…what do you intend to do to make it right to that child you had a part in creating?

As long as there is abortion on demand, and unequal assigning of custody, there will be no real justice. It’s no good jumping on a group that is already oppressed under the law in two respects.

Now, obviously, a guy should be responsible for his children.

Not necessarily. The woman’s motives and actions need to be taken into account. If the woman deceived him in any way, it’s her responsibility, not his. I favor a man having the right to abort his parental responsibilities, as long as there is a constitutional right for a woman to destroy her unborn child. It’s called “equality under the law”, I believe.

I thought debtors prisons were illegal?

Anna, well done! You have once again educated me on a subject. I am once again saddened, but it is something I need to know, and yes, from time to time, act upon.

Folks, may I suggest that each of you take a good, close look at Anna’s post, and weigh in your hearts and prayers what action you might take to help make family court a place of justice, not oppression.

This is simply another atrocity created by angry feminism. A woman can opt out of her responsibility by simply killing the child, but the man, who has no choice in the matter, is obligated for life, even if the mother never told him she was pregnant. She decides, he pays. What sort of “equality” is that?

Let’s change the sex here. The girlfriend (who get’s custody) won’t hold a job what happens to her?

Does she face any consequences? Or is she instead rewarded?

Sorry Chris but there is no real justification for religiously following an unjust law. The excuse of just following the law of the National Socialists (Nazis) and adhering to their authority was used by many Germans during WWII and you know what happened to them.

There you go,
“Because all children are born with the mother’s consent(otherwise it’s rape), she has the sole power to either consent or refuse, and is therefore responsible for any child she conceives.” the ultimate expression of the feminist ideal.

God bless America!

The guy ruined his own life, the state didn’t do it for him.

The state multiplied his troubles, no doubt. They didn’t have to go after him for the kids’ sake; the wife has plenty of money. It’s just the state implementing the man-destroying feminist ideology.

The Nuremberg Trials were supposed to put an end to”I was simply following orders” defense, and yet we have lawyers spew that crap here on a regular basis. “It is the LAW!”, spare me that horsecrap. If you lock people up for inability to pay child support then the spouse who spends child support on anything other than child support can be locked up, and their custody rights annulled.

TRY PAYING CHILD SUPPORT FOR 4 YEARS AND GETTING AN ATTORNEY THAT TELLS YOU THAT YOU SHOULDNT BE PAYING DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF OVERNIGHTS SPENT WITH THE CHILD ABOUT 54/47 PERCENT SPLIT AND HE MAKES MORE THAN I DO. GOING TO COURT WITH THIS ATTORNEY AND THE JUDGE NOT DOING ANYTHING AND THE ATTORNEY NOT SAYING ANYHTING. READ THE STATUTES 61.30 SUBSETION 7 NUMBER 10, SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME MEANS THE NON CUSTODIAL PARENT EXERCISES VISITATION AT LEAST 40 PERCENT OF THE OVERNIGHTS PER YEAR. THERE IS A FORM ONLINE AT http://WWW.FLCOURTS.ORG YOU CAN USE TO HELP FIGURE IT OUT. I HOPE THIS HELPS SOME ONE AS IM STILL 4 YEARS LATER PAYING AND FRUSTRATED ABBOUT THIS IF ANY ONE HAS ANY ADVICE ID LIKE TO HEAR IT

Women get custody 90-95% of the time. Hardly equality.

If the mindless stupidity of the “enforcement thugs” actions seem familiar, they should. This is no different than the rationale for all the “Zero Tolerance” expulsions from schools we read about over and over again. A girl brings a butter knife to school to make her PBJ. A boy whose after-school job is in construction is expelled for tools left in his truck. Another boy, working toward his Eagle Scout award, is kicked out of school because of the hatchet left in his car.

In all these cases, and hundreds more, the government bureaucrats (let’s face reality and do away with the title “teacher”) who demand an ever larger share of our tax money for doing less and less have imposed ever more idiotic regulations which further absolve them of any sort of responsibility for the actions they take.

Complaining loudly about unfair divorce laws is merely tinkering around the edges.

Either both men and women can abort their parental responsibilities, or neither gets to do it. For every anecdote you have against men, I have ten where men get screwed out of money, houses and kids by predatory women, and the courts are way biased in their favor. It’s common practice in many custody battles for the woman to charge the man with sexually abusing the kid or kids, then drop the charges when she gets her way. Nothing happens to women who lie about this, btw. Until the laws give equality here, it’s a filthy situation for men.

Well, let’s see- just from the group of dads I knew- one skipped out on Mom and the kids for ten years, worked cash jobs and avoided paying until he came to work for me. Mom meanwhile worked full time for Red Wing shoes plus got a little help from the state for her one child with cerebral palsy. Another one held part time jobs and kenneled dogs on the side and settled for what the ex could give her. One worked in a factory- oh wait, she maybe doesn’t count since she was the one that actually paid the child support. Another one worked farm jobs off and on and depended on help from her family until she landed a job in a nursing home about the same time her ex finally settled down, got a steady job, and started paying. Nice timing there.

Since I have yet to see much of anything in the way of hard statistics in this “debate”, anecdotes, conspiracy theories, and conjecture seem to be the rule of the day. I just shared my anecdotes and observations here, no real conspiracy theories, though- sorry for that shortfall.

I really don’t want to come down on the side of the feminists, and don’t want anyone thinking I do. Maybe I’m just too conservative for the conservatives that comment here. I see a man’s role in a relationship as that of the primary provider. When men can not restrain their primal urges or channel them through the institution of marriage, it does not lessen their obligation to their children or in turn their children’s mother.

So you don’t like the influence feminism has had on modern society and our courts? Fine. I agree. Before feminism and the 60′s, going back thousands of years, we had stable marriages where two people raised their children together.

What I seem to be reading here is men wanting it both ways, even as they criticize women for that. You can choose your life partner carefully, and together work through the challenges of a relationship and raising children. Or you can copulate freely with incompatible partners, spawn children left and right, and then complain loudly when life doesn’t go your way. That seems to be the root of it all. Complaining loudly about unfair divorce laws is merely tinkering around the edges.

Too true, r. I have watched this crap destroy no few people. Men, women and children.

What you wrote is the feminist ideal, and as such should be enforced upon all who espouse it. Mercilessly. We would see how quickly feminism vanished then.

The (Insane) Bradley Amendment Law requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support to make the notification or regard for their awareness of the need to make the notification.

* A veteran of the first Gulf War who was captured in Kuwait in 1990 and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage being arrested the night after his release for not paying child support while he was a hostage.
* A Texas man wrongly accused in 1980 of murder. After 10 years in prison, the man sued the state for wrongful imprisonment. The state responded with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison.
* A Virginia man required to pay retroactive child support even though DNA tests proved that he could not have been the father.
“The 1986 Bradley Amendment to Title IV-D forbids any reduction of arrearage or retroactive reduction for any reason, ever. This reinforces the approach that inability to pay is no excuse. Needless to say, there are endless stories of men who are now crushed by a debt they will never be able to pay because they were:

* In a coma
* A captive of Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War
* In jail
* Medically incapacitated
* Lost their job but were confident of another so did nothing until it was too late
* Did not know they could not ask for retroactive adjustments and waited too long
* Cannot afford a lawyer to seek adjustment when adjustment was warranted
* Wouldn’t use the legal system even if they could, feeling it alien from their world, so don’t ask for a reduction when the legal establishment expects them to.

In 2004, the Bradley Amendment was challenged as unconstitutional and in 2006 the court dismissed and Congress hasn’t made any effort to reform it.
The most pathetic aspect is a mother, may forgive what is owed to her, but won’t.

But what the hell has that got to do with YOUR responsibility to your children?

Because men don’t have the luxury of aborting their poor decisions. Equality under the law, you know?

Because men don’t have the luxury of aborting their poor decisions. Equality under the law, you know?

I guess you didn’t read the sentence preceding that?

Look, I’m sure there are cases where it doesn’t come out right or fair for the father. But too many men who are simply juvenile deadbeats will use isolated cases like that to justify in their own minds their unwillingness to support a child of their making. You can talk all you want of high-minded ideals of fairness to men, but don’t forget at the root of it all there are children involved that require support.

Short version: Men, why did you marry/ impregnate that woman if you aren’t willing to own up to the consequences?

No excuses here, just tell me- no blowing it off by saying you made a “poor choice”, what do you intend to do to make it right to that child you had a part in creating?

I really don’t want to come down on the side of the feminists, and don’t want anyone thinking I do. Maybe I’m just too conservative for the conservatives that comment here. I see a man’s role in a relationship as that of the primary provider. When men can not restrain their primal urges or channel them through the institution of marriage, it does not lessen their obligation to their children or in turn their children’s mother.

I guess I’d like you to show me where, anywhere, I have ever said that a man doesn’t have an obligation to support his children. You can’t, because I didn’t.

All I’m saying is that taking away a guy’s ability to get to work isn’t going to do anything to get that support paid. I think that’s reasonable enough, don’t you?

my friends situation is sort of the same but he is not the father because he got an dna test this system is so messed up they let these women get away with sleeping with different men and pinning their child on that man and and the innocent man has to suffer the consequences for her actions they should make it where the women should be fined for being a liar and for being a ho!!! But its sad how they keep excusing these women for what they r doing like they are saying its ok to sleep with anybody you want and just say anybody is your baby daddy my friend has a child that is actually his he didnt sign up to take care of a chld that aint his and nobody does and then the chick have the nerve to get government assistance for all the chicks that don't know who they baby daddy is they deadbeat too.

The usual tactic is to lie on a domestic injunction to remove by force the undesirable person, which grants full custody to the attacker who plays a victim, since no proof/evidence is needed to get an injunction, just a lack of morals and value of life.

Selling out someone else gives you their life-value but screws/murders the other poor soul. Demanding child support when it is not needed or crying bloody murder just to punish the other for what almost always turns out to be hurt feelings – not physical harm. The current Child Support programs were designed by Joe Biden/Bill Clinton in the 90′s to punish any non-custodial parent for failing with the custodial parent.

The courts will not grant a Termination of Parental Rights because they want to collect money – not because they want the child to have both parents in the childs life as they will claim. This has nothing to do with what is best for the child, for if it did the laws would not prevent you from being able to work and earn an income. The point is to take everything away so you suffer and if the poor soul kills themselves then the custodial parent collects the deceased parents full Social Security until they turn 18.

Meet the new class of Welfare Parents.

im glad im not the only one what a joke the colorado child support ENFORCEMENT agency is i can not beleave the power they and who gave them thatn power. a victum of thiers for 19yrs.