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!

[familyop]

This was a good thread for awhile, but maybe it's devolving
into a ZOT.

[familyop]

My apology, shaggy. After re-reading ranger's post, your
reply is more understandable. ZOT request retracted.

I was in ranks (and in the field, sleeping in holes in
the earth) and followed orders for seven years. For
some (combat line soldiers), it's one of the most
miserable ways to serve. And yes, I agree that ranger
deserves a good retirement, for sure.

Thus, my kneejerk... Even training to stop enemies from
confiscating property and enslaving nations can be
difficult. Memories bring some feelings of long term
loneliness back to bear.

[moondancer]

somewhere along my travels thru FR, i missed exactly what a ZOT is, any one care to give me the scoop:)

[null and void]

It's when a troll post a thread and the rath of the AdminMod falls from heaven like lightning.

The Viking kitties invade.

The thread body is pulled to history.

And eeeeevil FReepers stand around post rude comments and warm their hands on the flames...

[null and void]

Like here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/840895/posts

Sort of...

[ImFightingMad]

As far as the street racing, I was the one that got the information and was able to get it to the Police. One week after the Police talked to him and my ex, he was picked-up for street racing! Believe me, I will be using that in court!

As far as attorneys go, I cannot afford one now. The attorney I had during the divorce cost me nearly $15K and look what happened to me! It is all because the attorney, like all of them I have talked to, she would not use the facts and evidence I had against my ex. They all say it would prejudice the judge. Well, it didn’t work not telling him and using the evidence, so I will do it myself! She also would not pursue the law that clearly states that the independent income of a child needs to be used in the child support calculation! She said the judge would not consider that! Again, that is why I am doing it myself. If I use all of the evidence and facts, I then have a solid ground for appeals all the way to The Supreme Court if the lower courts do not follow the laws that are written!

[shaggy eel]

After re-reading ranger's post, your reply is more understandable.

,,, I stuck my neck out a bit there Op. He was trolling for a smartarse quip and I just happened to have one in stock. I hold the military in very high regard. The dignity derived from serving in their ranks wasn't reflected in his post, merely the lack of understanding of the world outside it. I'm confident that his smug isolation on 1300 acres would be just fine with many posters on this thread.

[moondancer]

ARG... having problems posting, sent off a post and it didnt go thru, system seems slow.
your attnry seems like a flake, much like my first one and second. your a brave soul to represent yourself. have you researched that states court page or law library? from what i hear judges love to hear why they can or cant do something ie: "smith vs. smith" ect. have you considered contacting a group that deals with your sons disability? they usually have legal aids and can sometimes regardless be very valuable in providing you with information ect.
i wish you all the best of luck:)

[Jack Black]

FYI: Split Tail is slang for a woman.

As for your post, I agree with the general sentiment but I don't think your taking into account the judges in this country. Just like our highest court judges are constantly amazing us with absurd rulings, like Sodomy as a Constitutional Right so do lower, and particularly family court, judges often produce the most absurd rulings immaginable.

One friend after being seperated was left with so little income from his 5 figure job that he was only able to rent a small room to live in. Meanwhile his wife and kids kept the house, almost all of his money, and had her new girlfriend move in. (She had decided one day she was a lesbian which was the cause of the divorce). That's absurd. The costs of divorce need to be shared equally between the partners. The children should not suffer poverty, but neither should the men be required to assure that there is *NO* decline in living standards. It costs more to support two households than one, everyone should give a little.

Because they are men haters, or hate the productive, or are lesbians themselves many in the "family law" area have completely rigged the system to screw men, and screw them hard. Many, if not most, of the divorce lawyers are in on the fix as in most cities it's like a social club. The same judges talk to the same lawyers dozens of times a week. There is no sense in getting all advesarial with these people over Sam on Tuesday if you have to see him for Mary on Thursday.

I am happily married for 15 years, so your advice to marry well is stuff I completely agree with. But I think it is naive to say that this fellow should be driven to poverty, dispair and jail or else work three jobs. Things change. A humane flexible justice system must take this into account.

I can't imagine that leaving Florida is going to help. Eventually they will get a warrent and arrest you. Better to go back and face the music.

[Jack Black]

"By the way, welfare is fine if you don't mind living in a slum with a crack house next door, spending 20 hours a week standing in lines waiting to be rejected for benefits and programs, living without phone service, and getting just one bag of groceries at a time because that's all you can carry home since welfare doesn't make car payments. "

Agreed. But neither should the man, now stripped of his children, be driven to live in crack houses and without phone service. In the situation I described above that is damn close to what happened.

In my opinion one of the MAJOR problems with the current divoce racket in the USA is the way that custody is awarded. It almost always favors the mom. Two much better options are: to strongly favor which ever parent can best afford to raise the children on their own. This takes the state out of the collection/enforcement business and saves taxpayers tons of money in the long run. It also allows both parties to get on with life with one less thing to argue about. And it does not prevent good parents from contributing to their childrens financial welfare. The second better option is a full joint custody, 50/50, where no money changes hands. The court might even require both parents seek to live with XX miles of each other at all times to facilitate this. While not as clean as option one, it is still better than the absurd default standard of giving the children to the partner LEAST able to afford to raise them, as if money has nothing to do with raising kids.

Like it or not a lot of guys are figuring out the system is rigged. A young fellow at a club I belong to recently announced he was getting married. Without failure EVERY man in the club (most of whom are currently married, some more than once) said WHY?

Of course the lower class has no problems with any of this. Men make as many babies as they want, with the explicit understanding that it is the mothers choice and the mothers responsibility. Thus the term "baby daddy" has replaced the term "father". The term is approximately equal to "sperm donner I hooked up with to produce a child". Taxpayers pay for all this.

[FreedomAvatar]

In my opinion one of the MAJOR problems with the current divoce racket in the USA is the way that custody is awarded. It almost always favors the mom.

Yes. To the tune of 90% of the time. In some jurisdictions, it's even higher.

Two much better options are: to strongly favor which ever parent can best afford to raise the children on their own. This takes the state out of the collection/enforcement business and saves taxpayers tons of money in the long run.

Gotta disagree on this one. This discriminates against a stay-at-home parent. Joint physical custody should be the law of the land unless one parent can prove with clear and convincing evidence that the other should have less than 50% physical custody. Is this a perfect solution? No, nothing is perfect but it's a lot more constitutional than state sanctioned kidnapping of children.

The second better option is a full joint custody, 50/50, where no money changes hands. The court might even require both parents seek to live with XX miles of each other at all times to facilitate this. While not as clean as option one, it is still better than the absurd default standard of giving the children to the partner LEAST able to afford to raise them, as if money has nothing to do with raising kids.

I agree with much of this, but it's probably impractical to say no money changes hands. Child support is not in and of itself the problem. It's the way the state calculates it and enforces it.

I'm all for getting the government out of the picture as much as possible. The whole "deadbeat" problem is largely the result of idiot judges and bureaucrats who deprive parents of their rights. They then enact more draconian laws that only serve to perpetuate the problem. For example, there is a very strong correlation between access to the children and defaulting on CS payments.

The courts also spit in the very faces of the children they purport to serve. Rendering a non-custodial parent destitute can make children feel even more guilty than they already feel. Older children will certainly notice that dad's standard of living has dropped - that dad can't afford to take them on vacations, etc.

It's an ever increasing American tragedy.

[ambrose]

... later reading bump

[ambrose]

Of course, maybe the real problem is that many men are way too eager to pull out their schlong and make babies without giving it even so much as a second thought. I know of plenty of guys who get married and divorced every few years, and with each new marriage, they sire several new kids with the new wife.

[Sir Valentino]

You should have *INVESTED* in condoms, which are *CHEAP*.

[ImFightingMad]

Very Funny! Unluckily that was 17 years ago now, when I thought there was a meaning to marriage!

At this point in time in this country, I would recommend that NO MAN ever gets married or gets a woman pregnant. There is NO benefit in having children in today's society and it will only lead to the future destruction of the father. There are plenty of unwanted children that can be adopted.

Humans are NOT an endangered species!

[ambrose]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970942/posts

[Fraulein]

Also --- get yourself a female lawyer

Yep. My father also had a female lawyer and he actually got a pretty good divorce deal.

[Beanie]

I know what you are saying is true. I have so much anger about the way the system just looks out for the custodial parent with no thought of what is right or wrong. Everything is by the books. The man has to prove everything but all the woman has to do is run down to DES and drum up some story and the next thing you know your check is attached. If you can't afford a Lawyer and aren't good at representing yourself your better off just paying twice because once you go to court more charges will be tacked on. I don't wonder the states are in such a mess. To let women get away with using children to get an easy income is disgusting and it is happening all the time. Any woman that gets pregnant today with all the forms of birth control is doing it on purpose. I just think the decision to bring a child into the world should be made by both parties, not just one.

[zoesmom]

Your argument is absurd.

In the majority of marriages it is the mother who either gives up her career entirely to raise children or works only part time in order to be available to the children. The mother typically does this based upon the father's self-identified role as provider for his family. So the mother and father themselves set this system into place, not the evil court system or state.

Raising children IS a full time job.

In your scenario, money is equated with good parenting rather than good providing, which are two entirely different things. While providing is an important aspect of parenting, it is not the same thing.

When parents divorce, statistically speaking, the father's standard of living tends to rise while the mother's tends to decrease.

These are facts, not opinion or supposition.

If you actually had custody of your children you would find that it is more expensive by far to be the custodial parent than it is to pay child support. Again, that is a fact, not opinion.

It also occupies the majority of your time. You no longer can use your sick days from work, because you have to save them for when your children get sick and are sent home from school or daycare. When your child is sick or has nightmares in the middle of the night, you get up rather than getting the rest you need to be alert at work the next day. Your free time at home is no longer your own. There is homework, extracurricular activites, dinner to cook, serve, and clean up, baths to give, stories to read, television and computer usage to monitor, friends to scrutinize. Maybe by 9 pm you can sit and take a breath. Or you might get to go to the bathroom all by yourself.

There are tears to dry, hugs to give, clothes to buy, groceries to shop for. And then, when you have spent at least an hour shopping for the groceries, you get to hear from your children how you got all the wrong things. Then you get to spend time explaining to them why a Happy Meal is not in the budget and is not nutritious. And then you get to keep your mouth shut and bite your tongue almost completely off rather than tell your child that if their father was not behind on child support they could have that Happy Meal, new sneakers, go to the movies, etc.

I wouldn't give up my role as my kid's mother for anything. My point is, however, that very few fathers have any idea of the true time and financial commitment involved. They have no idea what it is like. Thus we have non-custodial fathers spouting off absurd arguments like yours.

[Jack Black]

Too bad your so full of yourself. You don't know one damn thing about me. As a matter of fact I am the costodial parent of my children, have been since they were born. As for your facts, well you know there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The latter category seem to be owned by politically correct and connect 'family law' judges and 'advocates'. I'm sure you can find whatever liberal academy generated statistics you need to support your heroic mom mythology.