Paternity Obscenity
That would be making a man pay child support to the biological father of his wife's child -- and then taking away his visitation rights to that child and his own biological child as well:
So for the last 15 years, enslaved, I have paid the support for both children while they lived with the father of the first child. Obviously everyone, including the judge, have been fully aware of the fraud since the court entered the order. And, to add insult to injury, her boyfriend (the biological father) sat in the courtroom through the divorce proceedings.
I have since learned that my ex-wife gave a child up for adoption eight months before I met her. The same man was the father of that child as well and wanted nothing to do with that baby.
In April 2001 I received a letter from the friend of the court stating the mother had moved out of the house leaving the children behind, basically abandoning them with this man. At that point the court granted him custody of not only his child but my child as well. The judge also issued an order directing that all payments I make go directly to the biological father of my ex-wife’s child. Not only was I paying this man to raise his own child, but my child as well. Further, I was never notified until after this occurred and the court order entered.
When the mother moved out of her boyfriend’s home in 2001 she was also ordered to pay the father child support. Thus, her boyfriend was receiving child support from two separate people to raise his own child.
The child is now 20-years old and doesn’t even live with his father. But the courts say I have an arrearage of $6,700 that has accumulated over the last 15 years. To date this case, between the support and health care, has cost me well over $150,000.
In 2005 my child moved back in with my ex-wife and on September 19th the court issued an order for me to pay her child support for our child. However, I was not notified of the custody change or the court order until I received a letter dated January 20, 2006, from the friend of the court, Elizabeth Roszatycki.
As this case stands today, I pay the father, my ex-wife’s boyfriend, child support on an arrearage for a child that isn’t mine and a child that no longer lives with him. I also pay the mother child support for the second child.
Some ask why I have just paid the support? The answer, though unjust, is quite easy. When the divorce proceeding were over my attorney told me there was nothing I could do, just live with it.
Even though the second child is mine I have tape recorded phone conversations from 1990 of the mother stating that I will never be allowed to have anything to do with either of these children. She stated then that she would simply erase me out of the picture so her, the children, and her boyfriend can go on with their lives as a family. And she did just that with the full support of the courts all the way.
I felt compared to share this injustice with you and can provide documentation on request.
Douglas M Richardson
709 McDonnell
Essexville, Michigan 48732
(989) 893-4717
mailto:dougmrich@yahoo.com
There's much more of this that goes on than people realize. Unfortunately, the "men's movement," with all its howling about all women being "feminazis" and such -- instead of simply telling the tale (like this, above) -- comes off clownishly enraged, and thus becomes easier for the general public to ignore.
Here's an excerpt from a comment I posted in response to some of this "feminazi" ranting on Men's News Daily:
SOME GUY: "Unfortunately for men in America, it really makes no difference that there are only a handful of women that are not Feminazis..."ME: Oh, please. First of all, it's not true. Read the work of any of my friends -- Cathy Seipp, for example, who was linked here the other day. The exaggeration isn't helping your cause. Equating anybody with the Nazis who is not genocidal and putting people in death camps is imprecise and makes the equate-or look like a fanatic, light on logic. Men as subhumans? Oh, boo hoo. Come on. There are awful injustices -- Matt Welch wrote about paternity fraud, for example, as have I, in my column. But, it's much easier, isn't it, to blame women as a whole than take personal responsibility for marrying some psycho.
...And again, you might feel all squishy inside when you call women feminazis, but I'm somebody who is not a feminist and who supports men's rights, and I'm telling you that it makes people out of your wounded man-coven take you less than seriously.
...If you're all just planning on huffing and puffing to yourselves, fine, feminazi it up. If you'd like to actually have some success getting your message across to men and women who are sympathetic, use language that's more precise and less cartoonish.
What's interesting to me is how unreasonable so many people are here. Again, I know you guys have a lot to be rightfully angry about, but there's an absence of logic, especially in the post of the guy who was so envious of the guy who posted the ridiculous comparison to Nazi Germany. Again, yes, there's injustice. You see men being shoveled into ovens here? Then put your thinking caps on and come up with some language that actually serves your cause.
Well said, Amy. Irreverent comparisons to Nazis is not only irrational, it's a blatant insult to those who have actually endured the horrors of the holocaust, and their families.
Patrick at February 2, 2006 8:01 AM
But, it's much easier, isn't it, to blame women as a whole than take personal responsibility for marrying some psycho.
I avoided marrying a psycho, and it had a lot to do with reason, but I almost teetered into the abyss. Hand grenades and horseshoes! ...No babies either, thank God and reason and dumb luck too!
I'd have a hard time explaining what happened in that relationship in logical terms. The whole experience was Kafkaesque. Injustice is so often irrational, it's hard to describe without getting emotional.
I feel bad for this guy, by the way, but I don't feel bad for him for having to pay for his own child. Kids are like herpes--if you don't want 'em, wear a condom. ...otherwise, be prepared to pay the price.
Ken Shultz at February 2, 2006 6:59 PM
It's much more productive to describe Seipp as a "man-hating peroxide feminist" than a feminazi, and it gets under her skin a lot more too.
And while you're obviously right that most men's rights activists don't put their case in the best possible way, your use of such language as "wounded man-coven" indicates that you're much more interested in trolling than in helping.
As to your buddy Matt Welch, his piece on paternity fraud was warm and fuzzy, but not all that helpful. These fraud cases indicate something of the horror that's been wrought by the Bradley Amendment, but they're only the tip of the iceberg. The Bradley Amendment, of course, is the provision of federal child support law that prevents errors from being corrected in child support cases. What other body of law prevents the court from correcting its mistakes, one might ask. And confronted with an injustice of this magnitude one might well be tempted to join a coven of some sort. Rational measures clearly haven't done the trick.
Best wishes to your dressed-up dog, and here's hoping she has a speedy recovery from that flea problem.
Richard Bennett at February 2, 2006 9:41 PM
It's actually idiotic to describe Cathy as a feminist whatsoever, because she's anything but.
Regarding "wounded man-coven" - I'm not any kinder to their counterparts, the Victims Gone Wild (how I referred to feminists in a recent piece).
Matt's piece on paternity fraud was anything but warm and fuzzy.
Do you just type random words on a page and hope something semi-coherent comes out? I think there might be a job for you in that room of monkeys attempting to type sonnets.
Regarding the flea remark: I'm really sorry you're not funny, but until you get funny, please refrain from attempts at humor.
Amy Alkon at February 2, 2006 10:23 PM
He's MEAN!!!
Crid at February 2, 2006 11:01 PM
OK, let's try again using smaller words, shorter sentences, and more paragraph structure.
Cathy Seipp writes a column for the Independent Women's Forum, also known as the IWF. The IWF is a self-described conservative feminist organization. They selected Seipp because she's a conservative (of sorts) and a feminist.
Cathy Seipp is a child-support queen, and has nice collection of real estate that she bought with her child support winnings.
Cathy Seipp used to write a column for Salon.com. She bashed her ex-husband repeatedly in that column. She was dropped from Salon.com for that offense. Cathy Seipp (probably) hasn't had sex with a man in a long, long time. Cathy Seipp hates men.
Cathy Seipp bleaches her hair. Therefore, Cathy Seipp is a man-hating, peroxide feminist. These are facts.
Matt's column about Tony Pierce conveyed the impression that there's not much wrong with the child support system except that a few innocent guys may be temporarily caught up in the net that's set for "real criminals". This is a misleading impression for several reasons. Matt's editor at Reason when he wrote that column was and is married to a women's studies professor. The column was perfectly acceptable to feminists.
If you want to offer help to men (or any other group), it's generally a good idea to be, you know, helpful. Button-pushing, hysterical, insulting language is not helpful. If you're criticized for calling black people "niggers" it's not a defense to say "Hey, I call Mexicans wetbacks." People are generally pretty stupid, but not that stupid.
And you do put your dog in dresses and she does have fleas.
Richard Bennett at February 3, 2006 1:42 AM
Seipp is not a "man-hating, peroxide feminist." Her personal affairs are by definition her own beeswax... To the extent that she's shared them with blog readers, we've come to admire her even more. If you had a blog in which you'd told as much from your life, do suppose anyone would read it?
Bitterness of your magnitude is hard to answer. If you were given the best possible break in terms of good faith by the rest of us here, we'd have to wonder why you're inclined to such personal and hurtful rhetoric, and who you imagine could ever be persuaded by it.
Crid at February 3, 2006 6:06 AM
Well-said Crid!
"Child support queen"? In that she pays to support her child? Well, I suppose she is. From what I see, what comes in goes to her daughter. If only more parents were like that.
I didn't read Salon back then. I don't know about Cathy's husband. I do know Cathy doesn't hate men in general. She just doesn't suffer fools - male or female - gladly. Perhaps that's why you feel so injured?
Your note about my dog having fleas is as unfounded as the rest. You've never seen or touched my dog. Moreover, she is never around other dogs, and she wears Frontline. So how could she possibly have fleas?
Richard, your bile isn't welcome here. Shoo. Go become somebody and you won't have to run around to blogs attacking people to feel better about your tiny self.
Amy Alkon at February 3, 2006 6:49 AM
Richard Bennett:
To cite someone as "man-hating" for bashing their ex-husband is, at the very best, a fallacy of logic commonly known "hasty generalization." I don't know what Seipp wrote in her column about her ex-husband, but if it was truly vicious and mean-spirited, then all that can be logically inferred is that she happens to hate ONE man.
Would I be a man-hater if I hated Hitler? It makes just as much sense as saying Seipp is a man-hater for hating her ex-husband (if indeed she does hate him).
Strictly speaking, dogs and cats do not have fleas. Fleas do not live on the animal, but in the environment. They simply hop on the dog or cat (or human, or any other animal present) for a meal. Once fed, they hop right off again. Fleas generally get into the house when they hop on a dog or cat while the animal is outside, and happen to be inside when they hop off. They can then reproduce and make more fleas, complete with steady food supply.
By the way, I think your posts are starting to sound like the someone who's not interested in dialogue, but who's interested in trying to incite. How boring. How pitiful. Get a self, and you wouldn't need to satisfy such obvious cravings for attention.
Patrick at February 3, 2006 10:32 AM
Not to be a nit picker, Patrick, but dogs, cats and humans do therefore fleetingly have fleas:)
Jody Tresidder at February 3, 2006 11:04 AM
Web sites, on the other hand, have Richard Bennetts.
Amy Alkon at February 3, 2006 11:26 AM
To cite someone as "man-hating" for bashing their ex-husband is, at the very best, a fallacy of logic commonly known "hasty generalization."
Well said, and I thank you. After my marriage broke up I wrote about "Evil-X", but "X" is her own special brand of horror. By no means do I hate women!
(Actually I don't "hate" X, loathesome creature that she is. I more pity her these days now that I've healed somewhat.)
I'd really like to see more stories like this particular blog in the mainstream press. Are newspaper people all forbidden from discussing this?
steve at February 3, 2006 12:34 PM
RB (no relation to Elizabeth) posts a lot about evil wimmin who steal a guy's vital fluids and his money. Why he thinks Cathy is one of these is anyone's guess. Salon certainly didn't stop publishing her for "man bashing"--but the machinations of editors are unknown to RB. His blog is lengthy but devoid of content.
KateCie at February 3, 2006 1:10 PM
Jody Tresidder writes:
Untrue. Flies land on us occassionally, and they do feed there, too. I would venture to say that every human being on the planet, save for those who have spent their entire lives in very cold climates has had this experience. Can we be said to have flies? I think most would take issue.
We DO, by contrast, have mites. They live on our hair follicles and never leave. We can also have worms (bleah), as they can live inside us and thrive there.
Patrick at February 4, 2006 8:00 AM
What an odd little man this Richard B is, with such strange little fantasies. I'd forgotten he was the one who'd said the "man-hating peroxide feminist" thing, but always appreciate a good straight line like that.
Cathy Seipp at February 4, 2006 3:56 PM
Aw gee, Patrick,
Well I guess that makes nonsense of my favorite Ogden Nash verse (allegedly the world's shortest poem).
Title: Fleas
"Adam/Had'em".
Jody Tresidder at February 5, 2006 8:14 AM
Guys? The subject at hand? What kind of asshole is perfectly willing to give up visitation to a child he'd raised as his son for six years--and to his BIOLOGICAL child as well--to avoid child support?
Thanks, and carry on.
rebecca at February 9, 2006 4:27 PM
Well Jody tresidder very well put from one who knows half the truth. I guess this would justify my ex-wife’s actions. She is a criminal period. If you hold any interest in the truth simply go to the site of Child custody .org and research the rest that has unfolded, But no I guess you would not want to know the truth it is by far much easier to belittle a victim as long as the victim is a male you sexist. You will find in this sight under paternity fraud children for profit just how complicated this case is, you will see how I am fighting for the rights of all family’s including YOURS.
Douglas Richardson at January 16, 2007 9:08 AM
Well Jody tresidder very well put from one who knows half the truth. I guess this would justify my ex-wife’s actions. She is a criminal period. If you hold any interest in the truth simply go to the site of Child custody .org and research the rest that has unfolded, But no I guess you would not want to know the truth it is by far much easier to belittle a victim as long as the victim is a male you sexist. You will find in this sight under paternity fraud children for profit just how complicated this case is, you will see how I am fighting for the rights of all family’s including YOURS.
Douglas Richardson at January 16, 2007 9:10 AM
Well Jody tresidder very well put from one who knows half the truth. I guess this would justify my ex-wife’s actions. She is a criminal period. If you hold any interest in the truth simply go to the site of Child custody .org and research the rest that has unfolded, But no I guess you would not want to know the truth it is by far much easier to belittle a victim as long as the victim is a male you sexist. You will find in this sight under paternity fraud children for profit just how complicated this case is, you will see how I am fighting for the rights of all family’s including YOURS.
Douglas Richardson at January 16, 2007 9:10 AM
Leave a comment