Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Man Down in the War Against Fathers
FatherMag.com ^ | August 22, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

Posted on 08/22/2002 6:45:01 AM PDT by RogerFGay


Another Man Down in the War Against Fathers

August 22, 2002
By Roger F. Gay

America's Most Wanted put it like this:

Catalino Morales is wanted for the attempted homicide of five deputy sheriff’s in Allentown, Pennsylvania and for failure to pay back child support.

On Saturday, morning, December 9, 2000, eight deputies in Lehigh county Pennsylvania broke into Catalino Morales' home to serve an arrest warrant charging him with failure to make child support payments. According to the deputies, Morales barricaded himself in a second-floor bedroom and fired two shots through a closed door. He then shot out a back window, jumped onto a flat roof, and onto the ground where it is alleged that he shot at a deputy. The deputy returned fire but no one was injured. Morales escaped the immediate area.

Police say Morales then entered a house in the neighborhood and held a family of four hostage for several hours. The standoff ended when one of the residents managed to wrestle the gun out of Morales’ hands and Morales fled the scene. A massive hunt ensued, including search dogs, helicopters, and Allentown police; to no avail.

On the night of June 20, 2001 a SWAT team in Hartford, Connecticut surrounded Morales in a housing complex and shots were fired. No policepersons were injured in the encounters. Morales was hit by three of 25 police bullets, permanently damaging his hand and his leg and endangering the lives of the nearby residents.

He is a father. He is a man. He is allegedly behind in making "child support" payments.

It is unlikely that the child support system will be put on trial in defense of Catalino Morales, but it should be. Under heavy influence from a profit-driven collection industry the process of determining the amount of child support ordered and enforcement practices have changed dramatically within the past fifteen years. Political corruption is rampant and obvious not only to those who have studied the system closely but to many fathers who have been forced into subjugation by it.

Millions of men are treated arbitrarily and unfairly to a degree that compromises or destroys their chance to maintain themselves, let alone get on with a normal life. Many cannot do what the system requires them to do. Add to that years of harassment and threats from a long list of strangers, including half-witted pimple-faced high school drop-outs trying to collect to make a commission and female bureaucrats, possibly former welfare mothers, who revel in the opportunity to emasculate men. There is no escape, no reason. Every politician says so. Men and women with more power than moral character constantly remind them that this is what fatherhood is all about.

Then other strangers arrive with guns and invade their homes with the intent of taking them prisoner. They are experiencing the horror of a dictatorial police state.

Catalino Morales is one of many canaries in the child support coal mines. Year after year we watch the canaries die yet the workers are not allowed to leave. Those among us who have the opportunity to communicate are morally obligated to pass the word. This system must be abandoned as quickly as possible whether the masters wish it or not.

In the early 1990s, millions of fathers first experienced the suspension of constitutional law in domestic relations courts and the transition to enforcement of arbitrary en masse central political decisions. The new system seems designed to ruin men's lives. Decisions are arbitrarily based on statistical projections that have no basis in reality. State governments are encouraged to take as much from fathers as possible in order to increase the amount of federal funds they receive. "Public-private partnerships" formed with private collection agencies that benefit from higher child support awards and greater debt. Industry representatives control much of the policy making process, including the design of most formulae used in setting child support amounts.

With so many people involved, there has been a predictable variation in reaction to the change. The early 1990s saw the rise of the fathers rights movement, class-action lawsuits, a surge in the number of appeals filed against child support orders, and new national conferences on fathers issues. State and federal politicians were lobbied constantly to fix or abandon the new laws. Members of the Washington State Legislature received thousands of pairs of baby shoes from fathers trying to make a point.

There were also reports of increases in suicide and violence. The early 1990s saw news reports of the first of the early morning raids on communities to round-up hundreds of dads to cart them off to jail. It saw shootings in courtrooms, lawyers and judges taken bloody to ambulances, and fathers barricaded in their homes surrounded by police.

In Dallas, a lawyer representing himself in a divorce case pulled a semi-automatic weapon from his briefcase and opened fire. While one father was barricaded in his home threatening suicide if police came too close, he was telephoned by a reporter who wanted to turn the conversation over to a police negotiator. Feminist groups protested, saying the government must not negotiate with terrorists. News coverage on such incidents ended. Billions of dollars were spent increasing security in courthouses.

Despite the best efforts of ordinary citizens, the system got worse. Fathers rights advocates were largely cut off from making their appeals through traditional media that continued an enormous propaganda effort against the so-called "deadbeat dads." By the mid-1990s politicians were confident that the public couldn't get enough. Child support was on the political agenda in every election year. Politicians in both parties continually promised to make life tougher for fathers and passed law after law to do so.

By the late 1990s life had become so desperate for a few divorced men (in more than one country) suffering psychologically from the loss of their children and constant harassment that they took guns into day-care centers and held children hostage. Do you now understand how it feels, they asked before being gunned down by police snipers.

Due to the enormous weight of one-sided reporting on the child support issue, many people are still quite unfamiliar with the problem. It is easy to find people who believe that errors can be corrected and orders adjusted to circumstances by a quick visit with a family court judge or through some simple administrative process. They have been brainwashed into believing that men generally avoid what are presumed to be fair and reasonable obligations to their children. It is difficult for them to understand that millions of ordinary citizens are fighting for their survival in the midst of a constitutional crisis.

The Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the states define a system of checks and balances. Unreasonable orders are to be corrected on appeal. Unconstitutional laws are to be overturned by the judiciary. These are necessary safeguards against harmful, intrusive, and corrupt government behavior. But during the past twelve years the system has not functioned as designed. Everyone in government connected with child support, including judges, receive financial rewards for maintaining the centrally planned system and courts and prosecutors have cooperated to an amazing degree. This has created a situation in which no legal remedy for arbitrary and oppressive orders and overly zealous enforcement measures exists.

Some orders are so high as to be life threatening. They do not leave the person who is ordered to pay with sufficient income to support himself. Lives have been lost. But to create the order is not enough. Once bound, the system constantly threatens and harasses fathers who are unable to meet their arbitrarily assigned "obligations." Just give the situation more than two seconds thought. If you do not think that the system caused Catalino Morales to fire a gun and run for his life you do not pass elementary applied probability. You do not understand humans.

Unless the corruption in the system is dealt with and those abusing power and influence arrested and jailed, there will be more gunfights and more men brought down in the war against fathers. Some will no longer have the compassion for life that Catalino Morales displayed. Their instinct to fight when threatened will win out over flight. They will aim at police before firing and not relinquish their weapons to hostages. We will all be guilty if we do not hold those responsible for the child support system as we know it today guilty of conspiracy.

Copyright © 2002 Roger F. Gay


Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst and director of Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology. He has also been an intensive political observer for many years culminating in a well-developed sense of honest cynicism. Other articles by Roger F. Gay can be found at Fathering Magazine and Men's News Daily.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: childsupport; constitution; fathers; policestate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 1,081-1,093 next last
To: Don Joe
Why Don, have you ever considered the comedy business? Still ice. But you're guesses are giving me hysterics here.
221 posted on 08/22/2002 6:00:29 PM PDT by almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear; Don Joe; right2parent
Rarely do fathers "walk away from their children and not pay support", especially where the children were of a marriage and subsequent divorce situation.

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.

222 posted on 08/22/2002 6:02:55 PM PDT by DNA Rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

Comment #223 Removed by Moderator

To: almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
Is it not a wee bit vindictive to suggest that you're entertained by the idea of your ex living in his car? If I misread the comment, let me know, and I'll acknowledge having done so.
224 posted on 08/22/2002 6:08:22 PM PDT by DNA Rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
You were a half witted pimple face?

,,, 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.

225 posted on 08/22/2002 6:09:47 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: DNA Rules
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?
226 posted on 08/22/2002 6:10:06 PM PDT by almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
There are two groups of men: those whose primary goal is too get out financially, and those who want equal parenting time. The latter gets thrown onto the same pyre with the former.
227 posted on 08/22/2002 6:10:33 PM PDT by DNA Rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
=>He answered your question in the only way it was possible to answer it in a rational manner.

Your question was tantamount to, "Where in the Constitution does it say that husbands can't beat their wives?"

Uh, no. If you read the constitution, you will note that it has nothing to do with state/local courts, which deal with divorce/child support issues. To keep droning on about the constitution when it does not apply is irrational.

And when asked what kind of local laws he would put in place as fair, I got childishness.
228 posted on 08/22/2002 6:12:22 PM PDT by Home By Dark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Seriously, no one is interested in your personal problems, and it is most unseemly to be talking about them.

,,, at past 200 comments on the thread, would you say the depth of interest is underestimated?

229 posted on 08/22/2002 6:13:15 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: DNA Rules
The only idea I've entertained is that he brought everything that happens to him upon himself. But to enlighten the unenlightened (pay close attention Don), he won't pay it. So any car living will be because he chooses to live in his car in order to avoid support, not because I "emptied his wallet".
230 posted on 08/22/2002 6:13:48 PM PDT by almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo; Harrison Bergeron; RogerFGay
The frequency or lack thereof is a legit issue, because the idea that men/fathers are deadbeats by default results in mistreatment of the majority who are not. That is why the rarity/frequency element matters.

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.

231 posted on 08/22/2002 6:16:39 PM PDT by DNA Rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: All

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!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Miss a show? Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

232 posted on 08/22/2002 6:16:52 PM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
,,, rise and shine.
233 posted on 08/22/2002 6:17:08 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
What is your solution to irresponsible behavior that is harmful to our children?

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!"

234 posted on 08/22/2002 6:17:43 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: monday
=>For some men $500 a month might as well be a million. They can't do it. They don't have the skills, the education, the work ethic etc.etc.

Then they fail their children.

Possibly they should have remained childless??? Isn't this obvious?
235 posted on 08/22/2002 6:17:43 PM PDT by Home By Dark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
Not at all, but complaining isn't getting anything done! Get a move on, get some decent advice, and go see your kids. Send something for their support, and if the ex puts any obstacles in your path to seeing your kids, enlist an officer of the peace to stand on her doorstep. I guess I just can't get it, and I apologize if I offend you. This couldn't have happened if you had had adequate legal advice at the outset. Maybe there's malpractice here. It couldn't hurt to look into it...or is it too much trouble...easier to complain...
236 posted on 08/22/2002 6:17:57 PM PDT by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
=>"HE HELD A FAMILY HOSTAGE! (Yeah, I'm yelling.) This guy shouldn't be a poster boy for any cause, except maybe the National Organization for Women. Any woman would be a fool to stay with this creep."
So in other words, when there is an ongoing rash of postal workers "going postal" -- so many in fact that the term grew legs and became a colloquialism -- it's sheer folly to try to examine why the Postal Service creates that many flipout cases?

A criminal act is a criminal act is a criminal act. The why of it only explains the failure of character; it does not excuse that failure.
237 posted on 08/22/2002 6:20:07 PM PDT by Home By Dark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel
I am interested in exposing the heartless ideologue's wacky ideology. I am also interested in guarding the reputation of this forum from both the cop-haters and the women-haters.
238 posted on 08/22/2002 6:20:52 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
He's paid nothing for his room and board or the dog's, avoided bankruptcy, I helped him rennovate and sell his home, put a few thousand dollars in it to get him top dollar to pay his bills and meet his obligations. When his dog was hit by a car, I paid the $2,000 for the surgery to save it's life and you think I'm a schmuck? Wow! I asked for nothing for 8 months and when his obligations were taken care of I asked him to make a contribution to his son's support, and I'm Josef Stalin? You are one creepy bastard, and I see why you are in the boat you're in. Keep writing your articles for the helpless parasites you represent and I swear when it finally hits you in the ass, you'll still have to have help to understand why you're alone with the other pathetic losers.
239 posted on 08/22/2002 6:23:47 PM PDT by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: DNA Rules
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.
240 posted on 08/22/2002 6:25:07 PM PDT by almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 1,081-1,093 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson