Legal Tragedy for Unemployed Divorced Men & Fathers

[ImFightingMad]

I am writing this to make this Legal Tragedy better known and also in hope that someone could help the thousands of us in this tragic situation.

Like many Americans at this time, I have been laid off. This in itself is bad enough for most Americans, but those of us that have been divorced face a Legal Tragedy that is against The Constitution and all moral concepts. Men are almost exclusively affected by what I am about to tell you. This shows the discrimination of the courts and the laws in this country.

Since I have been laid off, I am only “earning” unemployment insurance, which is only 16.6% of my previous gross income. I therefore cannot pay the alimony and child support that the courts ordered in my divorce in Florida. I do not even have enough money for my own expenses. The courts in Florida are looking at finding me in contempt of court because of non-payment. They would therefore put me in jail along with countless others for the same reason. This makes no legal or moral sense in many ways:

1. If I was still married and got laid off, would the courts care, of course not! The family would have to do what they could to survive. But, since I have been divorced, and there is no relationship anymore, I’m supposed to support them over supporting myself, otherwise go to jail. How does this make any logical, moral or legal sense? Why is it that since I am divorced I have a greater financial responsibility than I ever did when I was married? Why should all of my rights be taken away because I am unemployed now, and yet my ex-wife is suppose to maintain the same or better lifestyle as when I was employed? This again, would not be the case if I were still married. This shows that divorce laws take precedence over basic human rights and are stronger laws than marriage itself, which is a bond with God.

2. If I’m in jail, how am I supposed to find a job? After being in jail, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to ever find a good job again!

3. This type of incarceration was abolished with the 13th Amendment. Which prohibits Involuntary Servitude. Also 8 USCA-56 prohibits Peonage.

Why should my life and other’s be completely destroyed just because we were ever married and now unemployed?

Isn’t the fact that I, and many others have lost our jobs enough of a tragedy in itself? How does completely destroying the rest of our lives solve anything? In this situation, what could any of us ever do to help ourselves?

I was extremely involved in the 2000 Presidential election, supporting George Bush. I lived and worked in Austin, Texas, but I was still a registered voter in Florida. The government and country that I so dearly loved and put so much energy into, has now let me down.

Please Help!

[null and void]

I could find a job @ 50% of my old income without much of a problem!

I'd cheerfully take a job like that. My industry is hurting much worse than that. I did finally land a consulting gig. It's part time, it's temporary, but it's a JOB!!! WooHooo!!!

[null and void]

I remarried in February 2002.

wow a whole year and a half of bliss. i'm impressed. check back wid us in 5 years...

[mlmr]

There was a reason fathers were the traditional heads of the home for a couple of thousand years. It is to our discredit that we abandoned that.


Do you think I DISAGREE with that?

[familyop]

"Ahem, you ARE speaking to June Cleaver reincarnated. There are many more of us than you would imagine."

ROFLMAO! Yeah, right. Then help us get rid of the Tender
Years Doctrine, "best interests of the child" and other
socialist trash that brought us the divorce rate we have
now.

[cardinal4]

You should have kept your pants on.

I have seen some a**hole posts in my time here, but yours just got bumped to the top. Did you even read the post before you posted such a hateful and uncalled for response?

[moondancer]

goodnight all...hope this thread is still going tommorrow. got little one to tend too. night!

[wardaddy]

I'm glad to hear you don't.

I'm bugging out. I have a wonderful wife now and 2 in diapers and I keep this crap compartmentalized usually but the past week has been a very bad one in this arena for me.

Nite!

[mlmr]

That's right guy, I'm a fembot who has been posting daily to FR since 98......

I think that you have a responsiblility to support your children. I mean we dont want to have Marxist "from those who have to those who need" mentality here. We are responsible for our own. Yes, I agree the money would be better in a trust. But then you wouldn't be supporting your children.

I am sorry you feel so stuck.

[Jack00]

You wrote: <> Yes, you are right. I counsel non-custodial parents and have learned thru that and also the hard way that if I lose my job in this town, I can be jailed and there is nothing I can do about it. I was told that by a lawyer, then by another, then another, etc. I went thru 9 lawyers and gave up. I WILL be considered a felon by one judge in this county if I LOSE MY JOB THRU NO FAULT OF MY OWN. You who posted replies about the difficulty women have bringing up kids without the father's income are mixing this topic with another issue. YOUR issue, though legitimate, has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality or legality of jailing INNOCENT men! But until Americans wake up and realize that these are separate issues, men will continue to be harrassed just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. As for the "keep it in the pants" argument, again, that has no relevance for millions of men who did the "right thing" and married the woman they loved, only to be booted out some time after the kids came along. In fact it is incredibly insensitive and hurtful to many decent men. According to an article in the June 2000 issue of the American Spectator, by Cathy Young, 60-70% majority of divorces are filed by women AND, here's the news no one wants to know or admit: according to polls, these women are NOT typically bailing out because of abuse or infidelity. No one who is not intimately acquainted with this topic ought to even try to talk about it until you have read the book "Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths" by Dr. Sanford Braver, arguably the no. 1 expert on the subject (he was hired by the Clinton administration to research the topic of deadbeat dads and found to his amazement, that these so-called deadbeats were almost invariably men who were either unemployable or DEAD; their names got on the lists by "mistake" by a zealous child support agency anxious to bolster the myths.)It's excellent reading and will bring you up to speed.

[wardaddy]

Women got married then for love, security and children.

Men were more bound by honour.

Now the system knows no honour on either side.

[NCjim]

Ping for later...

[null and void]

Will I ever get married again? Well, if the choice is Marriage, versus Drawing and Quartering, Maybe. But short of that, Probably not...

Drawing and quartering is atleast quick...

[mlmr]

let us twist this scene one more time. You have the little ones and are stretching to make ends meet with your paycheck and child support from the ex. She marries the oil baron.....you arent going to go back to court to get more for your children? The courts see that children should share in a proportional amount of the parents incomes. Ie: the physican in an established and flourishing practice pays more child support than when he was a struggling intern. It is about getting more so the children have more to stand on to lift them up at the begining of their lives.

[familyop]

"Now the system knows no honour on either side."

Ditto! Sometimes, it's a good idea for a government to
forget its vanities, step back a little, and only use ideas
that work.


mention
backlash

[maxwell]

I got a call this week. My goofy doped up ex-wife living now in NYC La-La-Land environs let my 14 year old girl get an eyebrow ring and the 15 year old a lip ring....did she call me to ask what I thought knowing full well I'd have a coronary? Hell no...

Coronary is right, dude.

Every time I read y'all's stories on these threads, the time frame in which I'd be willing to get shackled gets extended about ten years... At this rate I might consider getting married in the year 2130...

[familyop]

Lord_Baltar has honor. The parents who care about their
children the most will provide for the children in their
home. Besides, men who pursue so-called child support
(new alimony), have custody taken from them. ...been
there, done that, seen it many times.



mention backlash

[null and void]

LOL...too true! when i went to court for our trial my mom came with me, she brought her knitting to keep her busy while we waited. security made her lock up her knitting needles because they were a potential weapon, sheesh. we had a great laugh at that one!

They were probably afraid she was going to knit an Afghan...

[familyop]

"They were probably afraid she was going to knit an Afghan..."

and support the evil patriarchy? That would be enough
to get any "officer of the court" foaming at the feminist
mouth.

[shaggy eel]

wow a whole year and a half of bliss. i'm impressed. check back wid us in 5 years...

,,, if it's any help, you can add to that almost three years of being shacked up beforehand.

[Jack00]

You mentioned suicidal disposition as an excuse for the court. According to Dr. Warren Farrell in the book "Father and Child Reunion," the suicide rate among men rises something like 1000% after divorce. It does not change among women. The system could care less whether a man looks suicidal. The courts and psycho-the-rapists drive us over the edge. Been there. Despondant thoughts are our constant companions.