CHILD SUPPORT As Theft (Disguised Alimony): The Feminist Idea Of Independence Is She Takes His Money

World Net Daily ^ | Debbie Schlussel

[IronJack]

it's a dictatorship via feminist-matercentric judicial fiat.

Ja wohl, citizen! Iss dere a proplem mit diss?

[DNA Rules]

Exactly. Didn't we win WW2 so that we could avoid fascism and instead have democracy within the framework-parameters of a true Constitutional Republic?

[DNA Rules]

Ah yes, debtors prison. Resurrected from the dark ages for fathers only. Meet the new enlightenment of feminism. It's a lot like the old enlightenment of slavery, apartheid, etc.

[DJ MacWoW]

These ridiculous rules were enacted to protect kids but they never did. I was a child of divorce in the 50's. My Dad never paid a dime of child support. My Mom even found my Dad, spending precious funds on a private investigator. We gave the court his address but they never did anything. Mom worked a variety of jobs, at a theater, as a waitress and finally as a personal secretary to an executive. That secretary gig lasted 4 years then the company moved. Back to being a sales clerk and 50 ways to eat hamburger. We couldn't afford a fancy lawyer. These women in the article are manipulating the laws that were meant to protect kids in the situation we were in. Too bad they never did. My Dad just died in March. His 4th wife got everything. Do I care? Not really but I'd have loved to have been mentioned for getting some kind of momento or keepsake. The law can't change a selfish, thoughtless Dad, they just enrich a conniving wife.

[Brytani]

I don't think the point of the article is that he was unwilling to support his child, it clearly says Kerkorian has been voluntarily paying $75,000 per month for a 3 years old and yet that was not enough for the mother.

Now, I'm sorry but I'd venture a bet there isn't a single poster on FR who wouldn't be thrilled to have 75k coming in a month, and some would be thrilled to have that coming in a year. The point is greed and the family's court willingless to support that greed.

Can you justify in anyway any child needing $320,000 a month, which is what the mother demanded, for living expenses? Can you even justify $75,000 a month? Reading the article again, the mother was requesting $102,000 a month for food for a 3 year old. What 3 year old need that?

These are examples of people with the financial resources to hire the best lawyers to protect their interests, to use the legal system to their advantage, yet they are charged with absolutely unreal child support obligations time and time again. Look at how much Rudy Guilliani has been ordered to pay his ex-wife and for another eye-opener look how much Mic Jagger was slapped with for his daughter. If family courts can do this to people who have the unlimited resources to fight against it, image what they do to the average Joe.

[DNA Rules]

The laws were written to presume that every father is a deadbeat philanderer who left his innocent flower of a devoted housewife for a barmaid trollop-floozy gold-digger, and that the guy must is living it up and partying every night with his new trophy harlot while his sainted long-suffering ex feeds the kids warmed over macaroni each night as she patiently moves jars and buckets to catch the rain that drops through holes of the shack she and the kids are forced to live in.

That's the feminist-proferred image that laws and rulings are wrapped around.

Reality---in most cases---is much different!

[DNA Rules]

The "best interests of the child" has long been conflated with "what the mother wants". Momma wants $320,000 a month? She gets it. Men out there, do three things: be a co-equal caregiver of all your kids from birth, even if so being entails career sacrifice; get a prenup; fight like everything depended on it in the event of a divorce.

[DJ MacWoW]

presume that every father is a deadbeat philanderer who left his innocent flower of a devoted housewife for a barmaid trollop-floozy gold-digger, and that the guy is living it up and partying every night with his new trophy harlot

Actually, that was my Dad........wine, women and song. His 4th is younger than me. As a kid, he used to take me to meet his girlfriends while Mom was at work. I thought my Daddy was a prince so I never told....what does a 5 yr old know? He was fun. No school the day we bought a new convertible, it was a holiday. All of that stopped when he left. Unfortunately, he was a diabetic and his lifestyle caught up with him.

[Brytani]

That won't even help in some cases. There are men in this country, in all states, that have 50/50 shared parenting (child lives with them 50% of the time) and yet they still pay child support to their ex-wives.

My husband in fact, was told by the courts in Texas for over a year to continue paying his ex-wife child support even though one son was living with his Grandparents at the time and the other was living with us. I know previously in this country parents were let off the hook when it came to supporting their children (I'm talking both parents here) but now the tide has swung way to far to the other side.

[CDHart]

"How about the poor stiff who's wife leaves him through no fault of his own?"

I work with a woman whose husband left her and the two kids for someone who "paid more attention to him." The husband also works where the wife and I work (interesting situation, and I try not to take sides). He resents paying anything toward the support of the family he abandoned.

OTOH, my son-in-law has paid for years and years to the child support mess in California. His wife left him and took the kids. California charges interest on child support. Now that the kids are 18, he is finally out from under it.

There is no fair solution to these dilemmas, except to return to the obligations of husband and wife, and the duty to their children as outlined in the Bible, the original owner's manual.

Carolyn

[carenot]

Thanks for the ping.

[DNA Rules]

A shame, but if the kids live with dad half the time, the family will be OK. A person can recover from getting financially soaked, so long as their right to parent isn't taken.

[carenot]

I know their are golddiggers out there, heck, maybe I don't blame them. Maybe it is a job.

About 10 or 15 years ago there was a woman that was a "sitter", that is someone that stays with and helps mostly bedfast patients.

Anyway, she got a job with a rich old man. He refused nursing homes and hired her to look after him.

His kids seldom came to see him.

After she worked a few months for him he wanted to marry her and she said no. But he kept asking and she finally told him she would, because he would get so upset when she would tell him "no".

She kept putting it off until he got so upset that she had to call an ambulance.

After he was stabilized she agreed to be married. They were, then a few months later he died.

This woman was old (50 or so), fat and unattractive. The old man had changed his will, and left everything to her.

His kids contested the will but lost.

[DNA Rules]

There is no fair solution to these dilemmas...

Of course there is. Remove the carrot that bribes women to divorce: certain custody of the kids and everything that comes with that (the house, child support, etc.)

[DNA Rules]

A very "Anna Nicole Smith" story... I don't know. All the money questions aren't even in the same ballpark as the right to parent. In the end, everything boils down to that.