas a delinquent father who is given the option to buy instead of pay would.

Originally posted by Daedal

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Daedal

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Daedal

 

You go ahead and look for those sites that list deadbeat parents, and you'll find both genders. It just happens that the guys rack up bigger bar tabs.

Nice big post about how you are oppressed by women and children. Victims of your own penises apparently.

edit on 2011/6/2 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

I am not arguing the moral issue at hand,but merely the criminality of these claims.They are unconstitutional.

The constitution still doesn't protect you from being a parent, no matter how many times you guys try to force it to say something of the sort. Whoever is telling you it does is lying to you and you're sucking it up because it speaks to your fear.

I think we are looking in the same direction,but seeing different things.I have two children and pay my support.It's just at the current moment the laws are in favor of Woman.It's all a for profit scam the government perpetrates against Men in which Woman have taken the bait.Hopefully one day there will be true equality in Family Law.

You are right,the Constitution doesn't protect you from being a Parent.But the Debtors Statutes and the 4th Amendment protect us,"supposedly" from unreasonable search and seizure,while the other from being imprisoned for debt.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by bluemirage5

 

Star for you! I am sorry if I was heated with you. I had to deal with a member that contrary to what she said,she doesnt care about men. She also made opinions,and claimed them as facts. I applaud your efforts to be a father. In no way,shape or form did I mean any disrespect.Just hot under the collar.

Edit to add:
I am a father of three kids also.

edit on 3-6-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

My father is also a father of three children. My husband is a father of three children. You may assume, that both have no quarter for men like these.

Like I said earlier,in many posts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But when you state your opinions as FACT,and have nothing to back them up,thats where I see the problem. Your tirade yesterday,about the "male annihilators" proves your opinion beyond a shadow of a doubt. You also stated you live in a fairytale utopia. I am glad NO ONE has to go through what most of the men posting here have gone through. Unless you can walk in a "mans" shoes,through the corrupt gender bias justice system,your personal opinion is left to be desired. Also,You DIDNT have to get into a p!$$ing match with someone obviously trying to goad you into one. That was your choice to show your true colors. Peace Aeons.............

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by bluemirage5

 

Star for you! I am sorry if I was heated with you. I had to deal with a member that contrary to what she said,she doesnt care about men. She also made opinions,and claimed them as facts. I applaud your efforts to be a father. In no way,shape or form did I mean any disrespect.Just hot under the collar.

Edit to add:
I am a father of three kids also.

edit on 3-6-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

My father is also a father of three children. My husband is a father of three children. You may assume, that both have no quarter for men like these.

Like I said earlier,in many posts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But when you state your opinions as FACT,and have nothing to back them up,thats where I see the problem. Your tirade yesterday,about the "male annihilators" proves your opinion beyond a shadow of a doubt. You also stated you live in a fairytale utopia. I am glad NO ONE has to go through what most of the men posting here have gone through. Unless you can walk in a "mans" shoes,through the corrupt gender bias justice system,your personal opinion is left to be desired. Also,You DIDNT have to get into a p!$$ing match with someone obviously trying to goad you into one. That was your choice to show your true colors. Peace Aeons.............

I just jumped on this thread today and my first discussion was with bluemirage5 without reading any of the other pages. I had no idea of their gender but obviously I was correct in my assumption that she was a woman. Did she really say she lives in a fairy tale utopia?

reply to post by FlySolo


"Too bad for you I'm probably the only person on this thread with an actual working marriage the first time, and my husband is an actual real man who acts like a real man, and he actually really likes me.

Tough stuff that. That I actually have all that "conservative" "real family" stuff, and my man's actually a happy guy. Killer. "



That was her UTOPIAN answer,that most here who have went through the corrupt Justice system,dont see..Also it makes me sick she could rub that in the faces of men who are asking for help. She stated MANY things,including men get their children 70% of the time,when they actually ask for them. That was false,and was given factual data that CLEARLY showed it was. I suggest you read through the thread. It actually has useful statistics,for any man going through this.

reply to post by sonnny1


public.findlaw.com...

In a contested custody case, both the father and mother have an equal burden of proving to the court that it is in the best interest of the child that the child be in his or her custody. There are a couple of states that have laws providing that if everything else is equal, the mother may be preferred; but even in those states, many fathers have been successful in obtaining custody.

On the false accusation allegations: aja.ncsc.dni.us...
(actual science with good samples. Not seven cases cherry picked as your rebuttal cases are.)


books.google.ca... jypI#v=onepage&q=why%20mothers%20get%20custody%20percentages&f=false

An interesting read about how children are not chattel in custody cases, even if the contesting parents treat the issue as if there are.

If you want to read up on the 70% figure, it can be found in "Gender Bias Against Fathers In Custody? The Important Differences Between Process and Outcomes."

If you'd like to read a rebuttal to it which has some very good rebuttals, even if it overly generalizes about bias against males when the men themselves not only agreed but agreed without proceedings to the custody agreement. Apparently she thinks that men are being biased against themselves. It is called "Lagging Behind The Times: Parenthood, Custody, and Gender Bias In the Family Count"

There are different types of custody, and these types are being confabulated by some on this thread.
www.stanford.edu...(Page%201%20of%205).htm
You'll find some definitions here.

Now - what I'd like to point out here is that these are all about custody. Your type of custody actually has an impact on your support. Knowing the differences, and that joint custody is the most common outcome is an important distinction to note about the "gender bias" of the system. That it currently prefers joint custody.

reply to post by sonnny1


Success - it stings.

reply to post by FlySolo


Tell us all just how much a non-custodial parent should pay for 1-2 children and 3-4 children. No one except myself has put figures out there howoever cost of living in Australia is more than double to the USA and our pay is on a much higher scale.

Example 1: Lets start with mum working part time at Walmart, has 2 children at the age of 5 and 14 years, lives in a 3 bedroom apartment or house, say, in a reasonable working class/middle class area of California.

Example 2: Mum lives with 3 teenagers, one daughter @ 14 and two boys @ 15 and 17, works part time at Walmart, lives in a 4 bedroom house in a middle class area of California.

Both cases, father gets access once a fortnight for a weekend.

I await your reply with earnest!


*NOTE: anyone want to take a crack at it???? Surely you Americans must know the cost of living in your own country and how much it costs to bring up children of varying ages !!!!!

Long thread for such a simple topic.

A person who makes a unilateral choice and expects the government to force someone else (under threat of jail) to help pay for the result of that unilateral choice, is a piece of garbage.

Period, end of story.

My body, my choice, our responsibility is not empowerment... it's petulant irrational nonsense.

reply to post by SevenBeans


Yes, you go tell that to a married couple of 10 years with 2-3 kids that has just separated or divorced. Most people on this thread does'nt realise that more than 50% of single mothers ARE divorced, not some skant off the street!

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Yes, you go tell that to a married couple of 10 years with 2-3 kids that has just separated or divorced. Most people on this thread does'nt realise that more than 50% of single mothers ARE divorced, not some skant off the street!

I have no idea how that's relevant to what I wrote.

I take full responsibility for the results of my unilateral choices, women should do the same. Only the unilateral choice of a woman can create a child.

Your child, your responsibility.

Even simpler.

reply to post by SevenBeans


It's very relevant because the average American family is approx 2-3 kids and the divorce rate is approx 54% in the USA.

You just want to take a crack at unmarried single mothers living in the housing projects with no future except poverty. Not all single mothers live in the housing projects and a majority of them were at one time happily married.

Now.....

Because so many of you hate the thought of paying child support...but you know you have to.....answer my question earlier......what amount is fair with the two examples I have shown.

If I don't receive a fair answer then I know what I'm dealing with on this thread!

reply to post by bluemirage5


None. Their answer is not a penny.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Success - it stings.

Fail,It stings even harder.......................................

From your first link.......

"As a group, judges are fair and unbiased in their decisions, and the level of bias is less than it was in years past."

That in itself,coming from those so called "professionals" that make money off defending those who go through the corrupt system. Talk about hypocritical,first they "state Judges are fair and unbiased.Then they state the level of "BIAS" is less. Which one is it?

B. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts

Although allegedly implemented "to determine the extent, nature, and consequences of gender bias in the judiciary and to make remedial recommendations to promote the fair and equal treatment of men and women,"[106] the 1989 Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts is a prime example of a results-oriented study ironically reeking of gender bias.[107] Despite evidence demonstrating that mothers receive primary residential custody of children approximately 90% of the time that custody is first determined by the court,[108] this study offered the following remarkable conclusion to demonstrate that gender bias against fathers in child custody determinations was a myth, unworthy of further study or policy changes: "[F]athers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time."[109] This conclusion is often cited to discredit continuing claims by fathers and fathers' rights organizations of gender bias in child custody matters.[110] An analysis of the methodology underlying this conclusion, however, demonstrates fundamental flaws that seem to confirm a results-oriented analysis.[111]

[106] MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, GENDER BIAS STUDY OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS (1989), reprinted in 24 NEW. ENG. L. REV. 745, 745 (1990) [hereinafter MASSACHUSETTS STUDY]. Return to text.

[107] See, e.g., id. at 746 (noting that "women face discriminatory attitudes and actions" regarding child custody, but failing to recognize that men face discriminatory attitudes and actions regarding child custody); id. at 748, 830 (reporting that "perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes," but failing to examine either the perceptions or the stereotypes and how they affect fathers so that, by their own data, 93.4% of the time mothers receive primary residential custody); id. at 829 (suggesting that it is appropriate for mothers to overwhelmingly receive custody because of, in part, "the unequal sacrifice of earning potential these women make in order to be primary caretakers," yet failing to examine gender bias against men who are culturally forced into the "provider" role). Return to text.

[108] See, e.g., 134 CONG. REC. S10896-01 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1988); DEBORAH L. RHODE, JUSTICE AND GENDER: SEX DISCRIMINATION AND THE LAW 155-56 (1989); Stephen J. Bahr et al., Trends in Child Custody Awards: Has the Removal of Maternal Preference Made a Difference?, 28 FAM. L.Q. 247, 255 (1994) ("Some have argued that the number of fathers gaining sole custody has increased in recent years but these data indicate that only a small percentage of fathers are awarded sole custody while mothers continue to be awarded sole custody in a large majority of custody cases." (footnote omitted)). Return to text.

[109] MASSACHUSETTS STUDY, supra note 106, at 830. Return to text.

PROOF,PLEASE READ

Trust me,you know NOTHING about the OP's subject,because you are not a MAN going through the process."Some have argued that the number of fathers gaining sole custody has increased in recent years but these data indicate that only a small percentage of fathers are awarded sole custody while mothers continue to be awarded sole custody in a large majority of custody cases."

Originally posted by Aeons
Your child, your responsibility.

Obviously not.

DNA doesn't create responsibility, choosing to create a child does.

Only a woman can choose to create a child.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
It's very relevant because the average American family is approx 2-3 kids and the divorce rate is approx 54% in the USA.

You just want to take a crack at unmarried single mothers living in the housing projects with no future except poverty. Not all single mothers live in the housing projects and a majority of them were at one time happily married.

What on earth are you talking about? Unmarried in housing projects blah blah blah is irrelevent.

Do you think it would be okay for the government to force you to help pay for the results of someone else's unilateral choice, under threat of jail?

reply to post by sonnny1


I went back and re-read the Op's post. Did you read it clearly?