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]

Unfortunately they are men and sadly, they are fathers. I have watched the children in these families grow into teenagers who learned that their fathers were so self centered that the children didn't count.

Nope. Not fathers. The highest I'd rate them is sperm donors.

[null and void]

Steady! You're starting to turn my head...

[familyop]

Nice profile page, Shaggy--sincerely! I should do something
with mine.

[shaggy eel]

Do I sound bitter?

,,, not at all. Everything you've said is fact and you've conveyed it all rationally. I've been down the same road and it's amazing how inequitable the whole thing is, but not at all surprising when you consider who's driving the process.

[familyop]

"Nope. Not fathers. The highest I'd rate them is sperm donors."

There's money in that, you know. We taxpayers pay huge
sums of money to keep the bureacracies going for that.

[Don't look at the total collected. Look at expenses vs.
the difference between what's collected and what would
have been collected without the huge, phony alimony/support
bureaucracy. ...not much.]

[shaggy eel]

Nice profile page, Shaggy--sincerely! I should do something with mine.

,,, what's life for if you can't have a bit of fun? That isn't actually me in those obnoxious shots. Go to the FR homepage of "Calvert Cliffs Cafe" and you'll see that I make a token appearance in a cartoon drawing.

[null and void]

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

Never gone that route, myself. But I've been told by several that have, that "something changes" when it's formalized.

I really hope you are one of the lucky ones.

[cardinal4]

Go to the FR homepage of "Calvert Cliffs Cafe" and you'll see that I make a token appearance in a cartoon drawing.

Calvert Cliffs Cafe? I used to live near Calvert Cliffs! How are ya Shaggy? This thread is quite scary, as Im getting narried in October. I think we will make it, she is a wonderful person and Im very lucky to be marrying her. And your invite still stands!

[shaggy eel]

I really hope you are one of the lucky ones.

,,, thanx, but luck's a small slice of the pie. This time round (in laboratory language), I tested extensively.

[shaggy eel]

,,, as always, my invite stands. Have faith in her, have faith in yourself Cardinal and make a stand together to make each day better. Curve balls will be tossed at you from time to time but you'll have the strength to deal with them.

[Pukin Dog]

I've got to ask you, do you have a pre-nuptual agreement? If not, you should be scared. I understand from this thread that every one of them was a 'wonderful person' in the beginning. You have to have a lot of marriages before you can have so many divorces, right?

Do you know what is worse? The crazy ones are better in bed than the 'June Cleavers'. The very thing (if you are honest) that attracted you in the first place, will be the thing that is used against you later.

[cardinal4]

We do have an agreement on paper, and it was her cooking that got me! She also knows the infield fly rule. We own a house together, and share all the bills, some are in her name, some in mine. We both have kids from previous engagements and she carries a picture of my daughter, and she has never even met her. When I found the picture in her wallet while looking for money, (with permission, of course!)I knew she was the one. Thanks for the advice, though.

[Pukin Dog]

On paper? What does that mean? I wish you the best, but if that 'paper' does not have the stamp from a notary, you might as well smoke that paper in your pipe.

[mlmr]

That is the tragic piece. Before the divorce each of them were involved fathers. The changes that caused the divorces left these men with a different perspective. For the children it was like Daddy disappearing. Maggie Gallagher has a great book out about children and divorce called

The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially
by Linda J. Waite, Maggie Gallagher

[Jack00]

<> Yes, you should ONLY be expected to do what your ex is expected to do if she is in the same situation. But what's that? Well, she can dip into her savings. You don't have any because the court has bled you dry. She can borrow from the bank until she gets back on your feet. Your credit has been destroyed by the divorce. She can apply for government assistance if you're out of the picture. You can't get that because you're a male without custody. (And the reason you don't have custody is your sex). She can find ONE McDonald's job to take her over the rough spot, whereas YOU will need 3. If you are paying the usual percentage of support, it can take about half your paycheck. What lay people don't know or care to know is that even though the court doesn't usually quite take HALF your money as a non-custodial parent, since you are also obliged to pay the TAXES--both federal and state--on the money you give her, you can wind up easily paying her half. That's not what it takes to raise a child. This isn't about CHILD support, it's about wealth redistribution, and that's not American, it's Soviet. How many of us are aware that even as the Wall was falling in the East, its counterpart was being bolstered here in the West and now stands firm as a reminder that our enemy is us? (mention)

[Jack00]

Yes, he should work to support the child, BUT he shouldn't have to pay $600 a month in addition to what it costs him to live. If YOU lose your job, you and the child can live on less. If HE loses his job, he goes to jail EVEN if he pays you enough to support the child, if it is less than the arbitrary amount set by the court (the courts apply a formula based on an assumption about what he probably can make. The assumption can be tragically wrong, and in that case, he inevitably goes to jail). The amounts have nothing to do with what it costs to support a child. They are arrived at by groups that believe firmly in the Soviet notion of wealth redistribution.

[YankeeReb]

These "women's lib" judges are man-haters. They bend over backward to give everything to the woman, and couldn't care less if they destroy the man for the rest of his life.

Amen to that, but there are plenty of male judges who have even less sympathy for the father. My theory about the male-bashing male judge is that almost all judges eventually dream about seeking higher offices. It wouldn't look good for them to be accused of letting a "deadbeat dad" (don't you just hate that term?) get away with "not paying his fair share". To that end they bend over backwards to make sure the guy doesn't get an even break. Now, just wait until the day you need to go after her for child support. I'm fighting that one now and it's nearly impossible. Take it form one who's been on both sides of child support roulette, it's a rigged game and the man almost always loses.

[Jack00]

Deadbeat dads are practically a figment of the liberals' (Ds and Rs) imaginations at this point. Read the blockbuster "Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths" by Sanford Braver.Custody and "child" support are the biggest scam of the last century.

[null and void]

I'm getting married in October.

Do. Not. Do. It!!!!

[dixie sass]

Instead of griping about it, why don't you go to the courts, explain the situation and work out a payment plan until you are employed.

Those children are still your responsibility whether you are married or not.