Deadbeat Dad my ass !

The BBQ Pit
61

Thank you for the excellent post, Jodi. I just have one minor quibble:

[quote]
There IS still a presumption that it is in a child’s best interest to live with his or her mother (especially a small child), all things being equal. If you want to attack that presumption, that’s fine, but it’s a different issue than the one presented here.**
That might be a societal presumption, but it is certainly no longer a legal presumption. Every state that I know of–and, considering the Equal Protection clause, I suspect that’s all of them–has done away with laws giving a mother preference when it comes to primary custody.

62

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
No, “dearie,” that is not per se excessive. I know nothing about your ex-wife’s income. If she has little or no income, it makes perfect sense to me that you cover 100% of your son’s support requirements.

AHA! I cover 100% of his expenses, and my ex- does work, so you’re saying that I should pay less!**

:::Rysdad takes a bow to a standing ovation.:::

Unless you want to stop talking in generalities and get down to some specific income figures, nobody can make an informed judgment on whether or not your specific support payments are reasonable or unreasonable.

None of your damned business. Use your own income and figure out what you’d pay. For real figures, use a third of your take home pay. Pretend you have a spouse and then the spouse divorces you and remarries. Further pretend all three make the same amount. Work your own numbers and see if you think it’s fair when you’ve added the information I’ve listed previously regarding amount of time you spend with the child, meals, transportation, etc.

But since you are so certain that your payments are in fact unreasonable, why don’t you hire a real attorney instead of the losers you’ve apparently been speaking to and ask the court to modify the support order? As long as it’s been at least one year since the initial order or any modification, that’s perfectly allowable under the Minnesota statute. And please don’t try and tell me that it can’t be done because the mean old judges don’t listen.

**Funny. At one of the modification hearings I’ve been to, counsel for the ex- used his one strike to remove the judge. The judge stood and said, “Too bad, John, I would’ve given her what she asked for” (taking to counsel and referring to my ex-). We hadn’t made a single statement, yet the judge had made up his mind.

Later, at the new hearing (with a new judge), I argued my case against her attorney. The judge took it under advisement, but before she left, she said that she tended to agree that my request for increased visitation and access was reasonable, but that “we almost never change money matters.”

In short, I was given more weekly time, more vacation time, and no change in amount of support ordered even though, by the first portion of her decree, I would incur more expenses.

Speak not to me of judges, Minty. They are arbitrary and capricious.

Support orders are routinely modified based on changed circumstances, and yours can be too. And let your lawyer do the talking for you, because your attitude is bound to piss off the judge.

As opposed to yours? By the same terms, I’d guess you’re not a trial lawyer.

Again, you are misinformed as to the state of the law. Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, no out-of-state court has the power to modify a child support order unless the child no longer lives in the state that issued the order. And even then, there are additional requirements that must be met before a foreign court can modify the order.

This could very well be. When was that law enacted? The people that I know of had their support reduced between the years of 1976 and 1990.

And I’m so glad you willing to overlook my SOB remark, “toots.” etc. etc. etc.

The difference being, I’d say them to your face.

63

Boy, it’s going to take some effort to understand my last post. You miss one little “/b” in brackets…

But, to hell with it anyway. Arguing here isn’t going to solve anything, and it’s just aggravating me. There will always be lawyers, judges and legislators that will say “25% isn’t too much.”

Until they have to pay it. :slight_smile:

Think about it for a minute. Why 25%? Why not 44% or 13%? What’s magical about 25%? Nothing. It’s arbitrary. Simply applying an arbitrary number to all circumstances doesn’t make it just. It just makes it equal. Equally unfair.

With the percentage of divorce these days, it’s conceivable that the child support guidelines may be changed to approach realistic criteria. I hope so.

Until then, I’ll continue to be the responsible dad that my kid loves.

64

Yes, and you’d probably also say those things to the judge’s face. In which case, I have zero sympathy for you. And do I read your post to state that you personally argued your case against your ex’s attorney? Bad, bad, bad idea. Be not surprised at any unfavorable outcome. Next time, hire an attorney, or I guarantee that you’re going to get whupped again.

Of course your income and that of your ex-wife is none of my business. But without that information, we are left with your bare assertion that your support payments are unreasonable. You assert they’re unreasonable, I assert they’re not. Personally, I think you’ve got the burden of proof on that, but it is, of course, your perogative to keep that information private.

You seem to be under the impression that it is inherently unfair for you to be forced to bear child support expenses that you would not have to bear if you were still married. Specifically, the complaints related to paying all or part of the expenses relating to maintaining two separate households. I, on the other hand, have no conceptual problem with this. A child in a joint custody situation needs accomodations in two separate households. One of the goals of child support is to make sure the child’s needs are fulfilled. Thus, the question is what needs to be done to ensure that 100% of the child’s needs are met–and that includes the maintenance of two households. It’s simply more expensive to raise a child in two homes than in one, and the court has determined that you need to contribute towards both homes. Whether or not this is reasonable given your finances … well, no need to get into that again.

The UIFSA was adopted here in Texas (where we have lots of guns, so it’s best to smile when you talk shit about people) in the mid-90s. Prior to the UIFSA (and similar legislation for child custody), state laws could vary quite a bit, and different states would get into pissing matches over who had the power to modify what. Suffice it to say that a non-custodial parent will now have a very difficult time getting such modifications by moving out of state.

Finally, there’s this:

I refer you to my earlier statement that this is IRRELEVANT to the issue of CHILD SUPPORT. Child support is for the support of the child. A parent’s financial obligations to that child persist regardless of the marital status of the ex-spouse. That the law recognizes this–and insists on it–is commendable.

65

I don’t know where you live Kelli, but up here in Canada it’s really bad. The US, though marginally better (a lot better in some states) has it’s share of problems too. There is a massive industry built around the divorce/custody issue. As I’ve posted before, my debts incurred through my battle to remain my childs father exeed the amount of my mortgage. I’m not alone. I’m a member of a fathers group (FACT - Fathers Are Capable Too) which consists of hundreds of members who have suffered the similar fate of being screwed ass backwards by the family courts. And that’s only one group. There are dozens throughout the US and Canada.

If you want examples and cites, you’ll have to let me know. Then you’ll have to go buy a new comfy chair because you’d be in it a long time before you got through half the material I could supply.

The situation is so bad here in Canada that a special commision was formed to study the problem. They came up with a report, "“For the Sake of the Children” which was promptly put on the shelf by our own special twit-bobbin Attorney General, Anne Mclellan. Here’s a brief wazitabut if you want a quick read.

Oh what the hell, I’ll get a few links…

[sub]hold on a sec…[/sub]

Here’s a good place or two to go get some more info:

Parent and Child Advocacy Coalition

The Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy (CFFPP)

American Coalition for Fathers and Children

custody reform

the Fatherhood Coalition

Fathers Are Capable Too (this ‘my’ group)

Ex-fathers

Dadman’s Fathers Rights Home page

Dads against discrimination

The Fathers’ Rights and Equality Exchange

need more?

Canadian Lawyers index has a page on fathers rights groups. A quick search on google could yeild dozens more.

Way more. In fact, the above list is just a small sample of groups who are aware that there are gross imbalances in the justice system. In Canada and the US, we manufacture deadbeat Dads at an alarming rate.

In this journalist Kathleen Parker touches on one aspect of the divorce industry. Deadbeat dad bounty hunting. She finds that:

and

Just to get this straight… of 46 692 cases that Maximus closed, it found 12 deadbeats?!?!?

and she finishes with the point that:

This leaves me with the feeling that there are concerns that need more attention than a deadbeat dad witchhunt. (Only twelve deadbeats… out of 46 thousand!!!)

We can all agree that any parent who is able yet doesn’t live up to their responsibilities is a puddle of shit. Yet there is a fucking huge population of men who bear an undeserved brand. Like me. Men who have been driven to bancruptcy, arrested on false charges, prevented from seeing their children, trounced in court, ignored by social workers and so on and fucking so on.

**

The above links should give you an idea of the injury a lot of us have suffered. The ‘deadbeat dad’ title is the insult. Like a fucking ‘cherry on top’, if you will. That’s why some of us get so damned christerly irritable when we hear the term flung about.

I’d call him asshole. Or shithead. Or better yet, I’d call a lawyer and frizzulate his ass in court. You could even call him a ‘deadbeat dad’. Just be aware of what’s going on behind that term.

Oh, and here’s a list to a bunch more articles to read… if you’ve managed to get through all or part of the above and have a few more hours to blow.

66

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
Yes, and you’d probably also say those things to the judge’s face.

I was actually quite charming. During a recess, the ex’s lawyer gave me a snide glance and asked if I thought I “had a chance.” It seems I did, because I got the extra time with my son I asked for, support did NOT go up (as she had asked for), but yet it did not go down. Overall, I won. And I didn’t have to waste money on an attorney.

In which case, I have zero sympathy for you.

Nor I you, but you’re not arguing from an informed perspective, so I should allow for your ignorance. But I don’t.

And do I read your post to state that you personally argued your case against your ex’s attorney? Bad, bad, bad idea. Be not surprised at any unfavorable outcome.

See above.

Next time, hire an attorney, or I guarantee that you’re going to get whupped again.

**Your third swing-and-a-miss. You’d like the general populace to believe that lawyers are mandatory in all instances when appearing before a judge. In some cases, they certainly are. But not always. I’ve done well enough when I’ve gotten the court to listen. In fact, I’ve “won” three out of the four times I’ve represented myself. (Winning defined as being awarded that which I petitioned for against the other party’s objection.) **

Of course your income and that of your ex-wife is none of my business. But without that information, we are left with your bare assertion that your support payments are unreasonable. You assert they’re unreasonable, I assert they’re not. Personally, I think you’ve got the burden of proof on that…etc.

Your assertions are irrelevant. I’ve given you the parameters to determine if the same situation would be fair if you, yourself, were in it. You figure it out and report back to the group.

You seem to be under the impression that it is inherently unfair for you to be forced to bear child support expenses that you would not have to bear if you were still married. Specifically, the complaints related to paying all or part of the expenses relating to maintaining two separate households. I, on the other hand, have no conceptual problem with this.

**Of course you don’t. I can almost hear you saying, “I will NOT understand! I will NOT understand! Nobody can make me!”

Of course, you got the petard-ride in your previous post when you said that you had no qualms about me paying for 100%…if my ex- had low- or no income.**

A child in a joint custody situation needs accomodations in two separate households. One of the goals of child support is to make sure the child’s needs are fulfilled. Thus, the question is what needs to be done to ensure that 100% of the child’s needs are met–and that includes the maintenance of two households. It’s simply more expensive to raise a child in two homes than in one, and the court has determined that you need to contribute towards both homes.

**Now I’m contributing to homes, and not just the child. Slippery slope, don’t you think? But it’s with such generalities like “contributing toward a home” that child support gets bastardized into what it is today.

Whether or not this is reasonable given your finances … well, no need to get into that again.

Ok.
The UIFSA was adopted here in Texas (where we have lots of guns, so it’s best to smile when you talk shit about people) in the mid-90s. Prior to the UIFSA (and similar legislation for child custody), state laws could vary quite a bit, and different states would get into pissing matches over who had the power to modify what. Suffice it to say that a non-custodial parent will now have a very difficult time getting such modifications by moving out of state.

**I thought that it had been rather recent. **

Finally, there’s this:

I refer you to my earlier statement that this is IRRELEVANT to the issue of CHILD SUPPORT. Child support is for the support of the child. A parent’s financial obligations to that child persist regardless of the marital status of the ex-spouse. That the law recognizes this–and insists on it–is commendable.

**You really do refuse to face facts, don’t you?

*I don’t give a damn about her marital status. It’s her income as well as the reduction of her expenses that apply here. * If her costs go down, then she’s damn well capable of supplying more of her share of the support, and I should be able to lessen mine.

Previously you have said:

Child support is for the support of the child, yet you’ve also said child support is for the support of a second home. I guess if the child lives there in that second house alone, then that would make sense. Otherwise I’m supporting someone other than my child.

You’ve also said (by inference) that the mother’s income should be taken into account, then later said that the mother’s income is irrelevant.

Would you care to contradict yourself further? To me, you’re worse than a nonthinker. You’re an unthinker who sees facts and purposefully ignores them.

The court renders a directed verdict in favor of Rysdad.

That the law refuses to recognize its inequities and and act on them, and, even worse, continues to perpetuate what it knows to be an unjust, inequitable and arbitrarily applied system speaks more to condemn its own existence and reduce the respect it ought to be given by more than anything I could say.

67

If there was legal merit to your belief that your support payments are unreasonable, you would quite likely have done better than simply fending off an increase in payments by hiring a capable attorney, Rysland. Hate us all you want, but lawyers practice law a whole lot better than non-lawyers. The support guidelines are presumptively correct, but good facts and a good attorney can often persuade a judge to depart from the guidelines. I suspect you didn’t have the former, and I’m quite certain you were not the latter.

And lest you again accuse me of imbecility, I understand your arguments re: new hubby’s income perfectly well. I simply reject them in favor of the far more workable situation where only the parents themselves are financially responsible for the well-being of the child. There are various policy arguments in favor of that–it enforces responsibility on the actual parents, prevents divorce from becoming a get-out-of-parenthood-free card, does not discourage remarriage, etc. How’s the woman of your dreams supposed to respond when you ask her to marry you, then tell her that she’ll have to pay $X a month to your ex-wife for child support? [And yes, that is the trade-off an obligor would logically have to accept if the court is to take into account income from the obligee spouse’s new spouse.]

Similarly, I also understand your beef re: two homes.

Yeah, that’s a drag. But what’s your plan? The child needs a place to live when she’s in the custody of the other parent, and it’s a bitch to find a place you can buy or rent for only those days when the other parent has the child. Same thing for utility bills, etc. Nobody expects you to pay all of those expenses, but the fact is that somebody needs to. That’s not a slippery slope, that’s keeping the children of divorced parents out of a cardboard box, a policy I wholeheartedly support.

If I have made conflicting statements on whether or not to consider the other spouse’s income when setting child support payments, it was not intentional. My basic position on that is that both parents’ individual incomes should be considered (just as it is, by law, in Minnesota). However, the fact that the income of the spouse with prmary custody equals or exceeds that of the other spouse does not end the inquiry. As one single mother pointed out on the first page, the primary custodian incurs greater expenses merely by caring for the child a greater proportion of the time. Thus, it is entirely possible, and eminently fair in certain situations, to require a noncustodial spouse to make support payments to an ex- with a higher income. Again, I don’t know your numbers, but I guarantee the court did. And on the whole, I trust the courts a hell of a lot more than some guy complaining on the Internet that he has to pay too much.

And no amount of income, on the part of either parent or their new spouses, excuses the other parent from trying to duck out on a court-ordered support order.

Incidentally, I did calculate what would be my child support payment under those Minnesota guidelines. I’m not throwing my numbers on the table unless you do, but I figured my payment was quite reasonable for support of my own hypothetical child, even though it would put a serious crimp in my finances.

And since you’re back to insults…

Let’s just say it’s becoming more and more clear to me why your wife dropped your mean-spirited, bitter little ass. Go to hell, defender of deadbeats.

68

Rysdad: bold much? :wink:

Dewt, I live in New Brunswick. Shithead fled to Alberta. Family Support Services told me it was up to me to find him.When I finally found what MIGHT be his address and gave it to them, they said it would be about a year before I saw any money!! A year!! And thats assuming when they find him, he admits his identity and accepts the registered mail. If he lies, or moves, the file comes back to New Brunswick, and I can go pound sand.

I cannot comprehend how it can be so different place to place. I HAVE seen a lawyer. He couldnt help me, and he was one of the best in the area! All I can do is ASK dickhead to co-operate, or take him to court in his absence which is wickedly expensive, and totally ineffective.

And him being a deadbeat isnt just because he oves his children money, its because he bailed out on them. He doesnt call or write or visit. He is worthless. And he has a damn job, he drives truck, makes pretty good money, and has NO bills. He lives in the damn truck!!! So thats NO rent, elect, heat, just his food and the scuzzy sweatpants he loves so much. I hope he gets truckers hemroids!!

I havent checked your links yet dewt, but I will.
Can any of you super dads help me? Will any of you poor misunderstood heroes hunt that fucker down and MAKE him be a father for my boys?

I didnt think so.

I am sorry you guys got fucked over so bad, but I didnt do it. I didnt put limits on his visits, or move away with his kids or anything else. I dont brainwash them to hate him - I am not one of the BAD ones.

If I ever get married again (god forbid), I will petition to have his rights terminated, so the new husband can adopt my kids. But he will object to it, (if I can even find him), cuz those are HIS BOYS!

Hell, if he would give up his rights now, I would stop looking for child support. My biggest fear is that he will show up and steal my youngest (the easygoing, loveable one - the one he likes)… and if the government cant/wont find him when he owes court ordered child support, how will I get my baby back?

I dont even have custody! He wouldnt sign the papers I had drawn up, stating I had custody, he had unlimited visitation rights. Thats right unlimited - wouldnt sign it! Said he wanted joint custody, then he moved to the other side of the country with his new girlfriend and dissappeared off the face of the earth. Joint custody. I dont even know if the kids would recognize him anymore.

Its been nearly a year since he paid support, and if I look for him, I am a vindictive greedy bitch who resents the new girlfriend.
If I dont - then I certainly didnt need child support in the first place!
If I remarry, I dont need the child support because the new man should pay for the kids he didnt father.

I cant fucking win.

I feel bad for a few fathers, I really do, but lets face it, the custodial parents who REALLY NEED THE MONEY are the ones who can get screwed the worst.

69

Isnt there some sort of abadonment clause that would terminate his rights that you could use to your advantage?

70

Disclaimer: I know nothing about Canadian family law.

But here in the States, you most certainly do not need butthead’s signature to adjudicate his parental rights. If process is properly served–might be somewhat more difficult since he’s a trucker, but there are all kinds of ways it can be done–and he still does not show up for the hearing, the court would still have the power to enter a binding custody order. Support, too. And if nobody’s there to contest it, those orders would be quite likely to be very much in your favor, kelli.

In fact, I would strongly suggest that you ask your friendly neighborhood Canadian family law attorney about getting a court to enter a custody order, with or without the participation your ex. Especially since you are concerned about the possibility that he might walk off with your youngest.

71

Oh… I already knew that… I wasn’t ranting at you, kelli… just in general. I’m frustrated on your behalf. It burns me to think of a man who’s got everything I so desperately want (and have to fight for) at his fingertips… yet he walks away. Funking incomprehensible.

Canadian law varies widely from province to province and even from courtroom to courtroom - depending on the judge you get. But it should be pretty darn easy to get custody without him there and I would highly advise it. It might just scare him into making an appearance.

Please don’t take my post as an attack on you. Take it as part of the reason I hate guys (and gals) like your ex. They should be hunted down and… grrrrr. :frowning:

72

The rest of your post isn’t worth disputing again, so I’ll just say that the line that I’ve quoted above proves you either don’t read or that you’re incapable of reading comprehension.

In either case, that makes you a lousy lawyer. My sympathies to your suckers, uh, clients. I hope the next lawyer I face is just like you. I’d let you ramble on (as you’ve done here) and end up arguing my case for me (as you’ve also done here).

You, my friend, aren’t very good in debate. I think you over-reached in your career aspirations. My recommendation is that you practice the following phrase:

“Will you have fries with that, sir?”

I do have to take issue with another of your fallacies from an earlier post when you said that you’d rather they be called “inmate” than “deadbeat.”

Exactly how would that solve anything? Wouldn’t it be better to find where the “deadbeat” works and garnishee his or her wages? Possibly freeze and then deduct from his/her banking accounts? Claim their income tax refunds? Maybe force the sale of property?

The solution would be to keep them working so that some income can be gleaned.

But, no, you’d rather put someone in jail, thereby losing any possibility of collecting anything while the person is serving time, as well as lessening the person’s hirability when they get out.

Man, for a lawyer, you sure have some simplistic, knee-jerk solutions.

My last piece of advice to you is to keep current on your malpractice insurance. If your posts are evidence of how much forethought you put into your law practice, you’ll be exhausting your coverage in short order.

(Closed circuit to Kelli…yep, I way over-bolded. My apologies.)

73

And here, through clenched teeth, I find myself agreeing with Minty Green.

I have no sympathies whatsoever with any parent that abandons their kids. It’s inconceivable to me that any parent could do so.

74

I just cant afford to go to court. I got laid off in december, and to proceed without him, they have to use ‘substituted service’, meaning they place ads in newspapers in places he might see them - hundreds of extra dollars.

But then again, my 9 & 5 year old kids have never seen a dentist.

I cant afford to do a damn thing about it.

My only protection is that he wont come back to the province because I could have family court serve him with an order to appear (to explain why he hasnt been paying his support) if he fails to appear, they order a canada wide arrest warrant for him, and as he drives truck - he cant have that happen! He would have to leave his rig on the road and go into custody. ( insert evil laugh here )

If he ever tries to see the kids, I will notify fam. court, they serve him, I go to the lawyer to get proceedings ordered the same time he is in the province.

Its dicey I know, but until I get working again, I cant do it any other way.

why couldnt I have had a bad marriage with dewt or rysdad??

75

The parts that I think make a difference is that your ex doesn’t provide him with things that are covered by the child support and the fact that he spends so much time with you.You shouldn’t have to be buying things that are already covered by support, and if he spends a great deal of time with you that should be considered (although he apparently doesn’t live with you half the time) Your exe’s income would only matter in terms of the total amount of support and how much she should contribute. Let me give an example using my state’s guidlines -25% of income for 2 children.Say I get a divorce, I make $50,000 and my husband makes $50,000 (not the true figures). The total child support would be $25,000, $12,500 from me, 12,500 from him. Now, it may seem to you that 25,000 is an awful lot more than two kids require, and that’s true, but do you really think a family with a $100,000 income spends much less than that, once you consider saving for college (and all support orders don’t include college tuition or support after 18, although some may),and whatever luxuries the kids may have been used to (vacations, camp, playing expensive sports,private school,a big enough house to have their own bedroom, whatever)? True, either of us could support them adequately (they’d be fed and clothed), but neither of us alone could come close to providing what we do now (and which we jointly decided to provide).The three of us that would be living on $50,000 would clearly have a lower standard of living than the one who would have $50,000 for one person,and the kids shouldn’t be the ones to suffer.Now, in that same situation, if we had joint custody ( half the time with each), there would be almost no money changing hands. The cost of providing a household would fall roughly equally ( each of us would need adequate space, and food and clothing expenses would be about equal. The only money that would change hands would be for practical reasons,things like health insurance,tuitions and camp fees, where one person gets the bill and it’s less confusing to make a single payment

76

Repeat disclaimer: I do not know Canadian law.

kellibelli, lack of money sucks, but this is a very serious matter. Please think about getting in touch with whatever is the Canadian equivalent of our Legal Aid. If you don’t qualify, try calling the local bar, who may be able to put you in touch with people looking for pro bono (i.e., free) work. Hell, if there’s a law school nearby, give them a call and see if they have a student program that can help you out. Custody and support are precisely the kinds of problems for which the bar has organized means of assisting low-income people, at least here in the States.

And even if those avenues don’t work, go down to court and take care of this yourself. Representing yourself isn’t your best option, but an unopposed custody hearing is a relatively straightforward matter. Research the hell out of it on the Internet, get chummy with the clerks down at the courthouse, and ask all kinds of questions from people who should know something. And even on the off chance that Butthead shows up, you get to tag his ass for support, right? The interests of you and your children will be far better protected by getting that custody order than by just hoping that Butthead and the Trollop leave your kids alone.

[turn other cheek]
Rysdad, your concern for my well-being is truly touching. I’m glad we could end this on such good terms. Allow me to assure you that my career is going spectacularly well, in large part because I both know and respect the legal system. You would do well to do the same, instead of stewing in your own righteously indignant juices.
[/turn other cheek]

77

I agree. I actuality, though, it doesn’t.

I’d disagree in the sense that non-divorced parents aren’t required to pay for college, camps, and the like. (My parents weren’t divorced, and I had to pay for college myself, even though they could’ve afforded it. Damn student loans. Just paid off the last one last year.)

Anyway, it’s the 25% (or any set-in-stone percentage) that I argue. I’ve heard that 25% was often chosen because that would meet the average requirements. By definition, that means that nearly half of the kids won’t receive enough, and an equal percentage would receive an excess.

I’d say, base support on the tax returns. After reasonable expenses have been deducted, it would be easier to see any disparities.

Furthermore…if I’m paying the lion’s share of the support, then I want the tax deduction. That’s only logical.

Granted.

Unfortunately, single custody is the default rather than joint. There can only be joint when both parties agree. And if one party (usually mom) is persuaded that joint custody is in her best interests (not the child’s, mind you), she’s not very likely to agree to joint custody.

If and when my son decides that he’s ready to live with me rather than his mom, I’d agree to joint custody. As it stands, there is hardly any practical difference between they way my son’s custody is handled, sole physical vs. joint, except the amount of money I pay. I attend his teacher conferences with his mother, I take time off work to take him to his doctor appointments, I adjust my work hours so as to not interfere with the time I spend with him, I carried him into the operating room and was there when he awoke from his ear and adenoids surgeries, I celebrate his A’s and B’s with trips to Taco Bell (which I hate), I support his Pokemon habit…the list goes on and on. I’m a good dad, and I’m deeply involved with every aspect of my son’s life. It’s joint custody in every sense except that he sleeps at her house on a yearly average of 9 out of each 14 nights.

Those 5 nights cost alot.

(Second closed circuit to Kelli: There’s still time! :slight_smile: )

78

because you are sane and it then probably wouldn’t have been a bad marriage.

:smiley:

79

I’d love to see all us deadbeats in jail. Now that would be a fucking accomplishment. You’d need a damnable big jail to house all those horrible men.

It’s a nice neat solution. One that will appease the masses who can go to sleep comfortably knowing that we delinquent fathers have gotten what’s coming to us. And we’re off the streets too, so we can’t harm our children. Phew. And you can all feel good about yourselves because you’ve eliminated a great evil.

At least there I know I’d get 3 square meals a day and a roof over my head. And heat too… things I have sacrificed in the past in a futile effort to keep up with payments that were so outrageous they were barely believable.

I got a better idea. Why not just shoot us all.

I get so fucking pissed when I about this misbegotten deadbeat crusade. And it’s crusaders like you, minty green who carry and perpetuate this crap.

Oh yeah, and Blondie for this:

You are outraged about the man who’s living high on the hog and not paying cs? Fine so am I. But open your fucking eyes and think a bit before you go off to war. A little self righteousness may not be a bad thing, but minty, when you mix it with a healthy dose of ignorance it sure sucks.

80

At least you granted that I was “righteously indignant.”

There’s not much sense in carrying this any further, though.

Though we will probably always be at loggerheads about this issue, there are points where we do agree. Some better solutions are out there, they just need to be found and made into law. A law that everyone can respect.

I withdraw my ad hominems, too.