Posted on 08/22/2002 6:45:01 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Rather, psuedo-Victorian mater-centrists ignore the injustice of having courts strip men of their natural right to parent their own children, while still expecting those men to pay their ex-wife X amount.
,,, indeed I was. Older and wiser now though - and surprisingly good looking for the pimple episode. I pay child support and have never missed. I was kicked out in Dec 1994 as she decided she would rather live with my Dad. I've told this story before here on FR. I ate 2 minute noodles as I came out with only $35 and a credit card. I had my clothes, some books and little else. She got the $330k house, the Volvos and a lot of other assets. I was able to start again because the half wit I had was more than enough and I used it.
Just as a matter of interest, I started my own business and at the end of the last tax year gross profit was 47% of turnover. Airlines regarded as healthy may be doing 2 - 3%. Child support can't take any of that. You see, as much as the system has used me, I've learned to use it. I can fully relate to how the system serves lawyers primarily and how legislation ties up men who, in good faith are under the impression they're doing their best or the right thing, only to be dumped on their arses by a system that's having this effect.
Roger Gay may be called a sensationalist for posting this particular thread but would you have really clocked into it if it said "Joe average didn't get violent - keeps paying child support"? This is an illustration of the desperation the system can force some people to.
Rarely do fathers "walk away from their children and not pay support", especially where the children were of a marriage and subsequent divorce situation.Well Mr. DNA, rarely do men rape other men, rarely do women rape other women, rarely do women run over their dentist husbands with their cars repeatedly.... Are you suggesting none of these perpetrators should be punished for their behavior? I don't think how often something occurs is the issue so much as the fact that it does occur and saying it's ok is not the answer. What is your solution to irresponsible behavior that is harmful to our children?
,,, at past 200 comments on the thread, would you say the depth of interest is underestimated?
My solution? Mandated joint residential child custody between all biological mothers and fathers not proven criminally unfit. Then child support issues disappear, because each parent pays the bills that arise during their equal parenting time. Of course, medical bills and such might require mediation to divide.
On NOW at RadioFR!
Joining Doug from Upland will be Marsha Richards of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation! The teachers union in the State of Washington does not like the people at EFF. They would love to whack their knuckles with a ruler, give extra homework, keep them in at recess, and give them detention!
Miss a show? Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!
The heartless ideologues have the same social-Darwinist solution for any ill which harms our society and our children, whether it be divorce, abortion, adultery, pornography, drug abuse, or sodomy:
"Who cares? So what? Too bad!"
My solution? Mandated joint residential child custody between all biological mothers and fathers not proven criminally unfit. Then child support issues disappear, because each parent pays the bills that arise during their equal parenting time. Of course, medical bills and such might require mediation to divide.Okay, but mind if I pick this one apart a bit? ;-) How would you mandate joint custody on abandonment? That doesn't fall into criminally unfit...it's just someone who's unavailable. Or shall we make abandonment a criminal charge? That would be ok by me BTW. ;-) How would you handle JC between two parents constantly battling one another and hurting the kids even more because the court forces them to work out something they refuse to work out? How would you handle JC that is ordered but not adhered to because one parent either won't take their time with the child or won't give up the child and you don't have the money to run back to court everytime? There are more instances I could toss out, but this shows you I would never settle on any mandate for all or even most. Case-by-case is the only way something like this could work. Might I start with my suggestion? Don't have a single solitary judge making the ruling, but more like a jury or panel to hear divorce cases. You stand a better chance of a fair ruling when you have an equally matched panel of jurors than one possibly biased individual.
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.