Posted on 04/02/2005 3:22:44 PM PST by CareyRoberts
I have seen their shell-shocked eyes and unbelieving expressions.
Men saddled with crushing child support obligations, forced to live on scraps or else fall into a desperate sea of mounting debt. A few of them are white-collar guys who once held respectable jobs and lived in comfortable houses.
Time marches forward, and the cases only become more bizarre.
Steve Barreras paid $20,000 to support his daughter, a girl he had never met. In fact, she didn’t even exist. His ex-wife Viola Trevino took another family’s daughter to court and claimed the child as hers. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson has now ordered an investigation.
In Michigan, Terrace Hale had $300 garnished from each paycheck for three years. The money went to support a woman he's never met to raise a child he's never fathered. Now, Marilyn Stephen, director of the Michigan Office of Child Support, refuses to give Mr. Hale’s money back.
Then there are those cases of adolescent boys who were victimized twice. First by their adult female rapists, and then by an inflexible child support system that came knocking [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0310roberts.html].
The voice of justice and outrage asks, How could this happen in America?
The answer can be found in our nation’s 30-year crusade to extract child support payments from mostly minority, low-income fathers, men who now bear the contemptuous epithet, “Deadbeat Dads.”
Last year professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University probed the allegations that have been leveled against these “deadbeats.” His must-read article, “Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis?,” reached some surprising conclusions [www.independent.org/tii/ media/pdf/tir_08_4_baskerville.pdf]:
Charge #1: Most marriages break up because fathers “have chosen to abandon their children,” as president Bill Clinton once put it.
Not true. Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen found that women file for divorce in 70% of cases. Likewise, Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver reports in his book Divorced Dads that two out of three divorces are initiated by women.
Charge #2: When women do leave the marriage, it’s to escape domestic violence and abuse.
False. The number one reason cited by divorcing moms, according to Braver, is “not feeling loved or appreciated,” and not anything to do with violence.
Charge #3: Dads don't pay their child support because they don't care about their kids.
Absurd. A 1998 Rutgers and University of Texas study concluded: “many of the absent fathers who state leaders want to track down and force to pay child support are so destitute that their lives focus on finding the next job, next meal, or next night’s shelter.” The problem is not dads who are dead-beats, the problem is men who are dead-broke.
Charge #4: Kids don’t really need their dads, anyway.
Absolutely false. This is the most scurrilous myth of all, because the truth is the polar opposite, and the harmful effects on children are so great. “Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders,” notes Baskerville.
It is no coincidence that all four of these myths place fathers in a bad light. And that suits the Divorce Industry – that veritable army of lawyers, family court judges, custody evaluators, and child support enforcers -- just fine.
These myths have become so ingrained in our thinking that basic Constitutional protections are being casually tossed aside. One brief on child support from the Left-leaning National Conference of State Legislatures made this stunning recommendation: “The burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” which of course means, “Fathers can be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.”
Of course, it’s divorce that triggers the monstrous child support machinery to lurch into motion. The rise of no-fault, unilateral divorce does not trouble the Sisterhood. In fact, they welcome it.
Over the past 50 years, the National Association of Women Lawyers has spearheaded the adoption of no-fault divorce legislation throughout the country, laws that made marital dissolution that much easier. The NAWL now notes with satisfaction, “the ideal of no-fault divorce became the guiding principle for reform of divorce laws in the majority of states.”
A growing divorce rate. Disenfranchised dads. Children lacking paternal guidance and protection. An ever-expanding child support apparatus. Careless disregard of Constitutional protections. A growing totalitarian mindset.
That’s the Matriarchy at work.
Ping
One more reason to oppose the women's movement.
Also, to put this disproportionate instructional information available to women into a bigger perspectives, you have to count the number of day time soap operas, and talk shows that is essentially nothing but ranting on guys. To the extent that women are filled with false expectations from commercials, that they feel under-appreciated and walk away from marriages. A commercial like that dude who rented a movie theater to celebrate their wedding anniversary...he showed his wedding movie, and gave her a $10,000 diamond ring TOO. Now stupid women who do not get this treatment can fell not loved, and want out. The bad thing is, after they are out they mostly feel stupid that they dumped their husbands.
On the other hand, I have seen women treat guys like crap and get divorced for the frivolous reasons mentioned. I also have seen guys who make not even half what my ex makes pay almost as much in child support for one child as he pays for two. It frustrates me and makes me mad that there is such inequity in the system.
The bottom-line is that there are bad apples on both sides, and it's not fair to swing the pendulum too far in either direction. I also heartily support the end of no-fault divorces. My divorce cost me almost 10K for my lawyer and took two years- as a "no fault." I don't think no-fault simplifies anything and it penalizes the innocent parties whether they be male or female.
That's a welcome break, if only for a moment. Each of the stories about individual women victimized by men will go on for years and years, though. Republican discussion is dominated by those. It's a tactic used in women's studies programs (and even by early feminists) to brainwash the populace into their belief that all men are evil.
Our Republican legislators helped to pass Clinton's VAWA, Child Support Act and so on. Expect them to help the Democrats erect colosseums soon.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that whine of yours.
you got that right.
not to mention the colleges and universities of america that have "hate men" feminist instruction.
speaking of which, today i was at the university library, asked a female librarian a question, and she yelled at me.
now, if a guy did that in a library...uh...what would happen?
getting bitched-down happens everyday.
Depressing.I would think these men would be able to file a lawsuit.Looks like the system is anti-male.I wasn't aware of the problems kids have without a Dad.
Well, for what it's worth, my dad was far from wealthy, as a matter of fact most of you would think he was poor by today's standards and he still gave child support and never bitched about it. Granted, it wasn't exhorborant but my father would have never turned his back on my brother and I.
I mean 1/3 of his salary
When you reward people to get a divorce that is what they are going to do. Insanity !
Thanks for the ping, my friend.
A good article except it slants toward minority, low-income men as being the main victims of this apparatus.
It also does not identify the child-worshipping mommy culture that currently exists and undermines marriages like termites eating a wood-framed house.
Being neither a "minority" nor "low-income," my experiences in court are such that I will never forget facing the gynocracy that has sprung up wrt this.
You are assumed guilty and incapable of voluntary payment (thank you Bill Clinton).
The child support "guidelines" offer no appeal.
The recipient of the child support does not have to count the money as income.
The involuntary giver of the child support receives no tax benefit from it.
Godgov now has an IRS form that you have to have the ex "agree" to using a child as a dependent on the tax form no matter what was stipulated in the settlement agreement.
Getting my ex to sign the form has now morphed into an annual event (the form allows 2 options: annually or once for all). Oh goody.
Just look at the attention paid to breast cancer vs. prostate cancer.
Ping
Yep. Men need to be more activist about the issue. You'd not believe the number of men who don't think it's bad that they have frequent night urination,etc.etc. and some are in denial when they diagnosed with cancer.
uh oh.
Time to make the appointment...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.