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]

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

Happier?

Yeah, right, I was on the very edge of suicide.

[null and void]

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.

Did you read anything he said?

Or is your knee jerk rusted onto hair trigger?

[familyop]

And see MensNewsDaily.com for something on "Susan" in a few days. ;-)

[sweetjane]

No, I don't think kids should go with the most money. They should go with the most responsible parent they are closest to. It's a tough call most of the time. In my case, as a child, both of my parents were equally negligent but in different ways.

I'm divorced too. My ex-husband left me and my sons, who were ages one and three at the time. I didn't follow because I knew it would be worse being married to him in CA than it was being married to him in OK - absent of family support, part of his family and all of mine. (If you don't know the full story you can't judge, any reasonable person would likely agree with me).

My ex hasn't paid child support in over a year and yet demanded visitation in June. He's required to pay for visitation. I let my boys (6 and 8) go with him to CA for 3 weeks. It was three of the most miserable weeks of their lives.

If I'd kept them from going, I'd have been in contempt of court. I hoped for the best. Unfortunately it was the worst for them, but at least they now understand why I didn't follow their dad. They totally understand, even at the ripe old ages of 6 and 8.

Now I'm working on a case to require in-state supervised visitation. I don't care to go after him for back child support. And I hope it doesn't come up because I do not wish to send him to jail. I don't believe that sending him to jail would further our cause, or his, in any fashion.

[familyop]

"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."

I've seen men try that, and they were refused. They were
to pay by the order, on time, regardless of circumstances.
It can take a long time to have alimony/support adjusted
through the courts. The men get this treatment, because
feminist minded women whine incessantly to the judicial,
the legislative and to feminazi law professors who have
much control over members of both as they graduate.

The root of the problem is caused by skewed societal
attitudes, which are are caused by propaganda from
the feminist left. The same propaganda goes to Republicans
with a false conservative twist. The root of the
problem will begin to die in a few days as feminist
lies of the oldest kind are exposed with facts to the
general public.

Hmmm. This thread is now over 300 posts, and feminist
replies can't help but be transparent to conservatives who
are now learning. :-)

[BrianK]

In a state with an "enforcement agency" that you pay,
the wife can do nothing to stop, adjust or alleviate
the payment or arrears. It doesn't matter how one
gets on with her -- or if she is understanding.

The GOA had already confirmed that most collecting
spouses whose ex's were in arrears were usually unable
to pay the funds. The GOA replied by deleting the
question.

[wardaddy]

Be careful...it can work and when it does, it's the greatest gift God grants either sex.

But, any woman inclusing wonderful women otherwise will use the children (they maternally view them as a possession, but that's another thread).

It's natural...because they can.

Say you get in a knife fight and you can grab the 44 on the table....are you not going to use it?....unless you're a swordsman (yes I know you already are metaphorically) but you get my point.

Women use the kids because it's a weapon granted them by our society and it works like a charm on repsonsible dads.

[wardaddy]

I'd abolish no fault divorce and automatically granting custody of children beyond the age of 3 to the woman for starters.

...if I were King.

[BrianK]

Child support generally already strips the payments a normal family makes for adverse conditions and passes
it on to the recipient spouse. The funds are already
passed on -- it would be nice if the states would actually
come clean on what they are doing.

I am curious from your letter. Could you kindly outline
what type of provision a parent, say self-employed, with 3 kids would make for their future if tomorrow he/she was to become disabled. Say something minor in insurance terms -- like a damaged back that stops you from sitting or standing for any period of time, but doubles you up in pain. Of course, you weren't eligible for insurance, so what do you suggest would actually work?

This could happen to any woman. Are you suggesting we should sterilise the lot because they might damage their back sometime? Or just men?

[wardaddy]

Indeed. I'm bitching tonight but believe me, I'm much better than 8 years ago when only God kept me from being homicidal.

Ironically, my wife #2 is my greatest strength, ally and inspiration that keeps my perspective keen and sound.

She prays daily for the girls to live with us. Not many wife #2s or step-moms especially who already have two of their own with the estranged husband who are gonna take that high road when it comes to offspring from the "first family".

[BrianK]

You mean this woman did not contribute equally to the cost and effort of raising of the children? She should be jailed!! That is terrible -- parents have a responsibility to their children!!!

[shaggy eel]

,,, it sounds like you and I have really scored well in the second wife category. Time's a great healer. Good to know you're doing OK.

[wardaddy]

Oh yeah....practical matters.

Be cool and smart with the money till you are damn sure. It's one thing to make sure she is in high cotton if you die early but telling her where all the bodies are buried ($$$$) is best saved till a decade or two into the union when you know she can be trusted "until death do us part".

They or their lawyer will go for your money even if they leave you. They will never stop either. You buy a new car...child support will go up. Buy a new house...she'll ask for more. It never stops. Easier to pay than fight them in court. Average court hearing will run you 20K minimum. A full blown trial can go 50-100K or more and shiteloads of depositions.

Family court is such fun.

Now, everything I do business wise is in trust. My wife #2 is secured by a large life insurance policy I have on myself(and the house and contents and vehicles)....and I can change that in a heartbeat....God forbid.

[BrianK]

No, the losers are the ones paying $4,500 per month and who are not getting to see their kids.

It seems to me that $4,500 a month would buy an awful lot of risk free fun. If no kids, well, you wouldn't get to parent them anyways.

[wardaddy]

Yes indeed..( a Southern gal, it's just easier for me). She is wonderful and we share life and our two boys together. I am very lucky.

She and the boys and my once lovely and less grungy looking daughters are all on my profile page.

I love her and trust her but she and I agree that since her more than ample needs are already secured that all the graavy is secured for children and grandchildren.

[familyop]

"I'd abolish no fault divorce and automatically granting custody of children beyond the age of 3 to the woman for starters."

...if I were King."

...meaning to *stop* automatically granting custody that way?
Then you run for the office of King. I'll vote for you.

[Welsh Rabbit]

It was just an idea. I was remembering a former friend, who after high school, instead of getting a job, moved in with his grandmother and started visiting the state mental health board (this was in Alabama) every few days in order to get declared unable to work. It took about a year, and with the help of a lawyer, he somehow got his dead grandfather's social security (I forget the official reason, but whatever it was, it was total BS). I guess, like the courts, such institutions do nothing for honest people with legitimate issues. I'm no stranger to depression myself. I didn't get much out of psychological counseling, but that's just me. I really hope this guy finds someone who can help him.

[trussell]

ivelearned be careful who you marry, ppl should be triple careful when they have children.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I made the mistake of marrying a man (the father of my children) who later stole the children one day when I was at school (college courses) and work.

I have made bad choices in the men I have been involved with. I have decided that until my son (age 3) is 18, I will stay single and will not subject my children to a man staying over.

Both of my children are very trusting, and willing to give of their hearts too freely. I do not want them to be hurt by my bad choices ever again!!

[Welsh Rabbit]

The guy was forced to take an involuntary layoff in a quickly shrinking field and has to live on $1000 a month. His ex is making a comfortable living as an RN. One son is about to turn 18 in less than a year, and is already earning his own money. The other son recieves Social Security. The court has already told him TS.... Yeah, he should just stop bitching. /S

[wardaddy]

Hon, you can get a man without him "staying over".

I never had a lady friend stay over when my girls were with me (about 1/4 the time).

Even when I remarried we waited till we WERE MARRIED before anything around the girls...even on trips. One stayed with her and one with me.

Keep the faith dear.