Mosier you insensitive clueless jackass

In my Mundane thread I started a thread expressing concern about my daughter and a little outrage about my granddaughters deadbeat Dad. Here’s my OP

I got several thoughtful responses and also this gem from Mosier I started to respond there but realized when I started to write that my honest response to his bullshit was being held back by the thread I was in. So, I decided to bring it to the PIt.

Yeah asshole! Now it includes FUCK YOU Mosier as well. Did you read the Op dipshit? The new boyfriend has two kids of his own he doesn’t support and no job. How much help do you think he could be Einstein? btw asshole, my granddaughter is not an it.
And yes I know where Dad number 1 is and I know he’s working full time at a decent job where he makes more money that my daughter does. He likes to spend his money on motorcycles, new rifles, and pot, so obviously he can’t really afford to help support his own flesh and blood. So fuck you and your chances are.

Yeah I’ve heard all the whiny shit from guys who think their child support is going to pay for things they don’t approve of. when I had concerns about that I picked my daughter up and took her shopping for schools clothes and other things she needed. The other portion went to pay for trivialities like food and a roof and heat.
What’s the matter. Are you feeling guilty?

Holy crap are you clueless!! If a child calls another guy Daddy it may be because he has earned it while absentee Dad can’t make the effort to do much more than feel sorry for himself.
I was paying child support for my daughter while her new step dad paid child support for his kids from a previous marriage. I paid because I had a moral obligation to help support **my own child ** you ass. The fact that her Mom remarried and found a decent guy with a good job does absolutely zero to absolve me{or any other Dad} from that moral responsibility. DO YOU FUCKING GET THAT?

Then you haven’t been around much. I’ve seen plenty of hard working Dads making payments and I’ve seen single Moms using that money just to make ends meet. If they can easily afford the basics of food and shelter then the money can go for music lessons or plenty of other items that enrich the child’s life. It’s outrageous about your friends Mom but that says nothing , abso fucking lutly nothing about the Dad’s responsibility to pay the money. If the Dad gave a shit he might have done something to fix the problem rather than just send impersonal checks and wash his hands of it. As I already explained, When I had concerns about my ex wife’s fiscal responsibility I spent the CS directly on things my daughter needed. What I didn’t do was use that as an excuse to stop paying.

Boo fucking hoo. Yeah that’s hard and it’s not his fault if he never knew the child existed. Even that doesn’t make him not responsible to help support his own flesh and blood. If you can’t bear the thought of supporting an accidental child and all the burdens that go with that then you’d better take every precaution to prevent pregnancy. Once again the fact that his child has a decent step dad and is in a stable home also nothing to relieve his parental fiscal responsibilities. The fact they considered adopting her, also nothing. Perhaps they use the money to build a college fund or perhaps they want a waterfall in their living room. Either way it doesn’t matter. It’s his child he should pay. Period.

Your friend might have used those payments and exercised his visitation rights to actually have a relationship with his own child. Did he? Did he even want to, or did he see that as just one more added burden?

And I’m saying get your head out of your ass and go get a clue. I know the system isn’t perfect. I have two friends here in town that pay outrageous CS based on incomes they no longer have. Yes it’s a real struggle but** not once ** would either of them suggest they shouldn’t have to pay.

Mother’s who abuse the system are out there but that’s not the issue at all. If a man thinks she’s not caring properly for his kids he can sue for custody.

All of that is completely fucking irrelevant. If the DNA shows its your flesh and blood then you have a moral obligation to help support that child. Nothing except that child’s 18 birthday or death relieves you of that. You buy less expensive cars and you have a lot less extra spending money but you suck it up and you meet your responsibilities like a fucking man.

Get a clue…fuckwit.

Of course not. I didn’t want to use the wrong gender pronoun when I typed the post, so don’t take offense just because I chose a genderless one.

I’m sorry for the tone in my post. I’m not going to apologize for the content, because I don’t believe for a second that it’s actually difficult for a state government to take child support from a working “deadbeat” with a court order. There’s always something more to the story. Most single moms I’ve met have absolutely no actual interest in seeking child support. Sure, they have plenty to say about what a deadbeat the guy is, but when it comes time to actually pursue a court order it rarely seems to actually happen. Maybe they just want to forget all about the guy, or don’t want him to have any claim to see their child, but it’s almost never clearcut.

If you’re implying what I think you are, the answer is no. I have only 1 child, and he lives with me and my wife. I have no personal stake in how child support laws are written, but I can’t stand to see such solid vehement support for a system that I’ve seen destroy someone’s life, and that I’ve seen abused more often than not.

Cecil wrote an article that seems to disagree. “That’s because the paramount consideration in child support cases is providing the child with support from two parents.” I think it’s an excellent standard to set. Dads should be legally obligated to support the single mothers of their children, but if the mother remarries the child is obviously being supported by two parents without the sperm donor’s checks. Any decent guy would still want to be a part of their child’s life (possibly to the child’s emotional detriment, but that’s a different argument), but I think his legal responsibility ends there. I think most reasonable people would agree in a real life situation, where terms like “FLESH AND BLOOD!!!” aren’t getting thrown around with all sorts of emotional baggage attached.

He was an emotional wreck when he saw the little girl’s picture, and extremely torn about what to do. In the end, he decided that forcing himself into her family would be bad for her emotionally, especially when he learned that she didn’t even know he existed. She was nine years old, and I happen to agree with him. You can disagree with him if you want, but you absolutely can’t realistically imply that he didn’t give a shit.

By the way, I never met the waterfall-mommy’s ex husband, but I do remember my friend visiting him several times, and him coming into town and taking him to lunch. They talked on the phone often, and my friend moved in with him as soon as he graduated, to go to college. There was no washing of the hands involved in that relationship. My friend’s theory was that his father still deeply loved his mother, and didn’t actually know or care that the money he was sending for his child ended up in the casinos. Of course I have no idea if that’s true, but it seems to be a good reason that she never got called on it.

Anyway, if you want to keep talking about this I’ll be happy to check back here. I can see how my first post was much too personal, and I apologize again for it. Sometimes it’s just hard to remember that it’s real people at the other end of the message board.

Me, I think anyone whose response is “Boo fucking hoo” on hearing about someone who didn’t even know he had a kid for nine years until his sperm recipient decided to shake the money tree to the tune of fifty big ones is in no position to call anyone an insensitive clueless jackass. :rolleyes:

Thanks. This is exactly the right attitude. My son deserves my support. If my ex spends that money on something different, then it is up to me to deal with that situation. It doesn’t alter my responsibilities to my son.

Alimony ends if she enters a new relationship. My duty to my only son doesn’t.

I’m not surfing on the same wave but I’d like to add this.
New Deadbeat Dad legislation.
A deadbeat dad, defined as a father 1 or more payment in arrears on his support obligation, must report to the welfare department where his penis will be surgically reduced in size by 10 % for each day the support obligation remains unsatisfied.
–I really think this will work.

A stepfather will never be a “parent” unless he adopts the child. Also, the support isn’t going to support the mother, as you stated. It’s for the children. Sorry…this doesn’t fly. There are too many variables, none of which have to do with the fact that a biological father should be eager to support his children. We could turn the tables and say that if the father finds a girlfriend, she’ll have to pay child support to the mother. Does that make any sense to you?

Also, I don’t get this constant accusation of the mother “spending it on something other than the children.” While I can understand that mindset if the mother doesn’t work and gets $200 hairdos every six weeks, how do you know what the money is being spent on? Is the mother not allowed to spend some of her money on herself? Does every dime of her hard-earned money have to go to the children, even if the father gets to keep some of his money to himself? What the fuck kind of person thinks the mother isn’t entitled to spend HER money on any fucking thing she wants as long as her children are being properly cared for?

And if your money does go toward the mother’s support if she’s not working, so what? Your children need her. It’s your responsibility to assist with that, at least to some degree.

Again, Did you read the OP? Gender is clearly stated.

I’ll accept that you’re recounting your honest experiences but you’re way wrong to assume that’s the norm. Nobody had to take me to court to pay child support ever and the state was never involved. I paid it because I knew I owed it. When my ex remarried a decent guy who had a better job than I did I never thought that my responsibility toward my daughter stopped because they had a nicer car and home. She’s my daughter so if my ex chose to use that money for dance classes or other things instead of food and shelter it didn’t matter. This daughter {not the one in the OP} never lived with me and was always well cared for by her Mom and Step Dad. Thanks to the understanding and patience of her Mom I have a decent relationship with this girl who is now a beautiful adult. They weren’t being greedy by asking me to pay CS. The system wouldn’t be nearly as fucked up if guys stepped up to the plate and cooperated. If a guy knows he has a child and doesn’t actively pursue paying his share, he’s a asshole. If he has to be sued and chased rather than cooperating, he’s an asshole. Some guys will leave the state their child lives in order to avoid paying, Some guys will work under the table to avoid paying. Asshole and big fucking asshole.
When my stepson’s Dad was finally sued for CS he hired a lawyer who tried all sorts of shenanigans to avoid paying or keep the payments low. They successfully brow beat my ex wife into taking a minimum amount. He’d rather give money to his lawyer than to the son he had ignored for 12 fucking years.

Well that’s the great big clueless part then pal. Fucking nobody in that thread was singing the praises of the messed part of our legal system that handles child support. evidently you glanced at the thread and then decided to post something your own pet peeve. That was not the point. Your post seemed to imply that because the system has problems and some Moms are irresponsible selfish bitches that should absolve some fathers from paying support. It doesn’t, and you just can’t seem to grasp that basic concept.

I don’t have time this morning to read the whole article but it only took ten seconds to find this

I’ll be real surprised if I find anything in that article to support your concept and my guess is that a very high percentage of people who have any experience in this area would think your idea is bullshit. There might be all sorts of extenuating circumstances and different income levels but the concept of parental responsibility remains the moral constant.

He sounds like a very decent guy and I’m sure the revelation was a shock. The emotional end is very complicated and it’s hard to look into our hearts and sort out true motives. I think it’s wrong for the child’s Mom to chase him for money and then not help facilitate a relationship between him and his child. The child deserves to know the truth. Having said that even the fact that he never knew about the child absolves him of the responsibility to pay. States have different laws about how much back child support is owed. I assume that figure was reached by factoring in his income level which must have been decent yes?
And once more, the fact that Mom had met someone else and they were able to provide support for the child also doesn’t absolve him. Whether Mom squanders the money on herself or creates a college fund for junior is a totally separate issue from his responsibility, which, was what my thread was about…

I’m glad for your friend. I don’t believe his selfish mother is the norm or her actions have anything to do with whether Dad should pay.

Apology accepted. I needed to vent about your original post, and I still think you;re really missing the point.

Mosier, I think your POV is pretty naive, maybe understandably so since you have no real experience with the system. In the interest of full disclosure, I have no first-hand personal experience either (having no children) but I do a fair amount of pro bono work with parents (mostly, but not excusively, mothers) seeking support.

Unfortunately, it is. For a certain class of working dads (those who do skilled trades) it is pretty simple to only work “off the books” if that is your choice. If the System doesn’t know about whatever jobs the father has, then it doesn’t know that there are any wages to garnish through a court order. It is IME not uncommon for a father who does seasonal work or independent-contractor work (painters, construction, etc.) to choose to only work when he can be paid under the table, in order to avoid a child support obligation. Then as far as his ex or “the gubmit” knows, he is unemployed.

Suffice it to say that this is not my experience. For people qualifying for free legal services (who must meet income guidelines that essentially mean they are living in poverty), it is imperative to access child support if there is a right to it. This is because the custodial parent lacks the independent resources to support the child alone. The people I work with are desparate to get the support their kids are entitled to, and they are completely willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish that. To them, it’s not the difference between going on vacation or not; it’s the difference that might allow the mother to get off food stamps. But they frequently lack the education or language skills to take the necessary steps by themselves, and they are easily intimidated by the process, the government agency (unintentionally), or their ex (intentionally).

Cecil didn’t write that article; Gfactor did.

This is not “obvious” and is frequently incorrect. Simply marrying a woman with children does not oblige a man to care for those children; it doesn’t make him those children’s “parent”. Their parents are their mother and their father. Now, a remarriage might result in an adjustment of the support a court decides the children need (because, for example, the mother is now responsible for half the household expenses, where before marriage she was responsible for all of them), but the support obligation does not switch from the child’s father to the child’s mother’s new husband. And the true “sperm donor” situation is vanishingly rare. IME, all support issues arise from two people who know full well that they have had a child together.

Mosier, you remind me of my ex. He would be all angry that because he was paying child support, my current husband and I would be able to afford a house. Why should I be able to buy a house? I wouldn’t be able to afford a house if all the $500 he paid for his two kids each month was going to their care.

WTF? Why shouldn’t I be able to buy a house? The kids were going to be living in it. What, I’d get equity? So he’d rather a landlord bought a house with my rent than I got equity that our children could actually get a benefit out of later.

And then he was pissed that we bought a 4-bedroom house. We shouldn’t be able to have a 4-bedroom house using the child support he was paying! As far as he was concerned we only need 3 bedrooms–one for each of his daughters and one for me and my husband. The fact that my husband has a son and we wanted him to have a room of his own when he was here was too bad.

This was his attitude, while he was living with his new “wife” and they were buying a 4-bedroom house that they only had 2 kids living in, and so on.

My current husband was not obligated to financially support my kids. He had nothing to do with creating them. The fact that he was willing to help raise my kids is a credit to him. My ex-husband is the father of my children. If he didn’t want to take responsibility for his children, he shouldn’t have fucked me.

I swear, I’m convinced some men would prefer their children live in poverty rather than their mother living in a decent home by proxy.

There’s a sig line in there somewhere. :smiley:

The divorce system nowadays usually results in one party getting to keep and raise the children and the other party being obligated to pay for children he or she will rarely see and will usually have little involvement with their upbringing. This arrangement is inevitably unfair to the latter party, and currently divorce courts overwhelmingly favor mothers, so the injured party is usually male. The vitriol over this issue in large part derives because of the systematic discrimination of divorce settlements; were fathers assigned custody half of the time, there would be much less fuss.

I simply don’t believe, athelas, that what you describe as usual is the norm. Courts want divorced parents to have involvement with their children, and while there is certainly a tendency towards full physical custody for women, that is changing, and also I would think many divorced men would be glad of it. I could not have the job I do and have full physical custody of my son.

What I think a lot of divorced fathers confuse is the access arrangements they want with good visitation rights. It took me a time to adjust to the fact that simply because a particular weekend was good for me, it might not be good for my ex or my son. Regular weekends with my son mean I miss out on the NFL game the boys are going to, or the Toby Keith show tomorrow night. But that means my son gets to go to his best friend’s birthday party rather than resenting Dad for dragging him out of town that weekend.

The problems come where the divorced couple fight using the child. I am eternally grateful to my ex for avoiding that. But I don’t see divorce and divorce courts as the same sort of Inquisition for men that you do.


Um, cite?

This is simply factually and legally incorrect. The modern divorce process in most states defaults to joint custody, and assumes both parents will continue to be involved in the lives the the children, as is set forth in the parenting plan. All parents, custodial or non, have not only responsibilities to their children but rights to the children as well, and it is as difficult to prevent an engaged parent from being involved with the children shuld he or she choose to, as it is to compel a disengaged parent to step up and actively parent.

Well, I’d assume that if both parents are obviously unfit the child would go to a foster home or something like that.

I feel for the guys situation and I expressed that but I’m guessing he knew how babies are made when he was having sex with the child’s Mother. Different states have different ways of calculating back child support. He’s not a deadbeat Dad if he never knew he had a child. However, even considering that, the Mom has every right to decide to decide he should pay for his child even if she’s getting remarried. I don’t know the details but we hear he has to struggle. How sorry am I supposed to be about that? He has options such as a second job. He gets an older car instead of a new one etc etc. He wasn’t forced into bankruptcy. He didn’t become a homeless begger. It’s his child, he should pay.

OTOH you assume you know the child’s mother’s motives and refer to her seeking child support as shaking the money tree. 50 Gs is a lot of money but the amount is calculated using your income. I’m guessing that means he has a good job and is able to pay.

I was responding to the implication that because this child already had a Daddy figure in her life then then the bio dad shouldn’t be asked for a dime. That’s dead wrong.

“Boo fucking hoo” was a funny way to express it, then. The child and father have lost out on a minimum of nine years’ contact, and probably a lifetime’s worth, on account of the mother’s choices - but fortunately the negative consequence that would have hurt the mother most is one that can be easily addressed just by presenting the father with a large bill. I’m in a fairly well paid job, but a sudden demand for £25k would certainly give me a good deal of pause, and that’s before we address the life-changing impact of discovering I had a daughter I’d been estranged from by someone else’s choice.

Sure, he can spend another twenty or thirty hours a week working and live off stale bread from the supermarket trash and drive a beater of a car for a few years. That seems fair. :rolleyes:

As for this line about knowing how babies are made - you seem unwilling to take the same hard line with your own daughter.

which was followed immediately by

An acknowledgment of the difficulty of the situation and that he didn’t know about the child. I wasn’t minimizing the situation and how the guy might of felt. I was directly addressing the implication being made that the fact that he didn’t know or that she already had another man in her life somehow relieved him of parental responsibility. The phrase that seemed to upset you so much was directed at that faulty premise.

No argument about the nine years. I can’t second guess the mother’s motives. You’re wrong about the lifetime though. If he’s paying he can insist on being involved with the child. He chose not to. I won’t make any harsh judgment calls about his motives on that issue, but it’s still his choice and you can’t blame the Mom for that one.

Are you suggesting he shouldn’t pay child support because the child’s mother was mean to him? Mom made some choices and although we don’t know her motives, they might be viewed as selfish or just plain wrong, or bad, and so suddenly he’s absolved of his parental responsibility.

I’ve already stated that I think the mother and her new fellah are wrong to go after him for money and not facilitate a relationship between father and child. He’s apparently decided to let that go.

This bullshit exaggeration does nothing to support whatever argument you’re making. Stale bread? You don’t think that for a second. Having kids is expensive even when they are planned. Sometimes, even when your kids live with you you have to work extra hours to make ends meet and you live on a budget that considers what the kids will need. That’s what the courts are making him do. That’s not punishment. It’s real life and meeting your responsibilities.

Exactly what are you saying you fucking asswipe? Did I in any way shape or form even* hint* that my daughter was not responsible for her share of supporting her child? Did I in any way suggest she wasn’t responsible for her role in making this child? No I sure as hell never did. So that’s a great big FUCK YOU , You’re wrong and you’re a petty jerk for trying to defend your lame argument with this tactic.

Does anyone posting in this thread actually believe that fathers are given physical custody by the courts as often as mothers are?