Posted on 04/05/2006 8:14:34 AM PDT by FreeManDC
Laws that protect the fairer sex from rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment all rest on a simple assumption: women who claim to be victims are almost always telling the truth. Maybe it’s time to revisit that belief.
Three weeks ago the National Center for Men filed a lawsuit on behalf of Matt Dubay, 25, who claims his girlfriend repeatedly assured him that she was unable to get pregnant. When she later bore a child, the state of Michigan went after Mr. Dubay for child support.
That’s what people used to call entrapment.
But chivalrous pundits rose to defend the honor of this damsel in distress, dubbing Mr. Dubay a “sexual predator,” “deadbeat dad,” and – horrors! -- a “weasel.” And if you happen to believe that men should be shouldered with the responsibilities and women enjoy all the rights, their criticisms certainly ring true.
Recently That's Life! magazine polled 5,000 women and asked them if they would lie to get pregnant. Two-fifths of the women – 42% to be exact – said “yes,” according to NCM’s Kingsley Morse.
Yikes!
But that was just a hypothetical survey. Women would never stick it to a man they actually knew. Or would they?
Consider the paternity scam. Here’s how it works:
Find any dim-witted man to get you pregnant. Then look up the name of some unsuspecting Joe who’s got a steady job – it doesn’t matter that you never met the poor bloke. Put his name on the baby’s birth certificate.
Now cross your fingers and hope the man is out of town when the sheriff delivers the papers. In California, such default judgments account for 70% of paternity decisions, according to a 2003 study by the Urban Institute.
Or defraud one of your previous boyfriends, assuming he’s a good breadwinner, of course. That’s what happened to Carnell Smith of Georgia, who willingly assumed financial responsibility for a child, shelling out more than $40,000 in child support over an 11-year period. But when the mother went to court to up the payments, Smith requested genetic testing. That’s when he learned, to his great surprise, that he wasn’t the girl’s father.
Stung by the injustice, Mr. Smith founded Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, [http://paternityfraud.com/pf_fight_back.html] a group that works to protect men from being cheated by these modern-day Welfare Queens.
Last year Michael Gilding, sociology professor at Swinburne University in Australia, reviewed studies from around the world, and concluded that 1-3% of children were fathered by someone other than the man who believes he’s the daddy.
Let’s run the math. Four million children are born in the United States each year. Using the mid-range 2% figure, that means 80,000 men become victims of paternity fraud.
Yikes again!
Ready for the next scam?
This one involves false allegations of domestic violence. Each year, one million restraining orders are issued that serve to evict a person – usually a man -- from his own home.
Restraining orders have become so commonplace that family lawyers refer to them as silver bullets, slam-dunks, or simply, “divorce planning.” It has been estimated that one-third of those orders are requested as a legal ploy in the middle of a divorce proceeding. Not only are the orders easy to get, in many states a restraining order automatically bans a father from gaining joint custody of his children. [www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Threat-to-Families.pdf]
So the restraining order granted on the flimsy grounds that he caused “emotional distress” becomes the woman’s meal ticket to many years of child support payments. Prosecutors never go after persons who commit perjury, anyway.
And state welfare agencies don’t get upset either, because the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement reimburses 66% of the costs of states’ child support enforcement activities. Think of it as a bounty payment for deleting daddies.
So let’s see . . . 42% of women admit they would lie to get pregnant. Each year 80,000 non-biological fathers become victims of paternity fraud. And about 300,000 restraining orders are issued in the middle of a divorce.
Assume a father so defrauded finds himself on the hook for $250 a month for each of his children. Over an 18-year period, that comes out to a cushy $54,000, all legally-enforceable, tax-free, and no strings attached.
In the past the American legal system was guided by the rule, “No person shall benefit from their own wrong-doing.” But now, hundreds of thousands of women replace that dictum with the self-indulgent excuse: “Get while the getting is good.”
This demands accountability on the part of the mother as to how she spends that money or a way for the proven father to provide an assigned dollar amount in something other than dollars.SO much in diapers or groceries or clothes or school supplies or a martgage payment or something along those lines. As it stands today there is no recourse for a father to track how his portion of money is being spent on providing for the child. Thus there is no garuantee any of that money is actually spent for the child.
Alimony and child support are two seperate things for a reason.
In my state, the ex-father is required to maintain "the children's" HOUSEHOLD at a certain standard of living.
Think about what that means. The implications are obvious.
When, during token "public hearings" in the process of ramrodding this abomination through, I asked what enforcment mechanism they had to make sure that the mother actually used the money to provide for the children (since they'd just finished detailing all the lengths they'd go to, to extract the money FROM the ex-father), they came right and said that there is NO enforecment, because -- get this -- because they believe that women CARE about their children, and will behave responsibly without any oversight.
You could probably gauge my blood pressure by holding the cuff ten feet from my arm at that point.
You see, I was "living" on under $80 a week. It was not "income" -- it was money we bled from our dying business (dying, thanks to all our money going to the ex, and to lawyers, instead of to suppliers and advertising media).
Out of that "income" [koff koff], I had to pay her $35 a week.
HER income was in the $50 grand range.
And, each time she'd get a check, she made damn sure the kids saw her spend it on herself. To rub it in, she would tell them that she "deserved" to "get something nice for herself."
Meanwhile, I had to buy them winter clothes, boots, coats, clothing in general (which strangely had a habit of "going home with the kids" and NOT returning with them during next visit).
Why? Was this part of the settlement order?
No, of course not.
I "had" to do it because I did not want my kids to freeze in the winter. SHE refused to provide for them -- either from the "child support" extracted from me at threat of debtors prison, or, from her own quite decent income.
Her neighbors would take me aside and say "something should be done, those kids are always going around in rags!"
So, when I fell more than three weeks behind (a day here, a day there, and eventually, it adds up to the magic "three week" figure), I'd be hauled into court, and threatened with jail.
I tried to explain to the arrogant POS SOB Blackrobe that I had a hard time "living" on less than $45 a week (digging my "source of income" -- my business -- deeper into the hole), AND paying for boots, coats, etc.
His Royal Magisturd did NOT like that sort of impudent talk. The roostersucker cut me off, and lectured me on how I had to realize that I "had a RESPONSIBILITY to provide for my children."
Once again, the remote control blood pressure tester would have had an interesting reading.
Here's the bottom line: The feminstas have succeeded in reengineering "child support" into a New! Revised! Improved! form of ALIMONY.
The big difference, of course, is that alimony is "taxable income" to the recipient, whereas "child support" is TAX-FREE to the mother. The ex-father is the one who has to pay income tax on that "income" money.
Oh, regarding paternity tests. In some states, even IF you can prove that you are NOT the father, the Blackrobes will STILL require you to pay, on the theory that you have performed the role of a father, and thus, you are strapped with the obligation to support some other guy's spawn.
The system is SO far beyond broken that words cannot describe it -- at least, not to anyone who hasn't been through the meatgrinder.
Thank God my ex-children are in their 30s, and I am no longer bled dry to support their female progenitor.
Unfortunately, I gave up the proverbial "best years of my life" in "the custody suit from hell". A decade from the prime of my life, gone. When I should have been building a career, I was instead working 18 to 20 hour days -- sometimes more -- 7 days a week -- trying to make ends meet. I turned down a lucreative job offer (approx. $100K/yr), because it would have meant MOVING, and if I moved, I would no longer be able to protect my kids.
"Protect"? From what?
Oh, from things like a vindictive "mother" who would stand by while "their new daddy" would tie their hands, so that they could not block his blows as he beat them for infractions like "eating too slow", or, stuffing my 3 yr old's panties in her mouth -- and forcing her to chew on them -- when she peed them during a beating. They would even get beaten for crying while being beaten.
Then there was the time she took off her shoe, threw it at my daughter, and nearly took out her eye -- and then refused to take her to medical treatment, AND forbid her to tell me what happened.
When my other daughter called, in panic over an unrelated fright, and I raced over there, I saw my kid in the yard, with an eye that was black, and almost swollen shut. I asked what happened -- "my mom got mad and threw a shoe at me."
I ended up "kidnapping" my kids -- after being TOLD to do that -- by the sheriff -- and taking them to the hospital. There, it was discovered that in addition to that injury, her nose had earlier been broken, and healed without medical treatment.
Blood pressure check, anyone?
I could go on -- and on, and on, and on...
It almost ended when she filed papers with the court saying that I should not be allowed ANY visitation -- not even "supervised" -- because I was such a "threat to the kids safety".
A week later, she dropped them off for "summer visitation" -- and moved 1500 miles away, to "start a new life." (Her explanation to the court as to WHY she did that was, "I'll make more money there"!)
Once settled in, she would call them, and screw their minds over something incredible. She had them believing that mean ol' dad was PREVENTING them from seeing her, because I "refused" to buy round-trip airfare for her to visit them.
You can't make up sh!+ like this -- but she sure could.
After two more years of court action, she was finally compelled to pay $25 a week child support -- NO arrearages.
She didn't PAY it, of course (other than about two or three token payments). No PENALTY or ENFORCEMENT, of course.
Go ahead, tell me how FAIR the system is.
But please -- do it online, not face to face, OK? I'd hate to have to work my BP up high enough to restrain myself in that context!
There is a war on dads. It is every bit as real as "the war on terror" -- except that it's been going on a LOT longer, and it's taken a LOT more casualties.
Yet, people who have NOT been through the meatgrinder take it upon themselves to weigh in with smarmy pontifications on how "if you play, you pay, yada yada yada."
When all the dust had finally settled, she'd managed to wreck not only my life, but the kids lives too. Economically, I was beyond wrecked. I did learn to detest lawyers with a passion. I also learned to PAY them. And pay, and pay, and pay, and pay...
It's amazing, the way the most worthless, lazy sack o'sh!+ lawyer -- while arguing your case -- will turn into a virtual TIGER while SUING you for his fee, when you don't cough it up fast enough to please him.
Well, now y'all know why I like my cats a lot more than I like most "humans".
Wasn't that the place that charged a 14 year old boy who was molested by a 31 year old woman for child support.
Yep this system works.
ILL (appropriate name) is the state where a few years ago, they arrested a ring of social workers who were taking kids away from families and then selling them (via fraudulent adoption proceedings). Basically, they were "kidnapping to order", similar to car thieves who "steal to order".
The amazing thing is that they were prosecuted.
Yeah, so?
So what.
She doesn't want the "burden" of "carrying" for nine months, and then two days in the hospital -- so, that justifies a right to "terminate the unwanted child"?
Well, he has to "carry" the "unwanted child" for eighteen YEARS.
By any rational measure, that would give him a greater say in the outcome.
NONE of this is about "fairness", NONE of it is about "the children's best interest" -- and ALL of it is about power and money.
To not see that, is to buy into the biggest BS propaganda campaign in history.
Please note that I am 100% opposed to abortion -- but, I would indeed support a "paternal abortion option", simply because it would result in the end of abortion, period. Remove the advantage, and, institute true "fairness", and it will no longer be advantageous to maintain it.
The day that women are told that "the father" can demand that the "unwanted child" must be terminated (exactly as SHE can demand that HE spend the better part of the next two decades paying her a large part of his income, or going to jail if he refuses), there will be a demand -- from the feministas for an end to abortion, period.
In most cases, that amount is in fact more than ample to provide the entirety of the child's support.
More and more, "child support" is NOT about "what it costs" to support a child, and is instead about maintaining "the household" at a certain standard of living.
In one state, at one point, they attempted to enforce a rule stating that the ex-father had to maintain his ex's household at the standard of living that the family "aspired to" -- PRIOR to the divorce.
This kind of stuff is beyond punitive. It is beyond the mere destruction of fathers and men. It is all about the total reengineering of our culture.
I want you all to think about that again -- the concept of an ex-father being obligated to maintain his ex's HOUSEHOLD at a standard of living they ASPIRED to before they divorced.
Were they living on $30 grand a year, but hoping to some day do a lot better than that? Did they "aspire" to something significantly better than that?
Well, under that kind of INSANELY evil regime, the ex-father, would somehow be obligated to elevate his ex-wife's standard of living TO that goal -- and, presumably, find himself a nice clean refrigerator box to live in.
THIS is the mentality that drives the new revised updated uber-modern concept of "child support." It's NOT about "supporting the child" -- it's a de facto ALIMONY, except without the penalties that "real" alimony carries for the recipient, i.e., alimony is taxable income, whereas "child support" is TAX-FREE. The ex-father has to pay the income tax on it, as if it was HIS income.
This is just one more crumbling brick in the wall of The Republic, along with the "undocumented immigrant" madness, and every other piece of the "Let's Remake America" agenda.
The sad part is that almost everyone -- other than those directly affected by THIS brand of madness -- is oblivious to it. Oblivious to the point that they even attack the ones they should be backing up.
The $250/month is supposed to be the father's HALF of support. The mother is supposed to kick in too.
So then, are you claiming your kid eats $500/month of food? As for the heat, utilities, etc... Get serious.
And yes, I raised a kid. And by the way, as a guy, I didn't get any support from the mom.
In a FAMILY, when money is limited, they engage in a time-honored practice known as "making do with what they have." They economize. They tighten the belt. Sometimes, in fact, they will even (*gasp*) "do without" certain things!
In a divorced ex-family, however, there is a different "world order" in effect. The government will simply "squeeze daddy" and make him pay, whether he can survive himself on what's left.
This is why so many ex-fathers live like monks, in small rented apartments, while their "former spouse" has a nice home, a nice car, and a decent lifestyle.
After all, he WILL pay, even if he can't afford it, when the alternative is prison. The hilarious part is that even while this is going on, the government schools will teach his ex-kids that "we don't have debtor's prison in this country."
Ah, yes, the "plague of 'deadbeat dads'". It sure is handy to have a large number of "deadbeat dads" to wave around, when trying to push through even more draconian legislation. And it's so EASY to generate them on demand. All you need to do is keep the "award" (don't you love that word?) just a tad higher than he can pay, and bingo! Even if he's "paying until it hurts", living like a monk, and only a "little bit" behind in his "obligation", he is a DEADBEAT, damn him! NO mercy!
And MORE enforcement!
Yes, there's good money to be made in demonizing dads.
Two BIG differences -- if it was alimony IN name, you'd be able to write it off as a tax deduction, and SHE would have to PAY income tax on it.
And, it would STOP when she remarries!
In a family, when they can't live at a certain standard of living, they tighten the belt, do without, etc.
That's all out the window post-divorce -- for the EX-WIFE.
SHE has a legal right to demand that HER standard of living be maintained, under guise of "child support."
The ex-father has NO right to ANY "standard of living". If he has to live in a box, so be it. The ONLY thing that matters is that he pay the "award" to the female progenitor of his former children.
I know of one case where he ex-father screwed up and paid the tribute twice in one month.
The Lord High Blackrobe said TSOL, if that's what you paid, then that was what you could afford to pay, and therefore that was your PAYMENT -- so, no, you may NOT carry it forward to next month's obligation!
A dead friend of mine (largely killed by his divorce) once told me that, "Lady Justice may be blind, but she is not deaf to the sound of a woman's voice."
Makes no sense under Roe v. Wade "logic".
If a woman has a "right to CHOOSE to 'terminate an unwanted child'" POST-conception, then a man should have that same right -- especially since HE will be on the hook for 18 years of payments to her -- which he may not want to pay!
She does not even NEED a reason to "terminate the unwanted child" -- POST-conception. So, neither should he. But, even if he DOES "need a reason", I'd call being subjected to 18 years of confiscatory attachment of income to be pretty damned significant.
But, if you insist that a MAN should be subject to obligation, whether he "chooses" to or not, "Once a child is conceived" -- then, so should a WOMAN. Thus, if a man "chooses" to NOT have a "pregnancy terminated", he should have the right to assert that "choice".
As it stands now, ALL rights accrue to one side, and all RESPONSIBILITIES accrue to the other side.
Coincidentally, this has happened in the same timeframe and context as the feminization of the culture. Go figure.
Now go write a song about it. I suggest, "Your Thetan Heart" :)
Unbelievable, isn't it, that so many otherwise sensible people fall back on the ol' "If he didn't want to be responsible, he shouldn't have opened his zipper" routine. Notice they NEVER say, "If the mother didn't want to end up a single parent without enough income to raise the kid, she should have kept her legs shut." Meanwhile, our culture is SCREAMING in pain from the long-term consequences of fathers' roles being reduced via family law courts to emasculated tokens whose only role is to provide money -- suicided teen boys, promiscuous girls desperate for male affection any way they can get it, popular music filled with hatred toward women -- I can only shake my head in amazement. For "conservatives," an awful lot of folks around here indicate the same narrow-minded template thinking as Liberals.
One comment:
The system is designed to belittle men and fathers in general. Don't believe me? Then start asking those around you. The system is NOT designed to to do what is "In the best interest of the child", Because it generally forces Dad out of the picture other than to hand mommy a check. What is best for kids is to have BOTH parents. Not just one or the other. BOTH. A system biased from the get go towards the mother is NOT one set up for the kids, and ultimately that is what it's SUPPOSED to be about.
Bingo.
They will take an ex-father apart, piece by piece, to extract "the last farthing" from him, to hand over to his ex.
But, they will do NOTHING to enforce a visitation order!
Furthermore, they will explicitly state that HER failure to obey the visitation "order" is NOT "justification" for witholding "support".
I paid, and paid, and paid... but, my ex didn't like the idea of "visitation".
She played every game in the book, including the "right-in-your-face-GFYS" game. Y'know how THAT game is played? It's real easy. Dad gets an "order" telling her that she has to STOP denying visitation. He then shows up to get the kids, court order in hand -- and, he shows up WITH A COP.
She refuses to hand over the kids.
The cop shrugs his shoulders, and says gee, you probably need to take this up with the court -- and then leaves!
"A Woman's Right to Choose" :)
So, if you have sex with your wife -- and so did the mailman and the UPS driver and the Jehovah's Witness door-knocker, you are ALL fathers if she gets pregnant?
Kicked ass, too. But not at an enormous cost of time, money, and severe stress.
Sole custody is worth it, though. And I'm going after child support now, too. :)
You may win a support "award" -- but it'll be a token amount -- and she won't pay, and, they won't MAKE her pay.
Been THERE, done that...
I've learned to scrape the "holier-than-thou" types off my Vibram Lug like so much dog-sh!+ :)
I'm happily married now, to a youger lady, and I have a nine month old son, but there is no denying that the whole process took an awful lot out of me. After all the dust had settled I became a hermit for quite a few years. I just could not deal with the insanity that runs much of the world. There are worse things than being alone, after all.
Still, here I am, getting close to 60, my health ruined, my finances a joke... but, I have my wife, my son, my cats, my dog, my cameras... For me, life is better than it is for my ex, even with her high-rollin' "life"style.
She may have destroyed my children, she may have taken the best years of my life, she may have cost me my health, and my wealth, but I'm still the winner -- compared to her.
You're right but like I said....it's near over....thankfully
Of course. Therefore, I expect to end up as a lienholder on her real estate.
I hear ya! I totaly hear ya. There is a great resource out here in cyberspace... http://www.deltabravo.net/ It has saved my sanity, AND has the best collection of links I have yet to find on the internet. It also has letters that you can use as form letters, tactics, and in general, answers to a thousand questions that I have not even figured to ask yet!
I wish you all the best, they hill you are climbing does have a top, it is just damn hard to see. Bless you and your kids!
Danae
I am with you 100%!!! And then some!
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.