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!

[PigRigger]

"what exactly would men vote for?....."

To start; politicians who are more willing to appoint judges that take a father's position more favorably.

The examples detailed on this thread make it very obvious that the judges in question look at the father as a means to an end; not as human beings who are "suffering" as well. If you throw in attempts by men to gain custody you're really talking a lost cause. I don't wish to argue whether men really want custody. However, the facts are clear; where men and women both want custody, women overwhelming win.

As it stands now, most of the family courts are overseen by liberal judges who buy into the leftist agenda of NOW and groups like them.

You may not agree with me; but that's my belief.

I have some friends who have lived this nightmare. Most say they will never marry again.

[zoesmom]

ok, i admit it, my own irritation caused me to be unneccessarily harsh. i agree that he shouldn't have to pay more than he is realistically able to earn.

my experience here in the State of Florida, is that judges RARELY put the fathers in jail for non payment of support. they only go that route after it has become painfully obvious that the father is able to pay but chooses not to, and has no intention of paying in the future. there are intervening measures that the courts take instead (such as suspension of drivers licenses), and the whole process takes YEARS.

a male friend of mine, here in florida, was in a similar situation and was terrified of having to go to jail. what he did was provide PROOF that he was unable to earn at the same level at which the support formula was calculated. it was a lot of work, time consuming, and burdensome. however, he did not go to jail, and he had the courage to face it rather than declare a "legal tragedy".

this guy said that he has no intention of responding in Florida, and that he is certain he will go to jail. given what i know and my own experiences trying to collect child support in the state of florida, i seriously question this man's prior payment history and his level of cooperation with the courts.

i have no doubt that there are some women who use their children as pawns and hostages. the children and their fathers have my sympathy in these cases. i am equally sure that there are women out there who manipulate the courts and the child support system to maximize their financial gain above and beyond what it costs to raise their children.

however, i do not know any of these women. i know single mothers here in florida and other states from all walks of life and NONE of us receive in child support anything close to what it costs to raise a child.

the vast majority of single mothers are not stupid people. we cannot afford to hire lawyers unneccessarily. we are also very busy. we don't have time for vindictive nonsense.

and you are correct, the amounts the courts arrive at with their formula have nothing to do with the actual costs to support a child. for example, a friend of mine gets her $60.00 BI-WEEKLY child support on time and on a regular basis. another gets $75.00 a week. some others get nothing - because the father finds ways of working off the books and somehow convinces the judge that he can't work, or can't earn as much as he used to.

there are abuses on both sides, and rarely does either party feel as though they are treated fairly.

[null and void]

My ex-husband married a woman with a considerable income and my support was reduced! Amazing, but true.

A roulette wheel is quicker and every bit as fair as divorce court.

[null and void]

I bet you would be offended if I turned this around and said that "better yet, girls, if you want kids, go get a black guy.....the men are real men, strong, virile, great athletes, and they don't have cellulite, and of coures there is that "added" benefit....

My 15 yo daughther is dating an 18 yo guy of different ethnic background - what's your point??

[JimRed]

I have no idea what a split tail is.

Vulgar slang for a female.

[null and void]

suddenly it occurs to me that you might prefer another gender.....

After 7 years with Margaret, celibacy is REALLY good...

[AppyPappy]

A hitman is always cheaper than a lawyer

[null and void]

in cases like the one you stated, I think some of these wives are just "trophies" and have no loyalty let alone love for the one who bought the trophy....

'Fraid so.

Marrying for love works soooooo much better...

[null and void]

I have some friends who have lived this nightmare. Most say they will never marry again.

Add one to the list.

[Rebelbase]

Why have you failed to respond to any of the posters? Is it becuase the ignorance of your #19 comment has been exposed?....Come on out and backup your comment.

[null and void]

there are intervening measures that the courts take instead (such as suspension of drivers licenses)

Yup. That makes it Sooooooo much easier to find a job...

I personally know a man who was barely scraping by as an auto mechanic, when the court in Orange County CA pulled his license to "encourage" him to pay more support - despite the fact that his ex did not want them to! (He was starting to "get over the hump" starting his own business).

Imagine trying to fix cars when you can't test drive, or go pick up parts...

[Rebelbase]

In comparison to the other slang words available I think split tail is the least vulgar.

[null and void]

Why have you failed to respond to any of the posters?

Truth terrifies some?

[Rebelbase]

I think it probably embarrasment more than fear.

[null and void]

Naaaaahhhh, she's as shameless as a clinton...

[Montfort]

The judge I used to clerk for in WV invented (or first applied) the "primary caretaker" rule to replace the tender years doctrine. That way, if you happen to be one of the rare men who is the primary caretaker, you are moire likely to get custody.

I have no idea how it turns out in the real world (since I left the practice of law), but it is a bit of improvement over the tender years presumption. I would not be a bit suprised if the judges even where primary caretaker rule applies still bend over backwards to give custody to the woman, even one who is not primary caretaker.

I saw the bias in my family law class at UVA Law, in class discussion of a case involving a husband who married a very wealthy woman and was seeking rehabilitative alimony (short-term alimony during re-training and the like).

The wealthy wife had wanted him to leave his job to spend time with the family, and he did.

The general consensus of the class was that the guy had gotten a good deal and deserved nothing from her upon divorce. It seemed to me that they saw him as a man who was by definition the sole receiver of all benefit of the marriage (sex, etc.), and was supported by his wife as well, so he had had it too good.

Of course, if a gold-digger decides to marry Johnny Carson for two years, she is seen as providing him with valuable services and he owes millions. It all amounts to a legalized contract of prostitution with the assumption that only a woman serve and a man can only receive services.

If I remember corrrectly, she had 6 million dollars back when that was a heck of a lot of money, yet the class would begrudge the husband even short-term support while he retrained to re-enter the work force. If the tables had been turned, there is no way they would have felt this way.

The men's advocates are the odd man out, facing a phalanx of organized women's advocates and law-and-order bureaucrats who presume that every man is a deadbeat, or would be if given a chance. They only get a little more respect than an advocate for drunk drivers would get at a conference on drunk driving.

[Jack00]

MensNewsDaily is a favorite of mine, buddy. I'll check it out, and thanks!

[Jack00]

Right you are!
Only with the wildest spin can anything the gender feminists say be construed as conservative.
I do find Christina Hoff Sommers helpful though, even though she calls herself a (equity) feminist. I thoroughly enjoyed "Who Stole Feminism." She shows how feminism was hijacked.
But lately I've been thinking that maybe the whole concept is flawed. Maybe the "conservative" male apologists of feminism are like those liberals who insist that the Soviet Union fell only because the system was mismanaged and are incapable of admitting that the whole concept was flawed and doomed to fail from the very start.
Look at what happened after the Great American Cultural Revolution of the 60s with all the "culture change" and social experimentation:
- - illegitimacy increased by 500% (See Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal, March 15, 1999)
- - divorce increased by 250% (See: "Welfare Reform and a More Civil Society: Fathers and Faith as Community Building Blocks," Hudson Institute, 1990
- -violent crime rose 600% (Ibid).
- -and the number of families without fathers increased from 17% to 38% (up to 90% in inner cities) (Ibid).
- -Child abuse rose 2,300% (US DHHS)
- -illegal drug use rose 6,000% (National Inst on Drug Abuse).
--education outcomes in America sank to last place (49th) in the industrial world even as we outspent every other nation per child ("Kids Who Kill" by Mike Huckabee).
This whole disaster very well could be attributed to our tampering with age-old time-proven traditions!
Peronally, I have had it with social experimentation of any kind. Bring back heterosexual marriage for life, esp when kids are involved--no matter how many problems are involved. And bring back Judeo-Christian religion and values. They were NOT the cause of all our problems as liberal eggheads believe. They could be our only salvation in the end.

[Jack00]

Asia? I was ripped off by a Chinese woman who believes in the Maoist idea that certain interest groups (in this case, women) are entitled to everything, and everyone else--esp hard working white males--are oppressors and running dogs. Lost my entire life savings and she tried to separate me from my son as well. There is nowhere safe in the world right now, although I did remarry a Latin American lady, and one thing I can say in their favor: they generally marry for love and remain faithful (woops. Am I courting the jinx or what!?)

[ImFightingMad]

---

"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."

---

I have been trying THAT! The courts don't care that I'm involuntarily unemployed, they still want me to pay the amount from before! That is more than my unemployement!

If I was still married, while I was unemployed looking for a job, would the courts interfere? NO! The family would have to cope with the situation until I got a job. And guess what, NOW there are 2 sets of expenses that have to be paid because of the divorce! That was her choice NOT mine!