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

Skip to comments.

Father Torches Car in Protest Over Child Support
Anchorage Daily News ^ | October 18, 2002 | Tataboline Brant

Posted on 10/20/2002 7:46:13 AM PDT by RogerFGay

Edited on 07/07/2004 4:48:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

CHILD SUPPORT: Officials say suspect had threatened staff before.

Two floors of the 19-story Atwood Building were evacuated Thursday morning after a man parked his blue Mercedes near the building's entrance, doused the car with gasoline and set it ablaze.


(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-319 next last
To: Conservative til I die
Thanks...for a minute there, I thought I was trying to defend the indefensible.

I have NO time for gold diggers.
But I certainly have NO TIME WHATSOEVER for men or women who walk away from their responsibilities.

I don't have any children.
And I am blessed to have two parents (one now deceased) who put their children FIRST.
To the extent that my late Mother is MY icon, and I love my dad..even though we don't get along too well at times.

But no matter the reason, my father ALWAYS loved his children, and provided for them.

Someone who HATES a woman he was involved with is fine. BUT HOW, HOW, HOW, can he hate his children?

He's a prize A...PRICK!!! (Therefore should have mandatory sterilization)

Now there IS a thought!! Guys who don't pay child support should be made have vesectomies.

281 posted on 10/20/2002 5:56:22 PM PDT by Happygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
And that all equates into being...HE IS AN ASSHOLE.

EH? :-)
282 posted on 10/20/2002 5:59:13 PM PDT by Happygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I think Ohio, or at least my county, uses a company out of Michigan. As I said before, I never received any assistance by anyone. I never needed it since I made good money and my ex paid $150 per week (three kids). He was ordered to pay $40 per child and my attorney signed off on that. He laughed at my stupid attorney and paid me the extra $30. He knew I deserved it and trusted me to put the kids first. At first he refused to pay through the support agency and sent the money directly to me. The agency threatened to sue me because I cashed the checks without them going through them. My attorney informed them that I could cash any check that came to me. Finally, my ex cleared everything through them and got the payments caught up (again). I sent the money back to him and we called it even. He was sued about five years ago for $28,000 back support that he didn't owe. My kids are now 32, 30 and 28. If I wanted the money at this late date, it should have been up to me, not the state of Ohio. Of course, there were snafus but that was the fault of shoddy bookwork and idiotic laws. I'm not sure what happened but would like to see sensible laws with sensible people administrating them.
283 posted on 10/20/2002 6:00:51 PM PDT by Jaidyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
We have raised a generation where divorced parents is the normal thing. We have a generation of young men raise by vindictive angry single women. In the university system there is anger at any woman who stays at home to raise kids. (I had one friend whose wife finally got sick of the criticism and just replied that she "planned" to go back shortly just to shut them up.) Look at what the left is dominating television, strong dominant women with a beta male patsy as a side kick with an endless checkbook.

There is no easy solution. But you are right in educating children is the key. Those children with active involved parents. (not just daddy de jour) Do the best in school. Women must re-learn to be women, Men must re-learn to be men. Society as a whole need to get a healthy view of marriage. Marriage is seen too much as TV Paradise. It is not a perfect marriage unles all the proper PC trappings are there. When will this change? When men say "no." Enough BS. Not in some pansey, whiney way. Men have to say it with the check book. CBS you have a pansey daddy show, fine I am writing your sponsors to say why I and my buddies are not buying Pepsi. Jeep, you advertise with men as idiots then I will buy the product that does not. Men must vote with their wallet. Men must buy the politicians who support REAL reform. (like getting contingency lawyers out of the support system)
284 posted on 10/20/2002 6:01:56 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
Actually, the solution is to have a legal presumption of automatic father custody, rebuttable only where the father is proven criminally unfit.
285 posted on 10/20/2002 6:20:34 PM PDT by Z in Oregon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool
I was married for 10 years, mothered 2 wonderful children, and my husband destroyed it all by disappearing with our children. He said (told a friend) it was so he wouldn't have to pay child support for them. He accused me of things that never happened so he could get custody. He said then he was going to give the kids to his cousin because she wouldn't make him pay support.

I treated him like a king, I was faithful to him, and never cheating on him. (He, on the other hand, was engaged before the divorce was even final). I was in school, trying to get the education I needed to go to work, to help with the bills. He didn't work steady the entire marriage.

I was granted full custody of the kids, and he was ordered to pay $150.00 a month to help support them. He has made one payment since May. I have paid the entire bill for their support. I am fine with that, because when I do get the support payments, I split them in half and put them in the bank for the kids for college.

Women do have just as much responsibility for making the marriage work as men do, but what about when the women did nothing wrong and the man disappears and takes the children with him.

I intend to stay single until my children are grown and out of the house because I can't seem to find a man who has his head screwed on straight; and I refuse to subject my children to being hurt by a man I choose as a partner.

286 posted on 10/20/2002 7:35:38 PM PDT by trussell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
My ex, on the other hand, has screwed himself. His daughters never want to see him or establish any kind of communication. He is, I am sure, a very lonely and bitter man.

And deservidly so. (Is that a word?)

287 posted on 10/20/2002 8:06:32 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Z in Oregon
Sounds like "gandersauce"...
288 posted on 10/20/2002 8:09:05 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Admittedly some people do have hellacious marriages.

You have no idea...

289 posted on 10/20/2002 8:10:50 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman; RogerFGay
At the time of our hearing, he owed my daughters 5K.

Not to try and make lite of whatever you're situation was, but this the statement above, and one's just like it, is a real pet-peeve. Your children were not owed $5000, you were. Child support checks are not made out to "the children." The children are not legally entitled to have ANY child support collected spent on them. They are not entitled to any arreages collected after they become adults. Hell, the child support enforcement agencies refuse to even print "Money for the support of (child's name)" on the memo line of the checks that they send out.

I'm sorry to hear that you and your kids had a hard time with the situation. It just seems like the people who argue the most about keeping the kids out of the middle of the arguments usually have no problem with using those kids to demonize their father's.

290 posted on 10/20/2002 9:11:57 PM PDT by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Your children were not owed $5000, you were.

Correction, the money was not mine. It was to be spent on caring for and providing for my daughters. Thus, in my mind he owed the money to them...not me.

the people who argue the most about keeping the kids out of the middle of the arguments usually have no problem with using those kids to demonize their father's.

I'm not exactly certain if you are implying that I was guilty of this behavior, but I can assure you that the many broken promises he made to his daughters resulted in their decision in more recent years to avoid him at all costs.

291 posted on 10/20/2002 9:20:47 PM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: trussell
Women do have just as much responsibility for making the marriage work as men do, but what about when the women did nothing wrong and the man disappears and takes the children with him.

You've made my point. It takes two who understand what a vow is, and have the personal integrity to see it through, even when it seems easier to cut and run. We've both been on the receiving end of people who place personal convenience and selfish interest above their responsibilities. Sad to say, there are a lot of people like that out there. I've always said I'd rather be in a relationship than be alone, but I'd rather be alone than be in a bad relationship. My life for the last 11 years has been peaceful, if not full.

Actually, I've learned to be OK with being alone. Sounds like you are in similar circumstances. We have to play the hand we're dealt, like it or not. God willing, we'll both find a person worthy of us, and move on. In the meantime, I wish you success with raising the children, and that they grow up to be good and wonderful adults. My kids did just that, and they make me very proud.

292 posted on 10/20/2002 10:15:18 PM PDT by nobdysfool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
Does that include the times that women in a marriage are impregnated by other men and then decide to get a divorce so they can go out at night and "party" even more?

You left out one verrryyyyy important part. Don't forget that the man in the marriage will pay the woman for 18 years for getting impregnated by that other man in the form of "child" support. Even if he proves it's not his, it's STILL "his responsibility" to support that child.


293 posted on 10/20/2002 11:16:00 PM PDT by realwoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
I beg to differ. My ex, who violated our marriage vows numerous times, did exactly this. He found a good lawyer who convinced the judge to reduce his already meager child support payment to zero.

BULLSH1T! No judge ever lowers it to zero! They DO NOT have the discretion to do so. Unless you don't live in the US.

294 posted on 10/20/2002 11:22:49 PM PDT by realwoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: realwoman
BULLSH1T! No judge ever lowers it to zero! They DO NOT have the discretion to do so. Unless you don't live in the US.

Are you calling me a liar? Are you telling me that my daughters and I did not go through what we did?

We got zip, zilch, zero, NOTHING!

And Madam...this happened in Illinois.

295 posted on 10/20/2002 11:43:20 PM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: realwoman
I have seen a judges (plural) reduce support to zero on more than one occasion. When a child has been proven to not be the fathers during the course of a divorce. When the mother was not spending child support money on the child. (ie recieved money for private school and went on cruise, said needed daycare money but child was left with relatives for free.) Child was from previous marriage and wife falsly testified it was the product of current marriage in order to obtain temporary support.

BTW legally the support payments belong to the child not the custodial parent. This is so it can never be waived. When an unmarried woman gets knocked up and tells the fool she is keeping it but she wants no money from him, it is legally meaningless. Even if HER waiver is signed, notorized, and witnessed by 100 religious clerics.

296 posted on 10/21/2002 4:36:28 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
"Translation: "Serves the wench right."

You have..............issues, my friend.

Your daughter.........and subsequently, you..........got the raw end of the deal with her ex, to be sure. However, the point was a valid one: Why in GOD'S NAME would she stay with some asshole who beat her for eight freakin' years???? I just don't understand that, I've never understood that, and I never will understand that. NO excuse or pseudo-explanation can possibly work in such an instance.

Next question.

IF you knew about it, why did you "allow" this asshole to beat your daughter for eight years? If you didn't know about it, drop the last question and we'll label it "off the mark".

However, I'll tell you this, as a father of seven: Any prick that beat one of MY daughters would be eating through a straw in an ICU for a long, long time.

297 posted on 10/21/2002 5:18:40 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich; Catspaw; Roscoe
He's predictable. The father is always wronged, no matter the circumstances.

One poster on a Gay thread (ya know, with a name like Roger F. Gay, and his intense animosity towards women, one might be forgiven for engagin in irresponsible speculation about his sexual orientation :o) was complaining about having to pay $300 a month in interest on a $200 child support payment that he'd gone into arrears. When I checked his state's laws, I found that the APR on child support arrears was 10%. In other words, he managed to owe $36,000 on $200 a month--which meant that he hadn't paid one thin dime in 15 years. And he was complaining that HE got shafted...not one of concern for his children, though.

298 posted on 10/21/2002 5:24:51 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Here's one marriage from hell.  I wonder if Roge is going to feel sorry for the Dad:

As parents' argument turned deadly, sons watched, waited

New records detail how family unraveled

By LISA SINK
lsink@journalsentinel.com
Last Updated: Oct. 20, 2002

Waukesha - As Dale Huebner strangled his wife, Carla, with his necktie, their 16-year-old son watched, refusing his mother's dying pleas to call 911.

18134Dale Huebner
alt
Photo/File
Dale Huebner (above)strangled his wife, Carla (below).
alt
Photo/File
Quotable
Mom started screaming, 'Stop it' and just screams. I ran out of my room and down into the basement and plugged my ears and cried.
- Son, 13
How can you go to a movie if you know your mother is dead? How can you turn your back on her?
- Anneliese Rothkegel,
Carla Huebner's mother

"No, you chose, you chose," he told her, angry that she was leaving their father and befriending another man.

The couple's 13-year-old son had run to the basement, where he covered his ears and cried.

The older boy stood by as his parents struggled, fell together over a chair, hit an amplifier and landed on the floor, his father on top of his mother.

After Carla, 44, stopped struggling and died, the 16-year-old said, his father went to the kitchen and began popping prescription medications and drinking brandy in an attempt to commit suicide.

Dale Huebner told his sons to go to a movie and come back in four hours, that the pills should kick in by then. That was about 5 p.m.

The boys obeyed their father and left - and didn't call police for seven hours.

They passed the time by driving around town, walking around a mall, eating dinner at a Cousins Subs shop and twice returning home to check on their father, who each time was still alive.

Then they went to a movie, viewing the R-rated comedy "Not Another Teen Movie." When they returned home, their father was still unconscious. Only after weighing the pros and cons of calling police did they phone their paternal grandparents and then police about 11:40 p.m.

"The pros for letting Dad die was he was going to be with Mom, he wouldn't have to go to prison," the 16-year-old wrote to police. "The cons for Dad dying - what if Mom's not dead, we could get into trouble. We didn't want to screw ourselves for letting him die."

Sentencing document

The teens' chilling description of the murder and its aftermath were made public for the first time as part of a lengthy memorandum prosecutors filed in Waukesha County Circuit Court in preparation for Dale Huebner's sentencing Nov. 1. The boys' names are not being reported by the Journal Sentinel because they are juveniles.

Described by prosecutors as an obsessive, controlling husband who would fine and otherwise punish his wife for late dinners and other violations of his rules, the 47-year-old Huebner was convicted after pleading no contest to first-degree intentional homicide.

He now faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison. Waukesha County Circuit Judge Michael Bohren must decide when, if ever, he should be eligible for parole.

Prosecutors will use the memorandum to argue that he should never be released for the horror they say he wrought on his wife and sons.

The memo - buttressed with a reporter's lengthy interview with Carla Huebner's family - provides the first public look at the boys' actions the day their mother was murdered.

The sons originally told police that they had not witnessed their mother's slaying on Jan. 6.

At the Waukesha police station hours after the 911 call, the boys told officers that they had left the house that afternoon because they were tired of listening to their parents argue.

They originally told police that they found their dead mother when they returned. Finding their father unconscious, they called their grandparents and then 911, the boys said.

But police, suspicious about discrepancies in their stories, kept digging.

Slaying described

On Jan. 21, after keeping their secret for two weeks, the boys wrote new statements.

"I verbally tried to stop a fight that couldn't be stopped," the 16-year-old stated.

He also wrote that he and his brother saw their father pull off his necktie - which his wife had given him for Christmas just days earlier - and come up behind their mother in the 13-year-old's room and wrap the tie around her neck.

The younger boy wrote that he thought his father was leaning in to give his mother a kiss. When Dale pulled the tie around her, the 13-year-old wrote, "Mom started screaming, 'Stop it' and just screams. I ran out of my room and down into the basement and plugged my ears and cried."

The older brother wrote that he stayed in the doorway.

"I wasn't sure that my mother couldn't breathe," the 16-year-old wrote. "She said, 'Call 9-1-1.' I said, 'No, you chose, you chose.'

"She was also yelling 'Dale! Dale!' I was yelling 'Please don't file charges if Dad stops' and 'Dad loves you.' "

"My mother put up a pretty good fight," the 16-year-old wrote. When it was over, he said, his father knelt next to her.

"My dad said, 'You're my wife. I'm sorry.' He also said something to the effect of, 'You will always be my wife.' "

He also assured his boys that the man he insisted Carla was having an affair with "has no right in your life." Carla had denied having an affair.

Family's nightmare

Carla's parents, Hans and Anneliese Rothkegel, said that they still are struggling to deal with their grandsons' actions - and inactions.

"My God, so Carla was lying there from 5 to almost midnight before anybody called," Carla's mother said. "How can you go to a movie if you know your mother is dead? How can you turn your back on her?"

The Rothkegels have not seen their grandsons since the funeral. The boys live with Dale's parents, Robert and Elaine Huebner. Carla's younger sister, Heidi Nienow, who was appointed as the boys' legal guardian, attended the 16-year-old's Catholic confirmation in May, as did Rita Vosburg, Carla's older sister.

"Not knowing what really happened that night, you're afraid to make the first move," Vosburg said.

Carla's mother said: "I think about the boys so much. I always ask Carla - give me a sign, what should I do? It's not easy to just lose two grandchildren."

Carla's father said that the family may someday resume contact.

Of Dale Huebner, Carla's mother said bitterly: "He should never walk the street again, that's for sure. He should have life in prison."

"I don't have any feelings of hate," Hans Rothkegel said, but added, "I'm very, very angry."

Charging boys considered

Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher said his office considered charging the boys for failing to come to the aid of a crime victim.

"I was, and am, very concerned for the boys," Bucher said. "I wanted to get them into therapy and treatment as soon as possible. We were ready to act if that was not going to occur."

Craig Kuhary, Dale Huebner's lawyer, said his client wished the boys had never been home that day.

"I think if Dale would say anything it would be that they were just kind of caught in the middle of a no-win situation. And they shouldn't be judged on their actions that particular day," Kuhary said.

By all accounts, the boys excel in school. The 16-year-old had the lead in a summer school play, Carla's mother noted. His younger brother is talented at several musical instruments.

The prosecution memorandum, written by Bucher and Assistant District Attorney William Roach, cites "fear, a sense of loss, loyalty toward their father or anger toward their mother" as possible explanations for the boys' behavior on Jan. 6 and the days following.

It also paints a picture of Dale Huebner as an obsessive man who went to great lengths to dehumanize and exert bizarre control over his family.

The boys were not allowed to watch any live television. Their father used 11 VCRs and five televisions to constantly tape programs, which he had to approve before the boys could watch them, the memorandum says.

According to checkbook receipts found in the Lemira Ave. home, Dale Huebner would "fine" his wife when she would disobey his orders or disrupt his desires.

An Oct. 2, 2001, note to his wife said he was fining her $500. The reason: "Before we plan to have sex bringing up something we were arguing about in attempt to 'quickly win' just before. Or generally bringing up dumb and distracting non-sex crap at this time."

Tuesday and Saturdays were "sex nights," said the memorandum. Every night, dinner had to be at exactly the same time, or she would be fined for every minute late.

When he said she once left a window open and lied about it, he fined her $100. Her failure to put an office file on the dining room table as commanded cost her $40.

Dale Huebner was often unemployed, and Carla generally paid the bills through her income as a legal secretary, a Mary Kay cosmetics saleswoman and later a financial investment counselor for a business the couple created.

Police obtained notebook paper on which Carla Huebner had written the same paragraph 10 times, in an apparent punishment for criticizing her husband.

It read: "I will honor my husband when speaking in public and I will not reveal any wrongdoings that I may or may not participate in when speaking to the public. By remembering this I will not be placed at risk or put anyone else at risk and I will not compromise my posture and position with the less experienced in my field."

Bucher said that as cold and horrific as the boys' behavior was the night of the slaying, he decided early on that he wanted to focus on Dale Huebner - the one who did the killing.

"How he dealt with his sons and the controlling nature of Huebner, it just didn't seem appropriate to focus on anybody other than Mr. Huebner," Bucher said.

Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Oct. 21, 2002.


299 posted on 10/21/2002 5:46:54 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; RGSpincich; Roscoe
I forgot to ping you for my #299.
300 posted on 10/21/2002 5:49:43 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-319 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