Replies

My son was ordered to pay over $4500 a month in alimony and child support. Shortly after, through the dot-com bust, he lost his job and had no income but unemployment insurance. (The few jobs out there had 40-50 people showing up hoping for interviews.) He tried to get the alimony and child support lowered since he no longer had an income, and the judge's response was, "denied...get a job." He had to continue to pay that outrageous amount for nearly a year before he finally got it lowered. His ex-wife, meanwhile, was spending it on taking guys she met on the internet to Vegas. The kids never saw a dime of it. 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.

When it comes to divorce and children men have little rights in the eyes of the law. The left and women's groups have seen to that.

I'm married with two kids. I make a good living (tech worker just waiting to be outsourced one day); my wife stays at home. If she has an affair and decides to leave me, I'd be looking for a studio to live in. And God forbid my job gets outsourced; a nightmarish reality. That's just the way it is.

Pretty scary stuff; but that's what happens when men don't vote as a group. Men are generally taken for granted when it comes to these issues.

His ex-wife, meanwhile, was spending it on taking guys she met on the internet to Vegas. The kids never saw a dime of it.

Under California law you can NOT insure that so much as 1¢ of child support actually gets to the child. Absolutely NO provision for even asking the custodial spouse to show the kids are being cared for.

Short of actually starving them and chaining them to a wall, what ever she does with them is A-OK with the court.

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.

My son was ordered to pay over $4500 a month in alimony and child support. Shortly after, through the dot-com bust, he lost his job and had no income but unemployment insurance. (The few jobs out there had 40-50 people showing up hoping for interviews.) He tried to get the alimony and child support lowered since he no longer had an income, and the judge's response was, "denied...get a job." He had to continue to pay that outrageous amount for nearly a year before he finally got it lowered. His ex-wife, meanwhile, was spending it on taking guys she met on the internet to Vegas. The kids never saw a dime of it. 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.

What's particularly foul is when these women support loser boyfriends, particularly the live-in variety. There's a certain breed of males (they aren't "men") who have a habit of taking advantage of that and often the only way to deal with them would be technically against the rules to discuss here.

-Eric