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.
"I do appreciate the extension of assistance but alas I must graciously turn down any and all assistance by yourself."
Thank you for confirming your delusional state with that amazing piece of evidence.
I expressly state that I can't help you, and your poor deluded mind perceived it as an offer of assitance.
How sad.
Sorry, you don't make a very convincing argument.
If you really believed any of that, you wouldn't be endorsing the massively destructive left wing agenda that not only demonizes fathers, but goes out of its way to destroy them, all the while empowering their former wives to become parasites who use "child support" as an alimony surrogate.
"Personal responsibility"? Yeah, right. For men only -- and in spades.
Wow. A "God is on our side" feminist.
You do exactly what I did, I continued paying child support, I called them when I could and they called me when they could. I tried the legal system to little effect but when they turned 17 they came to me on their own and told me that they loved me and it was as if the years of separation never happened. Yes men get shafted many times and before the feds stepped in a woman could move across the country without notice to anyone. I still had to pay but I never resented it and I was rewarded later because of it.
Why don't you ask John Ashcroft?
He's a member of the same denomination I was baptized in. The church where I was baptized had a female pastor.
And I don't think you'd get too far with the claim that the Assemblies of God is pro-abortion.
But then again, when I consider the lies that have been leveled against me in this thread, I should probably reconsider that.
It took a woman being on the receiving end of this travesty, for the court to acknowlege that the system is wrong, evil and in fact, utterly corrupt. Interesting conclusions all:
"Therefore, this Court finds that men are adversely impacted by the Guidelines as applied to a grossly disproportionate degree, which constitutes an impermissibly discriminatory effect on a group based upon their gender.
The shrill harpies of the feminist left that scoff, "you played so you must pay" (for me to go shopping with my ne w boyfriend) are not going to like this court finding... but it is going to be cited a LOT from now on along with the "hidden alimony," citation.
That counties and states keep a percentage of this ill gotten gain in their coffers as revenue, and share it with private collection agencies who are friends with the elites of the state, really puts the frame on this dungeon of horrors.
I liked the fact that the JUDGE legally listed about 15-20 items as seperately violating the constitution both in spirit and letter, state and federal...
Like "women", for example.
Finally, the correct parenthetical other half to the most overused phrase in family-issues debates! Well done. :o)
It is a recipe for domestic chaos.
How typical of the feministas to persist in their vain attempts to reframe the terms of the debate when confronted with evidence that evisicerates their lies.
Some of the high points of the court's decision really jumped out at me:
Custodial parents typically receive $200 to $350 per month in extra after-tax income just for having custody. These child-related tax benefits are head of household status, child exemptions, child tax credits, child care credits, and earned income credits. Both parents have an equal duty of support for the costs attributable to the children. Both parents are equally entitled to the cost offsets attributable to the same children but in proportion to their obligation. Not sharing the child-related tax benefits violates equal protection. Not sharing the tax benefits with both parents is an extraordinary benefit for the custodial parent and an extraordinary burden for the non-custodial parent.
...
5.The presumptive award results in the custodial parent receiving a huge financial windfall-or profit-in excess of child costs.
For typical income situations, the custodial parent ends up with a higher standard of living than the non-custodial parent-even when the non-custodial parent earns significantly more than the custodial parent. This is an extraordinary benefit for the custodial parent and an extraordinary burden for the obligor.
In the current case, expert testimony has shown that the custodial parent's profit (presumptive award less an economics based award) is substantial.
...
The outcome is that the custodial parent does not contribute to child costs at the same rate as the non-custodial parent and, often, not at all.
...
7. Evidence presented based on presumptive after-tax, after-child support awards and the standard of living benchmark of the U.S. government's poverty thresholds show that the Guideline presumptive awards include such large amounts of hidden alimony (presumptive award less an economics based award) that a non-custodial parent is unable to provide for a child when in the non-custodial parent's care to the same extent as in the custodial parent's household.Presumptive awards have been shown to typically exceed total actual costs according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
...
Such excessive child support awards are not in the best interest of the child because the non-custodial parent is not able to sufficiently provide for the children while in the non-custodial parent's care. In the current case, the presumptive award leaves the non-custodial parent in poverty while the custodial parent enjoys a notably higher standard of living.
...
8. The Guidelines are biased toward including hidden alimony for the custodial parent even when the custodial parent earns substantially higher gross income than the non-custodial parent.The Guidelines do not meet standards of fairness even for alimony. If the Guidelines did, there would be a narrowing of the standard of living gap for the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent has a higher gross income.
...
10. The presumptive award for low-income obligors (for example, minimum wage workers) pushes low-income obligors below the poverty level. A presumptive award that leaves the obligor with less income than needed for basic living needs creates an extraordinary burden for the obligor and, potentially, an additional burden on taxpayers.
This violates equal protection.This is contrary both to public policy and common sense.
...
Additionally, the presumptive awards rise as a share of net income-which conflicts with all child costs studies.
...17.Which parent is the obligor and which is the obligee should be determined only after examination of the relevant factors-not before.
The financial circumstances should determine which parentis obligor. The Guidelines arbitrarily presume that the obligor is always the non-custodial parent when the financial circumstances may indicate just the opposite.
...
18. The Guidelines interfere with a non-custodial parent's constitutional right to raise one's children without "unnecessary" government interference. The Guidelines are so excessive as to force non-custodial parents to frequently work extra jobs for basic needs-detracting from parenting without state justification.
...
As these workers are forced to "disappear" into unofficial society, these obligors are deprived of the constitutional right to raise their children without unnecessary government intrusion. In fact, any government mandate beyond basic child costs interferes with this right to privacy as occurs with the current guidelines.
...
19. In the present case, the earnings of the obligee, Samuel Sweat, significantly exceed those of the obligor. Nonetheless, the guidelines require the obligor, Michelle Sweat, to pay out a significant amount of her before tax income to the obligee, to whom this money will be tax free. The income of the obligee will be considerably increased, and he will have the tax advantages attendant to being a custodial parent.
Additionally, the obligee will have the additional benefit of his new spouse's earnings. In the meantime, the obligor's net earnings will probably put her at or below the poverty line, and will in any event leave her with less than half of her earnings to live on. This scheme thus constitutes a windfall to the obligee and financial disaster to the obligor.
...
Due Process
The United States' Constitution provides that no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law." U.S. Constitution, Am. 5, Am. 14, section 1. The Constitution of the State of Georgia contains an almost identical guarantee at Ga. Const., Art. I, section I, paragraph 1. Protection from arbitrary state action is the very essence of substantive due process.
...
Unconstitutional Taking of Property
Georgia's guidelines as set out in OCGA Sec. 19-6-15 (b) are unconstitutional per se and as applied to Michelle Sweat in that by reducing her to poverty status she is thereby denied access to the courts in violation of the Constitution of 1983, Art. 1, Sec. 1, Par. XII which reads, "No person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend, either in person or by an attorney, that person's own cause in any of the courts of this State."
In this case Ms. Sweat has filed a separate motion for recordation of these proceedings; however, as a result of the confiscatory nature of the guidelines she will be unable to afford to pay the cost of transcribing the proceedings, and as a result, may be denied her right to appeal. It is therefore ordered that the State provide Michelle Sweat with a transcript at no cost to Michelle Sweat in the event of an appeal.
...
The decisions of our sister States in holding unconstitutional statutory presumptions that custody of children of "tender years" should be awarded to the mother is also persuasive. State ex rel. Watts v. Watts, 350 N.Y.S. 2d 285 (N.Y. City Fam. Ct., 1973), Commonwealth ex rel. Spriggs v. Carlson, 368 Atl. 2d 635 (Pa., 1977).
Procreation is both a joint act and a joint responsibility.
...
That is, the government's interest in family expenditures on children, whether that family exists before or after the dissolution of marriage, or even in the absence of marriage, is limited to insuring that the children's basic needs are met.
Not extravagances, not luxuries, but needs. Once that occurs, government intrusion must cease. Moylan v. Moylan, above.
Again, what a stunning indictment of all the rabid anti-male, anti-father, pro-feminist propaganda that has flowed in this thread like a river of blood in the streets of Moscow in 1918.
Those who persist in defending the indefensible in light of this incredible yet obvious ruling are taking a stand against everything that this country is based upon.
The irony will hopefully not be lost on them. The court chose to select a case where the mother was the party who was harmed by an obligation to pay a confiscatory amount of alimony masquerading as "child support".
In closing, I'll note that much of the attacks leveled against the common sense men in this thread would of necessity be leveled against the Georgia court, because it not only declared the same facts, but even used the same language.
If, after the above decision has been posted, we see so much as a single taunt against those men who point out the reality of "child support" being an inequitable form of alimony, we will know the true depravity of the pro-feminist "conservatives" who disrupt this forum.
I doubt that the harpies, harridans, and castrating bitches of the left will find much consolation in that fact, though.
But that's OK. They can "just shut up and take it," after all. And considering the sheer number of times they've barked out that dicta, I'm sure they'll have no problem applying it to their own sorry excuse for an existance. :)
Actually, I was thinking the term could be defined by listing the aliases of several vocerifous posters in this thread. :)
Can't have class warfare without first creating an "oppressed" class an an "oppressor" class.
What is equally sad and galling is how many seem to be cheering on the process. The French Knitting Team only hears music to its ears as the Repubic bleeds into the gutters.
As I see it, the "God is on our side" mantra is more of an afterthought than a battle cry. The main thing that keeps the anti-father agenda going is Ol' Reliable: "Might Makes Right".
Although of late I'm noticing a disturbing trend towards "Arbeit Macht Frei". And although it does have more impact in the proverbial "original German," it is sadly a literal observation, no matter how much I might prefer to be able to invoke it as hyperbole.
I haven't counted the times I've seen A-M-F rant along the lines of pay up and shut up, get a second job, get a higher paying job, etc., if you want to [fill in the blanks].
Reduced to its essence, it's "work makes free".
Literally.
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.