Isn't the solution obvious? Divorce your second wife and move out of the house. Then, she can file for child support, too!

Because we live in an upside down Bizarro world, your second wife's children will only get an equal cut of your income if you divorce their mom.

I can tell you this -- from cold, hard experience -- that woman didn't quit her job to protect her child(ren) from daddy either. If that was an issue, she'd be hoping to hell he never located, not demanding support payments.

I don't get it. 23 years ago when I quit my job and moved across country (and knew I was on my own doing this; before anyone screams he was convicted of child molestation 10 years later), I was basically told I couldn't do that by the courts, that I had to get court permission and the implications for the reasons they'd give permission for were rather limited. Sigh. Guess they've become ridiculously lenient in the last couple of decades. I mean, even then, facing what I was, I thought that was as it should be. (Just thought you should have better recourse if there's good reason to suspect abuse.)

I was told by my attorney that he couldn't advise me to do that but if I did, it wouldn't be kidnapping since I had full custody -- basically, read between the lines. But he didn't advise me to since it was interfering with visitation rights and he couldn't advise me to break the law.

I do think that's a risk if you do marry someone with kids, though. Those kids may or may not pre-empt any you have with him (or her) and you may just find yourself raising someone else's kid(s) should custody somehow fall back to them. So sympathy factor for new spouse goes down right there unless you didn't know he had kids (hell, he might not have; so shoot me, I used to watch Desperate Housewives). You knew, you risked it.

Once again, though, it's the innocents, the kids who are really screwed.

yep. this is the primary reason I usually work into first conversations with interesting women that I have children already, and they live with their mom. Just so's they know up front the likely score. {score is: the ex gets 52% of my net pay, till the kids are 18}

Mostly because I can't stand to see a woman's eyes fall if she's interested in you, but didn't know you had what is called baggage.

Interestingly Colorado's CS calculations do take into account other children, but I have found tha the system can be gamed if someone is willing to do so. Those of us that don't game systems and do their best for the children take it in the chops...

They are taking half the guy's income just to support one kid? That hardly gives him a motivation to work at all. Here's an interesting thought: what if the man decided to quit his job and be a stay-at-home parent while his wife works to support the family? The courts can't go after the wife's money, can they?

Anybody read that 40% of children born in America last year were born outside marriage?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D970HM7O0&show_article=1

If he quits his job the ex takes him to court and they "impute" him his old income. There is no way to get around paying huge sums of CS in Canada. Unless you are the custodial parent(read:mom), then you can quit your job and the country will PAY YOU for it.

I knew going in that he paid CS. However, I was not expecting the ex to quit her job and move and the courts making us pay 100% of all extra costs (since she has no income). Also, untill you are "in" the situation you wouldn't know payments are on AFTER TAX dollars and he gets no credits for the children he supports, they all go to the mom.

So "knowing what you got yourself into" really means "not having a freaking clue what the ex will go after next and how much more the courts will say she can take away from your family".

And when you see one set of children (the 2nd) suffering because the MOM gets off scott free, doesn't work, goes to school etc. it seems clear a change is needed.

How can such an obviously "anti-family" situation exist, we ask?

The answer is that Big Daddy Government doesn't want the guy to get married again, apparently. Haven't we seen a steady social/government trend encouraging the removal of men from families? Families, it is now thought, are much better off with Dad on the outside. Only his money crosses the threshold -- and the state gets its cut, of course.

I kind of hate to say this, but it still comes down to the fact that he chose to have more children with his new wife. IMHO, that was a really bad decision. I am not totally without feeling though, and it is a difficult position to be in.

His second mistake, was hiring whatever lawyer represented him in that custody/visitation/child support matter when his ex wife decided to pack up and move away. He needs to get a new layer and re-visit this issue with the courts. As a lawyer (although not in the family law arena) even I have a family law attorney who handled my divorce, custody, child support matter. I still use him whenever my ex thinks his child support payments should be reduced - which by the way, has NEVER happened, nor should it. As my children got older, the expenses just got bigger (i.e.m, SAT prep fees, tutors, college application fees and now tuition for a daughter in a private university, which I foot the bill for). I supposed by the time our 14 year old turns 18 he might finally figure that out.

Child support is such a touchy issue for all involved. I have always supported my 3 daughters and his child support payments were appreciated and helped out tremendously over the years. However, there is no way it has been an equal 50/50 split of the children's expenses for the last 11 years. I have always told him that if we were still married, he would be contributing a lot more per month than what he has paid in child support. Of course, he is still of the mindset that he is paying too much and that it all goes to support my "Beverly Hills" lifestyle.

One thing to note, Sara, is that the splits are relative to what the parents earn, so 50/50 is not even a theory. I pay 75% to her 25%. Could she be making more? You might imagine that imputed income never seems to apply to moms, unless you have a lot of money to go after them in court.

One take away that applies in all cases and certainly yours too is that it isn't about "EXPENSES". If I get a raise, my ex gets more money. If I won the lottery, my ex would get a cut. In theory this is about what the kids should get, but the person that administers this is the very person who is most interested in having more money, ie. my ex-wife. It's not like she has to prove how much anything costs.

Why would she try to get a full time engineering job with her degree, when she can answer phones part time, and I pay? You are right about there never being a reduction in the amounts you have to pay. That has lead a friend who got laid off last year to end up homeless. Right now he owes back child support that they would garnishee his wages, making it so he woulnd't have any money to live. And YES they DO actually do that. I have seen it before.
The legal take is that the children's welfare should come first. But there is no flexibility in that, and they are more than willing to force you to pay more than you have.

We used to call it indentured servitude...

When an unwed female (teen or woman) has a child out of wedlock, we don't say, oh too bad, you should have had better reasoning, you should have realized not becoming pregnant was the right thing to do, and we don't turn our backs on the unwed single mother. We even offer more to the same woman if she becomes pregnant yet again out of wedlock - we actually REWARD this bad behavior as a society.

When a man remarries after divorce, staying on the high road being a comitted family man, and then has more children, we say you are just shit out of luck if you're having a hard time paying for your first chil(ren) and your second child(ren), but the mother of the first child(ren) may continue collecting CS no matter how destitute the man becomes, or his second child(ren).

Why is it that the first mover advantage goes to the single mother, rather than the remarried man, or the married woman, or their children. I thought we're supposed to do what's in the best interests of children, not particular children. I also thought, parents (generally) know what's best for their children and (generally) do what's best for them - but the "single mother" doesn't have to collaborate, she can claim victim and force the man to be indentured and into servitude to her - that's the private personal agenda of the woman who has lost her man.

Turns out, statistically the 2nd child(ren) have a much better chance at not becoming teen pregnant, becoming drug abusers, alcohol abusers, criminals, rapists, violent, etc. because they at least have 2 parents at home.

Let's also not forget another important characteristic of this kafka-esque scheme: The earnings of the guy's second wife are added to his own in determining how much he has to pay the first wife. The more she makes, the more the first wife gets. Of course, if first wife marries a rich, new husband, ex-husband and second wife still get no relief at all.

Insane, huh?

"I kind of hate to say this, but it still comes down to the fact that he chose to have more children with his new wife."

That is not the problem, Sara.

These are the problems:

1. The children's mother gets to obligate their father to pay for all sorts of exrtraordinary expenses. He gets no say in what they do or do not need, and of course that money goes to her. For the children's use. Of course.

2. CS is computed based on income, not on actual need.

3. CS is actually computed only on one parent's income, and only that one parent is required to pay anything. The custodial parent can choose not to work and thus can choose to make no contribution to the children's income. The non-custodial parent cannot.

3. CS is not mandated to be used for the children's need - the cutodial parent can spend it as she or he (ha!) sees fit, including housing, feeding etc. unrelated adults in the home (boyfriends), and the custodial parent is not held acountable with a requirement for any accounting of any kind, much less a monthly accounting.

And this is not an exhaustive list of the problems.

The common argument you hear against ensuring ALL children involved are treated equally is "why should my (first) child lose out because HE decided to have more kids?"

But after divorce, BOTH adults commonly re-marry and re-pocreate. And money sent in the form of child support for the "first" kid inevitably gets SHARED with any new siblings in that household. When they use child support money to turn up the heat, all the children are warm, when they buy food, all the children eat.

So apparently it's ok to share the $$ pot with one set of kids, but not the other.

But the main point is that child support is just too high. Most paying parents could EASILY support both their first and second kids adequately if the amount that was ordered to be paid was a reasonable amount and if the custodial parent was required to contribute as well.

Jim, not sure where you live so I can only speak to how things are in California. But I can tell you from my own experience the CS is based on both parents' earnings. Even if the mom decides not to work, the number that gets plugged in is the going rate for minimum wage (ostensibly, everyone should be able to earn at least that). Frankly, staying at home with children after a divorce is a luxury few can afford and short of someone being completely disabled, then it should be mandatory that the custodial parent contributes financially.

Also, to Tricia, in California, if the ex remarries and her husband has an income and is paying household bills, that gets calculated. It's called an income and expense declaration in California and everyone gets to fill one out, you have to provide tax returns and current pay stubs to go along with it.

But the real question is: Is the overall system a flawed system? Absolutely! Unfortunately, it takes a lot of legal wrangling to get to a fair number so that neither party is hemorrhaging month after month and year after year. My only advice is to be thorough as well as tenacious.

To Swiss...I know that the $700 a month my ex husband pays in CS (and continually bitches about) doesn't even begin to cover 50% of the basic needs of food, clothing shelter and medical care for one child. Do some men get screwed over by women? YES! Maybe it's a little PollyAnna of me, but I like to think that's the exception and not the rule, at least in California courts. (I think Canada is probably a very bad place to get divorced if you have children.)

But for all you men who think their ex wives are living large on CS - wake up, we aren't. Every penney that I receive in CS goes towards my children in some form or fashion, and I would venture to say that that holds true for most custodial parents. Obviously, we can look at extremes from one end of the spectrum to the other, but those cases are not the normal everyday occurrences in family court. I think there are far more parents in situations that mirror my own than there are of the example in Amy's blog. Again, I'm probably more PollyAnna than realist.

Not to nitpick sara but you said you lived in beverly hills, maybe that was sarcasm, but if true why not move to a cheaper area?

Why pay full tution for a private college? Did your daugter even try for grants, or scholorships, or consider a state or community college?

After all an associate degree from a community college is just as good as one from a private college - basic classes are the same no matter where you take them.

I'll admit I know nothing of you or your situation other than what you wrote, but what you wrote does leave alot to discuss

I second lujlp.

Bah. I'm sure there are dead kitties somewhere I need to be crying over instead of this crap. If you are married (article author's "intact family") you pay ALL of your income supporting the kids. I've never heard of anyone keeping back 40 or 50% for themselves. And then they're supposed to make do on 25%? I don't know about other states, but in texas you top out at 30% no matter how many kids.

I have to agree with the "just don't have more" statement as well, if money is such an issue. You can't know your ex will quit her job, no, but you can't know if one of the kiddos will get leukemia either, or cause a crash and be sued and have legal fees and judgements, you can't know anything except lives are expensive and the more you make, you more you need to plan on spending.

My ex owes me over $50k. If I thought he HAD a job, I'd not feel the slightest compunction in getting his wages garnished for it. And he doesn't even have kids with me.

Isn't this the same board where people regularly post lengthy posts about how people shouldn't have kids they can't afford?

News flash: Most people can't afford two families. Most never-ever-divorced parents still living together can't afford more than a couple kids, either.

You had the kids, you pay for them, according to the lifestyle you can afford. The kids shouldn't have to go from a nice home in the suburbs to a dump just because a parent is tired of them and wants a shiny, new family. These are kids, not puppies.

NicoleK said "The kids shouldn't have to go from a nice home in the suburbs to a dump just because a parent is tired of them and wants a shiny, new family. "

Interesting, casue when fathers are forced to give away 50% of their net income to the ex-wife, the kids generally go from a nice place(moms) to a dump (dads). But nobody cares if dads place is a dump and mom wants to spend all the child support on a shiny new car or have more kids herself. She could outfit the new baby room very nicely on the monthly child support she gets for her other kid.

Nicolek also said "You had the kids, you pay for them, according to the lifestyle you can afford".

Somebody should tell that to the ex-wives who live off their hard-working ex husbands. They had the kids, they should pay for them.

momof3 said "My ex owes me over $50k. If I thought he HAD a job, I'd not feel the slightest compunction in getting his wages garnished for it. And he doesn't even have kids with me."

Yeah - I'm sure there are dead kitties somewhere that I should be crying over too.
$50K owed from one guy who isn't even the father of any of your kids? And 3 other kids, how many of those do you collect mommy support for? Way to milk it girl!

I'm all for 50/50 custody. Mom pays when kids are with her, dad pay when they are with them. Biggest bonus of all, Dad still get to be dad and not just an ATM machine. When this happens women can finally say they've reached "equality".

> Biggest bonus of all, Dad still
> get to be dad and not just
> an ATM machine.

What's being a "Dad" about a guy who lives with you at best 50% and has no romantic –or even vaguely loving– connection with your mother?

Lujlp - I never said I lived in Beverly Hills. The "Beverly Hills lifestyle" comment is my ex husband's. I live in a very modest house in Huntington Beach that I paid $250k for 11 years ago, which isn't encumbered with some crazy loan package so my mortgage is more than manageable - however, it is in need of a complete makeover. The private university that my daughter attends is $45k a year - the school awarded her grants and scholarships totaling $30k a year, I pay the remaining balance as well as pay for her books. She has a part time job on campus for her spending money. I no longer receive child support for her because she is over the age of 18. Why didn't I send her to a community college? Because this is a kid who graduated high school at 16, ranked #22 in her class of over 500 (she attended public high school) and busted her butt for 11 years to succeed. She should be rewarded and I am willing to make sure that she is. For the record, I drive a 6 year old SUV that is paid in full and our daughter drives a 13 year old sedan that's paid in full and I pay for her gas and auto insurance. The sacrifices I make on a daily basis far outweigh his financial obligations. And let's not forget I still have our 14 year old daughter at home who is involved in high school activities and will most likely go onto a university as well and I will make sure that happens for her when it's time. It is my goal that my daughters never have to rely on a man for their financial well-being.

I think people are also forgetting the fact that parenting isn't just about writing a check every month. I would gladly give back every dime of CS I have ever received if he were willing to actually parent our daughters, not just having the title of "Dad".

What does a child cost? It depends on your standard of living, but lets talk middle-middle class as a baseline. According to various statistics (Google is your friend), that amounts to a pre-tax family income of $60,000 or so. Say, with luck, $4000/month after taxes, for a (stereotypical) family of four.

Sara writes that "the $700 a month my ex husband pays in CS ... doesn't even begin to cover 50% of the basic needs ... for one child". Nonsense. Adults require more money than kids: they have to own cars, commute to work, buy business suits, etc. Based on the average family income, the extra expense for a child cannot exceed $1000 per month unless you are spending lots on a private school, or designer clothes, or some other optional expense. The problem is, if you are divorced, you have to accept a lower standard of living.

Divorce is expensive! Instead of running one household, the same money has to run two. The additional housing expense alone is massive: two time the rent or mortgage.Even if the system is totally fair, both sides will think like they are getting ripped off, because their standard of living falls. This is psychologically horrible. People want to feel like they are making progress in their lives, and no one wants to accept a sudden drop in their standard of living.

That's not to say the system isn't biased - it is. It's just to say that even a perfectly fair system will leave everyone certain that the other person got the better end of the deal. Add to this the usual bitterness involved in a divorce, and you have a perfect recipe...

----

p.s. Sara makes clear in a later post that she is talking about paying for college. That's a different discussion entirely. Community college, work-study programs, go work for a few years and save up. Life's a bitch, but there are always ways to achieve what you want at that point.

>>After all an associate degree from a community college is just as good as one from a private college - basic classes are the same no matter where you take them.

lujlp,
Seriously - that depends who you're asking.

Fair or not, employers do make distinctions between colleges - not to mention between associate (typically, two years) degrees and, say, a bachelor's (four years).

The cheapest option for your kid (an associate degree from a community college) may not be worth the investment.

"What's being a "Dad" about a guy who lives with you at best 50% and has no romantic –or even vaguely loving– connection with your mother?"

Having a man move out if the romance is over, and doing so for the sake of the children is a strange argument, and that seems to be what you suggest.

My impression over the years is that kids just don't think about whether the parents are having sex and/or fun as man and wife. Kids want the reassurance and security of both parents constantly in their lives. (Please no "what about abuse!? rejoinders; different issue.)

All that deeper romantic love stuff your post alludes to is not on a kid's radar until, it seems, sometime in adolescense. Yeah, at that point the kid may have a bad template for a great marriage, but it is hard to make the case that divorced parents (because "the love was gone...[sigh]") offer a better one.

Granted, there are plenty of otherwise good dads who skimp on child support payments. My husband's father was one. My MIL had a hell of a time making ends meet while raising my husband.

But then there was the case of a college friend of mine who married a divorced father of two, whose ex had custody of the kids. He was paying so much in child support that my friend's ENTIRE SALARY was effectively being signed over to the ex-wife.

How's that for de-motivation?

Tricia, you really sound like a typical new wife who is just pissed there WAS a first family. Why my 1st husband owes me money is no business of yours but he court-ordered does. I imagine he's still in prison so it's moot. All my kids have the same father-who I am married to, and will be their whole lives. He's critical to them. And I didn't pick him up in a sloppy seconds fire-sale either, as you apparently did.

NikoleK made a great point. Whether it's one wife or 4, you have the kids you can afford. There's a reason only rich people had multiple wives back when that was accepted.

Adults don't necessarily cost more than kids. If you have kids, you probably have to have a car. Have to live in certain areas. Have to pay school expenses, even in public, and those add up fast. You wouldn't believe how fast kids bodies and feet grow, requiring new purchases. I have fantastic health insurance and healthy kids, and I've paid over $400 in a month on copays and meds before. If a "typical" family of 4 lives on $4k a month, then the dad-married to that wife anymore or not-should be required to pay $2 of it, and the mom the other $2k. It should not be $700 from dad, $3300 from mom. You MADE the kid, you help foot the bill of RAISING the kid. Period.

Seeing your kids is another issue, and I won't delve into that here, although I am and have been a staunch believer that kids need their dads IN their lives. Why shouldn't the first kids get to complain that new kids are taking their dad's attention from them? That's unfair too you know.

>>Tricia...And I didn't pick him up in a sloppy seconds fire-sale either, as you apparently did.

Ouch -that's uncalled for, momof3!

I haven't found Tricia's arguments particularly compelling, but that's a low scold.

I'm not divorced, and my youngest is in grad school, so I have no standing to comment directly, but kids are expensive. I'm paying more on my share (everything over their Stafford loans) of their undergraduate college educations than I am for my mortgage, and I caught the loan consolidation interest rate at its nadir.

So, dads might be paying too much while the kids are young, but when they get to be college age, the expenses can be ruinous for any family.

How did we get here from the affordable state schools when I was young?

"If you are married (article author's "intact family") you pay ALL of your income supporting the kids. I've never heard of anyone keeping back 40 or 50% for themselves."

Well, yes you have. If you live in the house you are providing for those children, you are keeping that back for yourself. if you eat meals from the food you are providing those children, you are keeping that back for yourself. If you buy yourself shoes and clothes out of your income, you are keeping that back for yourself. Do your kids wear your clothes, or are you going around in rags?

When we see custodial mothers initiating the majority of divorces and non-custodial fathers ending up homeless, and this is nothing new, then custodial mothers can just STFU. And all this posturing about self-sacrificing single mothers is seen for the bullshit it is.

I've left out a couple of points. The ex-wife gets 900/month from us, plus we pay 600/month in "extras". Then she gets 700/month (gov't benefit for kids) plus another 333/month in tax breaks yearly. So, she getting $2533/month (tax free)for 2 kids before she even pitches in a dime. But the only number "quoted" when media talks about "poor single moms" is the 900 in CS. All the other benefits are convieniently left out.

But I really could care less about the money we sent for the kids until she moved away and took her kids away from a wonderful and dedicated father. She gave the judge some sob story about wanting to move closer to family. In Canada, the person who wants to see the kids, pays. So, in order to have a relationship with his children we fly them out 2X/year. The cost to us and our family is another 3600/year.

We have the kids for 2.5 months, during which time we are still obligated to send her the CS monthly, plus she is still in receipt of all the benefit while we look after all 4 kids and she has a nice paid holiday. Then she decided to "go back to school". We were then forced to pay 100% of all the "extras" as she had no income. Tag on another $300/month for dad.

In essence, becasue moms are NOT held accoutable for financially supporting their children after divorce, and can make any stupid choices they want, she is taking another $600/month directly away from OUR OTHER children, who the courts don't acknowledge as exisitng or needing support.

Like "Not A SIngle Mom" wrote above, and stated it very well "the first advantage always goes to the single mom". Everyone else, including children, be damned.

I realize there is no sense in trying to educated many women who recieve support regarding the problems faced by second children. They have their minds made up, they never get enough and they really don't give a shit.

I just hope that a few people who didn't know about this issue have become a little more educated on how far reaching these archaic family laws are. If women were held accountable, like men, this would not be a problem.

Oh please. The problem here is people acting like the kids belong to this place, this time or this marriage.

Your children belong to YOU.. not your first marriage, not your ex-wife, not your previous life.

You don't plan your life and future children (if you have any brains) on whether or not your ex will keep a job, keep paying, have a 'new' family or any other variables in life..

People who have a second or third set of children are delusional in that they forget that THEY are still the parent of ALL the children, just as though they ALL lived in the same house.

Guys who have more children in new marriages are as irresponsible as the single mother who continues to have children they can't afford.

I have to agree with sheesh. And, yes, you did risk it if you married the man with the kids. Sorry. Would you take this attitude if he'd be a widower with kids? Christ.

But I do agree that "I'm all for 50/50 custody. Mom pays when kids are with her, dad pay when they are with them." might be the fairest solution, also stipulating that they split all medical/extraordinary expenses, if one parent pays for kid's health insurance (or dental, etc.), the other pays that amount before the split.

Also, though, there needs to be safeguards for abuse. And that's tough. Because abuse is so hard to prove. That's an issue I haven't resolved in my head 23 years after taking action in response to the other parent's abuse. But that's a whole other issue and not one for most cases.

50/50 seems fairest in normal cases. Could even resolve things like religious differences. Mom's a Christian and Dad's Atheist? Kid goes to Mom's church when with her and sleeps in Sundays when at Dad's.

Of course, I can see a whole slew of other things (public school vs. private, for instance) that would still have to be hammered out in our less than capable court systems.

Jody my point was a two year degree form a jr college or state college transfers as a whole to a better school.

If you get a bachelors from princeton do you really think prospective employers will care that you took math 101 and into to art at a state school instead of princeton itself?

Crid said, "What's being a "Dad" about a guy who lives with you at best 50% and has no romantic –or even vaguely loving– connection with your mother?"
________________________

Let's see: "What's being a "Mom" about a gal who lives with you at best 50% and has no romantic - or even vaguely loving - connection with your father?"

It works equally both ways, right?

Perhaps I misunderstand your point, Crid, but I am surprised by your comment.

Tricia,

What can I say... when you're right, you're right. And you are absolutely correctamundo right.

Welcome to our modern culture of disposable fathers, where the only people who see through the facade of the Myth of the Male Beast are those impacted by the paradigm (such as second wives)... and the occasional intellect who comes to realize they had smoke blowed up their arse by the PC Conformist Sheeple who abound in monumental numbers.

Keep your spirits up though, there is change on the horizon. We've made much good progress in many areas, despite the setbacks tossed our way by our illustrious and hypocritical President.

May I refer you (and our wonderful Warrior Princess Amy) to Pauls [Family Court Reform Alliance Forum] at http://www.usfcralliance.org/forums/ where he has built for us all a 'Grand Amphitheater' to meet and join forces into a single united front to swing the tide and restore reason to family courts and criminal laws ... and hopefuly restore the role of 'Daddy' to a meaningful station in a childs life.

Now, if an old hand might impart a tidbit? Presentation is everything. You state YOUR case very well, please lend your voice to the choir?
Being right is only half the equation, one must also be able to authenticate that which they speak of.

For example I can sit here and type such factoids as: "the tragic truth is that research shows us that children raised in single mother homes are FIVE TIMES more likely to commit suicide, NINE TIMES more likely to drop out of high school, TEN TIMES more likely to abuse illegal drugs, TWENTY TIMES more likely to be incarcerated and THIRTY TWO TIMES more likely to runaway from home."
Further: "63% of youth suicides, 70% of teen pregnancies, 80% of juvenile prison inmates and an astronomical percentage of street kids (ie runaways)... came from single mother homes."
I believe these numbers to be accurate, as they came to me from a source that historically has been 'balls on', however I cannot cite a source for them.
And while it's all well and good to cite sources, but what matters more is not so much THAT you cite sources... rather WHAT sources you cite.
For example: Per the Technical Analysis Paper No 42 - US Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy I cite the following data-
* 29.9% of custodial fathers and 76.9% of custodial mothers receive child support payments.
* 26.9% of non custodial fathers and 46.9% of custodial mothers totally default on court ordered child support payments.
* 61.0% of non custodial fathers and 20.0% of non custodial mothers pay child support at some level.
* 10.2% of single custodial fathers and 66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full time.
* 24.5% of single custodial fathers and 7.0% of single custodial mothers work more than 44 hours per week.
20.8% of single custodial fathers and 46.2% of single custodial mothers receive tax payer funded public program assistance.

Not that the impact is substantially different (or the 'Anti-Father Bias' is any more or less illustrated), however there is now a verifiable source to attribute the data to.
Going further (and even further back): per the 1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony 1989 Series" P-60 No 173 p 6 & 7, and US GAO Report GAO/HRD-92-39FS Jan 1992-
* 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay child support in full.
* 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay child support in full.
* 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the child support in full.
* 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation at all.

Here again, a paradigm is illustrated in grand form, however there is as before, a verifiable source for the data provided.

To argue such data in support of popular (if incorrect) social assumptions is akin to arguing that the SS Titanic was sunk after striking an iceberg in the north Atlantic.

Gunner Retired

PS: hiyas Amy!!!

What else is there to be said for single mother homes?
* “The strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison, is that they were raised by a single parent”. C.C. Harper and S.S. McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration”, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Assoc., San Francisco, CA, 1998
* In 1996, 70% of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long sentences, were raised by single mothers. Wade Horn, “Why There Is No Substitute For Parents”, IMPRIMIS 26, NO.6, June, 1997
* 72% of juvenile murderers, and 60% of rapists came from single mother homes. Chuck Colson, “How Shall We Live?” Tyndale House , 2004, p.323
* 70% of teen births occur to girls in single mother homes. David T. Lykken, “Reconstructing Fathers”, American Psychologist 55, 681,681, 2000
* 70% of drop-outs, and 70% of teen suicides come from single mother homes. Wade Horn, “Why There Is No Substitute For Parents,” IMPRIMIS 26, N0. 6, June 1997
* 70% of runaways, 70% of juvenile delinquents, and 70% of Child murderers, come from single mother homes. Richard E. Redding, “It’s Really About Sex”, Duke Univ. Journal of Gender Law and Policy, Jan.1, 2008
* “Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous, and more likely to end up divorced.” Wade Horn, “Why There Is No Substitute For Parents”, IMPRIMIS 26, No.6, June, 1997
* “After controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.” Progressive Policy Institute, 1990, quoted by David Blankenhorn, “Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem,” New York, Harper Perennial, 1996, p.31
* “America has more than twice as many teenage births as other developed nations.” Isabel V.Sawhill, to House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources, June 29, 1999
* 86% of American teen births are out of wedlock. Dr. David Popenoe, “The Future of Marriage In America”, Rutgers Univ., The National Marriage Project, 2007
* Only 4% of college graduates have illegitimate children, and only 16% of college graduates get divorced, compared to 46% of high school dropouts, who marry in smaller numbers to begin with. Dr. David Popenoe, “The Future Of Marriage In America; “The Frayed Knot – Marriage in America”, The Economist, May 26, 2007
* 50% of single mothers are below the poverty line, their children are 6 times more likely to be in poverty than children with married parents. Chuck Colson, “How Shall We Live”, Tyndale House.
* 85% of homeless families are single mother families. Barry H. Waldman and Stephen P. Perlman, “Homeless Children With Disabilities, “ The Exceptional Parent, June 1, 2008 (American Academy of Developmental Medicine and Dentistry
* 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers. Jason DeParle, “Raising Kevion”, New York Times, Aug. 22, 2004

”Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with Concentration Camps and Gulags”… Erin Pizzey

the above stats are eye-opening

if I got this story right....a woman moves the kids far away from dad, scrounges off society for income, goes to school and has no job, and is allowed to take a larger percentage of income from the family of her children's step-siblings because of her choices?

if a man did this he'd be labled a deadbeat loser schmuck who isn't supporting his kids maybe they'd take away his passport, drivers license, maybe throw him in jail post his picture somewhere so everyone could see what a loser daedbeat dad he is.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/businessmanagement/DF5899.html
I took the data and totalled it for the different categories. In 2002 dollars, here are the actual costs of a child:

Table 8. Total Monthly Costs by Family Type and Income Level

Age of Two-parent One-parent
Child Lower Middle Upper Lower Upper
0-2 $524 $728 $1,083 $440 $1,009
3-5 $537 $749 $1,108 $497 $1,084
6-8 $544 $748 $1,098 $560 $1,152
9-11 $545 $747 $1,086 $521 $1,111
12-14 $615 $809 $1,156 $562 $1,178
15-17 $607 $823 $1,189 $622 $1,215
Average $562 $767 $1,120 $534 $1,125

Two parent families: combined gross income less than $38,000: lower, combined gross income $38,000 - $64,000: middle, combined gross income greater than $64,000: upper

Single parent families: gross income less than $38,000: lower, gross income greater than $38,000: upper

The biggest expenses were food, housing, and childcare.

We've had roughly 16% inflation since 2002, so that means that 700 of today's dollars would be about the same as 600 in 2002 dollars.

These comments about how much children cost would crack me up if I weren't so exhausted from dealing with my child's newly diagnosed illness. Do those figures take into account the THREE weeks I took unpaid from work since January when she was too ill to leave with a babysitter? The $250 I spent on medicine because I haven't met some insurance rule yet (and her insurance alone, not tied to a workplace as Amy prefers, runs about $150 a month). The almost $700 I spent on special air purifiers so she could breathe easier? The $1500 I still have to spend on various things the doctors recommend to ease her respiratory distress? The hundreds in extra childcare? I'm not complaining. You have kids, you get the unexpected. (Like needing mouth spacers that cost thousands of dollars and aren't covered by most dental insurance plans.) I'd never not find a way to provide for her. But, Bradley13, go check out summer camp prices. A full day can easily run $250 or more a week where I live. But a parent's gotta work to pay the rent in a neighborhood with good enough public schools to avoid the extra expense of private tuition. And, trust me, we don't live fancy lives. Maybe those figures cover some perfect child in some perfect world. Very few of us have those.

"And 3 other kids, how many of those do you collect mommy support for? Way to milk it girl!"

You insult me, you get it back. Of course, had she been around a while before spouting off to me like I'm some single mom, she'd know my quite conservative views. You married your bed, tricia. Stop whining and lay in it.

"These comments about how much children cost would crack me up if I weren't so exhausted from dealing with my child's newly diagnosed illness. Do those figures take into account the THREE weeks I took unpaid from work since January when she was too ill to leave with a babysitter?"

Those are averages, that's all. Every situation is going to be different.

Amy - You missed my point. I was disputing how realistic those numbers were (and if they're averages, to keep the numbers so low that must mean some kids take not a single cent to raise). I'm saying that you can never know what to expect with a child and need to be prepared for ALL expenses -- and sometimes that means foregoing a second family or third child so that you can take care of responsibilities that already exist. Welfare moms shouldn't have more kids and neither should dads who know going in that they've got steep former family bills. I thought that was what you advocated but lately I'm not so sure.

Exhausted mom,
As this is Amys blog, not mine... I'm going to make the effort to be polite about this.
You've cited 'my story'as grounds to dismiss the big picture view of what is gong on our culture that castigates the male fo the specii for no good reason (other than they were born male).
On that basis I'm going to sit here and cite 'my story': during my marriage to the mother of my chidlren I was the primary supporter for the vast majority of the 7 year marriage, eventually she did get a decent job that paid well. Subsequent to the divorce and prior to winning custody of my children I paid child support at a rate 23% greater than state code guidelines calculated. Subsequent to winning custody I again was the primary 'bread winner', however the childrens mother (ie my ex-wife) was a dead beat mom (ie refusing to pay anything toward the care and feeding of her children) I was the primary 'bread winner', although this arrangement was amicable as we each maintained a household for one of the two minor children of the marriage. Subsequent to my ex-wife kidnapping my daughter...
So okay I've been there... on both sides of that fence.
* I paid the child support faithfully and on time, she did not.
* I have experience in raising-
a) both children,
b) one child,
c) no children,
on my income.
In laymans terms, BTDT (ie Been There, Done That).
I did this working a full time career oriented job, a full time labor market job, running a home based business and finally relying only on my retirement income and whatever I could scratch out doing piecemeal work where it was paying a buck.
Translation: I may only be a 'EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK! It's a MAN!!! With that evil dick thing!!!', but that doesn't make me stupid. I know what it costs to raise a child and I know very well what it costs to provide them with 'food and keep'. I'm familiar with 'red beans and rice with no ice cream' to keep a child fed, and I know TOO well the joys of getting up an hour early to make sure she is up and fed and dressed for school. I know the curtailments of seeking employment that allows me to be on the job at 9 and home by 4:30 when she gets off the bus (sorry, I don't do the 'latchkey kid' thing) and the commute included in this equation.

But that's your tale and my tale, let's open the lens and look at the bigger picture.

Now, would you like to try to justify the travesty of law imposed on fathers such as Tim Spiehs, who's been 29 years paying for a child which he has proved with DNA evidence is not his?
Would you like to try to explain the travesty imposed on James Rhoades who will never see his son because of an antiquated law?
Would you like to try to justify the travesty imposed on fathers such as Martin Romanchick?
Would you like to try to justify the travesty imposed on such fathers as Joakim Ramstedt?
Would you like to guess how many fathers I can name whom have had such travesty's imposed on them?

And finally, would you like to take a guess at how long I've been researching this and compiling not merely testimonials of individual men in general and fathers in particular whom have had their lives devastated as our culture pursues a Misandric ideology (with the fullest support and endorsement of a bloated bureaucracy whose sole interest is in gleaning US Federal funds, ie yours mine and ours tax dollars) but also academic and scholastic, as well as federal agency level research illustrating the social paradigm is utterly without merit?

Did I neglect to mention I was physically, sexually and emotionally abused by the mother of my children... for 7 years?

Gunner Retired

See Amy, I can be polite!

Bleh! Chuck Colson I'm supposed to take seriously. He's a scam artist more than anything else. What a joke!

ExhaustedMom made a point too -- I see we're supposed to take the males seriously while dismissing the females. It is not possible to know exactly what will happen that cannot be foreseen in life.

Gunner, your story, only seconds that. I'd take you more seriously, dude, if you seemed to want men and women to be treated equally -- they should be -- but you seem to want to return to the other scenario where men are given better treatment. All because you were abused. All while discounting any woman who dares open up with her story of abuse. Tell me, why should we care any more about yours, than theirs? I'll pay attention to you when you come off less like a raving woman-hating lunatic and more rational.

Also, I do have to wonder why the damned double standard? Why are women having more children than they can afford routinely condemened on this blog -- as they should be -- but men doing so pitied? As I said, I pity the kids -- all the kids -- first and second set, but I don't pity either daddy or the stupid twit that married him knowing he had those obligations and is now wringing her hands crying because he's being made to keep them.

T's Grammy - wast trica and her husband affording the second set of kids just fine until the ex decided to stop working?

That what I understood the situation to be

"That what I understood the situation to be"

Ahhhhhhh... yup. That's what it says.

And I can name a number of other guys in pretty much the same boat.

Exactly right. We were affording ALL the kids fine untill she quit working and moved away. When an orthodontic bill for $6800 came up, she had NO INCOME, therefore, Hubby (and second family) forked over ALL $6800. When SHE moved away (for no good reason, she still has no family where she lives, but "missed the ocean" in her words) WE PAY 100% of flights - 3600/year or $21,600 over the last 6 years. There are more examples, but the details are the same. If she'd had to pay 50% of the 2 above items, our family would be $14,200 better off.

Look, everybody knows kids cost money and things change that we cannot control. But when ADULT women are not held accoutable financially for their children after divorce, making up the $$$ difference falls on the shoulders of ex-husbands, society and most unfortunately, second kids. It do not agree with laws that allow this to go on.

ps - thanks gunner for all the info. you sent. I am done with "my story" and am now committed to joining the global fight!

One last comment,
Isn't it interesting that none of the women slamming me for having a "second" family on here, have even mentioned that the EX-WIFE should also be supporting her own kids. Funny thing is, me and hubby support all 4 kids, because we are the only ones with jobs!

I feel sorry for the kids, not her. What should happen (and is a sorry reflection on our court system that he can't take that course of action), lujlp, is that he should be able to take her to court and get custody away from her based on her irresponsible behavior. This is not a woman who lost her job due to downsizing or some such but a selfish, self-centered asshole who put her wants before her children's needs.

I get the impression she'd still be bitching about that bitch's kids taking away from her kids even if he got custody. I definitely don't think she'd happily and cheerily accept his earlier kids along with hers, equally, or see her kids have to sacrifice if one of the other mother's needed expensive medical treatment or something. Maybe she's the reason, he didn't get custody. Did he even try? I don't have much sympathy for guys who bitch about the system but don't even try to avail themselves of it.

Gunner, tit for tat. You really don't want to start counting because if you do, I think you're gonna find that the number of asshole dads running out on their kids is far gonna outnumber the number of asshole moms that do. Like I said, I'll take you seriously when you stop foaming at the mouth with woman hatred whilst complaining about misandric ideology. I've got woeful tales of abuse too. I don't hate all men because I had bad judgment in selecting one. See a shrink so you can stop equating all women with your ex. You need fucking help, dude.

That's what the situation WAS for a while.

But Sheesh said it best earlier:

"You don't plan your life and future children (if you have any brains) on whether or not your ex will keep a job, keep paying, have a 'new' family or any other variables in life..."

Situations change. People move. People freeload. Courts are unfair. But children remain your children and your responsibility. If situations change for the worse and less money means a lower standard of living than YOU would like, too freakin' bad. You pick up the pieces of your life and adjust your expectations to what you can afford.

Trish, at least you haven't let your bitterness about money, your husband's ex-wife, and your husband's first kids consume you. Not.

Your whole point about this being "...a human rights violation that these children are discriminated against based on "birth order" is so bizarre I can't even begin to comment on that.

Amy's words are spot on for Tricia and anyone:

"Can't afford the cost of having kids? Don't have them. Can't afford two? Have one."

Can't afford second family kids? don't have them. If you do, be prepared to deal with whatever horrible unfairness life throws you (health issues, ex-wife moving out your town and consuming money you would like to use for YOUR children, etc.).

Enough with the whining. SHEESH.

T's Grammy... you'll do well to tread this one carefully... please.
I REALLY do know what I'm talking about (ask Amy).

Tricia, if you would do me the kindness of an email, I can introduce you to folks who are working to effect change in the laws that allow circumstances such as yours to manifest with impunity.
Amy, please forward her to my email if she requests it.
GR

T's Grammy says to Gunner: "I'll take you seriously when you stop foaming at the mouth with woman hatred."

Right. Recitation of any facts which puncture the myth of the "poor, oppressed, little woman" is "woman-hatred."

I'll make a note, Grammy, and NEVER say ANYTHING that might cast ANY woman in a negative light EVER again! I wouldn't want to foam at the mouth after all ... .

Why does it just KILL you to admit that men suffer, too?

Also, I do have to wonder why the damned double standard? Why are women having more children than they can afford routinely condemened on this blog -- as they should be -- but men doing so pitied?

It is a question of fairness. It isn't a double standard. Often, someone will recieve far more in child support than the amount that would be equal to half of the cost of caring for the child. It oftens amounts to basically a payment to maintain the lifestyle of the mother.

Secondly, men have zero legal say in the choice of whether to have a child or not. Their only choice is whether they have sex. Women can unilaterally choose to have a child or not to have one. They can unilaterally choose to have an abortion or not to have one. No woman is going to be held legally responsible for a child that isn't hers because her husband has an affair. No woman is going to be legally held responsible for a child that she didn't wish to have because the man lied about birth control - she can always have an abortion. No woman is going to be held legally responsible for a child because a man decides that he is going to go to a fertility clinic and become articially inseminated against the express wishes of the woman - he can't be artificially inseminated. There is no such thing as "presumption of maternity", but there is "presumption of paternity".

Keep in the mind the phrase: "my body, my choice". If you have the choice, you are the one responsibile for that choice.

I'm going to say something here, and invite Amy to voice her opinion regarding the merit of what I say:
I could fill the rest of this page, and 10 or more pages just like this one, with material exposing and illustrating the scope of the double of the fraud perpetrated by various gov't sanctioned entities on behalf of the myths far too many socially correct 'Sheeple' blindly accept as gospel... as these gov't entities fleece us of our tax dollars (which, ultimately, is the driving force behind the creation and perpetuation of said gov't entities).
I will instead invite any who wish access to this material to visit the Family Court Reform Alliance Forum webpage and view for themselves what I speak of. Having said this I will add that the Forums are a growing endeavor, to which you are invited to contribute.
I would also recommend to any who wish to learn more to familiarize themselves with such publications as the US DoH&HS/ACF CMRs, the US CDC AVSRs and NVSR, the US DoJ/BJS-OJS NCJs and the FBI UCRs; and learn the names Dr Fiebert, Dr Dutton, Dr Neilsen, Dr Mills, Dr Braver, Dr Baskerville, Dr Farrell and Dean Tong.

Amy, would I be correct in saying this merely scratches the surface dusting of snow on the proverbial tip of the proverbial iceberg?
Jay R, when you write "and NEVER say ANYTHING that might cast ANY woman in a negative light EVER again!" ... you are closer to a truism than I think perhaps you realize.

Mike Magnum, review the Roe v Wade {410 U.S. 113 1973} decision, then review the Gomez v Perez {409 U.A. 535 1973} decision. Which in essence mandates that a woman cannot be compelled to bear a child conceived of a marital relationship, she can however compel a man to subsidize the upbringing of a child conceived of a casual relationship.
Nowhere in the arena of political ideology does the spectre of hypocrisy rear its hydras head more so than the volatile issue of 'freedom of choice'... for exactly the reasons you cite.
Perhaps the singular most unjust and punitive aspect of child support law is the tax code. When using the "earned income tax credit", which is nothing more than an additional government stipend offered to the "working poor" in the guise of a tax refund, a custodial parent can work part time, pay no federal income tax throughout the year, but yet receive a "tax refund" of a thousand dollars or more.
On the other hand, an unmarried, noncustodial father, who is required to forfeit 50% or more of his income for child support purposes, receives NO dependent tax deduction... and despicably has absolutely NO assurance that visitation orders issued by the court will be enforced.
This is the era of blatant Misandry based on totally fallacious Myths faced by men in the English speaking world, and we welcome all whom would join in effecting change in social perception and policy, and effect changes in law to equalize the 'father v mother parenting' paradigms.
I invite and strongly encourage ALL to get involved and join the fight to achieve this goal.
Gunner Retired

MikeMagnum said: "Secondly, men have zero legal say in the choice of whether to have a child or not. Their only choice is whether they have sex."

It's disingenuous to separate sex from parenthood. Everyone knows birth control is not 100% and that even sterilized people have seen their fertility return.

"OOPS!" is no defense of the decision to have sex.

Sheesh,

While there is valid merit to your attestation that -"OOPS!" is no defense of the decision to have sex-.

Would you then care to engage in mature discussion regarding the men whom are paying child support for children born to women they have never met... much less engaged in copulation with?

Or does the mere premise of this notion lean too hard on the *GASP!* preposterous idea that women may not be such pure and innocent darlings we have been taught to worship them as for the past 50 odd years, and therefore worthy of nothing nothing less than indignant and vehement bifurcation, prevarication and obfuscation?

I ask because I can cite a number of actual cases wherein exactly such occurred... it's called False Paternity, and while not exactly socially correct to discuss (nevermind acknowledge), it's rather far more common than is generally known.

Gunner Retired

Basically, why dont the courts impute income of the custodial parent?? How many times do they: hide income, choose to work less hours, spend CS on weekend getaways, make false accusations and move away just to interfere with parent/child relationships with the non-custodial parent??? What happens when CS does nothing to improve the standard of living for the child, but greatly improves said standards for their parents lifestyle?? Why is it someone who pays $800/month for two children and can live on their own still have to support a parent still on welfare/ living with parents?? This hardly takes into account the interests of the children.....

The courts make their money off of collecting CS in America via SS Title IV-D legislation, does Canada have the same/similar laws??

I am not if Canada has the same laws, but now I certainly want to find out.

The arguments from sheesh etc. are:
"You don't plan your life and future children (if you have any brains) on whether or not your ex will keep a job, keep paying, have a 'new' family or any other variables in life.."

Does that include divorced WOMEN NOT planning their lives around whether their ex-husbands keep a job and keep paying them CS, daycare, medical, university?

Of course it doesn't include women. That is why WOMEN are ENTITLED to ensure their EX KEEPS HIS JOB AND KEEPS PAYING HER.

That is why we trackdown "deadbeats' with such glorious furry. If a man loses his job -he pays. If he gets a lower paying job - he gets a higher income imputed. If he can't pay becasue of uncontrolled variables in HIS life - he gets arrears piled up by the thousands. He might even go to jail.

The double standards in this society are so pervasive that even those spewing off their rethoric can't see that they've been brain washed.

Trish, your "rethoric" is sad because it is only about money. Look back at your posts and all the "$$$" and whining about extra money that you have to pay.

You would get a lot more sympathy if your tirades were actually focused on the well-being of your step-children as well your own children.

Instead, all we hear are your unending itemized lists of all the expenses that you have to pay as a result of your husband having kids with his ex-wife. Money that you want to spend on "your" children and "your" life instead.

Again, whether you can admit it to yourself or not, it comes through loud and clear that for you this is about money and your hatred of your ex-wife. That consuming bitterness can't be healthy for anyone. Including both sets of children.

Gunner: I did. That's why I found you so. I get it. Because you were screwed by an asshat women and have combed the public court records and probably sought out opinion from other males for every case wherein the woman screwed the man, you are judging every woman based on these cases alone. That is absolutely as woman-hating as a bitter ex-wife who was screwed by her husband making all men out to be so. It is you who is not reading unbiasally. Hmmm, could that have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that I reveal my gender? Yep, it would seem so. Like I said, if you are truly going to get into a numbers rackets regarding who abandoned who, you are going to lose that game. I really do hope that when you fight for court reform you also fight for the voice of the child. My 3 year old was the one who talked about her father's sexual abuse, not me. My record was spotless, his violence and drug addiction a matter of court record yet the presumption was when I tried to get visitation ended so he couldn't molest her all counted for nothing and she was not allowed to testify because she was 3 and, by NY state law at the time, had to be 10. Who do you think can lie better, coached or uncoached, a 3 year old or a 10 year old? Hmmm... Until you be honest and admit that sometimes the man gets screwed by the court system and sometimes the woman does, your bias shows. I can admit it. Can you? Your problem with your assumptions about me is that I don't hate all men, I don't assume all men in the wrong, I do realize they are often the victim and you don't recognize the same -- that neither gender is innocent and blameless and the other always in the wrong. I have a grandson. I'd like to see decisions made based on evidence instead of gender before I am a greatgrandmother. (Though I hope he is extraordinarily lucky and does not have need of the horrendousness of the family court system that not only does not have the best interest of the child in mind but does not even care about the child.)

Jay R: it's you who do not read, not me. Your posts continue to display your bias. It is obvious just by your telling me to read everything that you have not read all that I have posted. I am not automatically on the side of the woman. I say let's see the facts and hear the evidence and make a decision based on same. And, I have, on this blog, condemned women who view men as wallets (I believe all women -- and all men for that matter -- should be able to take care of themselves and anyone else that comes along, meaning anyone else they make) and condemned women who use child support in this manner. I just said above that it should be grounds for the man to sue for custody and get it (Gunner do hope you're working on that and I take it from what you say you are; just say you shouldn't take the automatic position the woman's always in the wrong and the man always in the right) if a woman ups and quits her job and moves kiddies away from their daddy. Christ, I'm even tougher than that. I say if you make a child together, that should obligate you to stay in the same state as the other parent (either gender), moving out of state should contain harsh penalties unless you can utterly prove some extreme hardship (no jobs at all in your field, a severe health need) and being willing to let the shared child spend six months out of the year with the other parent. My family lives in another state is not adequate, especially given that since you chose to move away from them in the first place would indicate you don't need your little hand held by them.

Mike, I'll agree with you on the presumption of paternity. I think -- even with married couples -- paternity tests should be mandatory at birth, earlier if they develop methods that wouldn't be dangerous to the developing baby. As accurate as they now are, there's no reason a mother, unless she has something to hide, should object. But as for the rest, that's a risk you take when you have sex with the opposite gender. In a perfect world, sex would be risk free. It ain't. Oh, and hello, ever heard of vacestomies? As far as artificial insemination goes, don't donate your sperm, don't freeze. Frankly that's kind of an insane to do and make yourself vulnerable to that. Any woman who steals sperm, however she manages it, should be prosecuted, lose her child and spend at least their childhood behind bars. Hell, I'll go so far as to say that I feel about that as I do child molestors -- first offense, lock them up and throw away the damned key. Protect society from them. Of course, that's also what should happen to rapists (of either gender) or murderers and doesn't. It's insane to me that people that dangerous are ever set lose to once again prey on society.

T's Grammy,

By your logic, were I to state that since the construction of US I-75 in eastern Tennessee there were over a dozen massive multi car pile ups due to fog... than I would either a fog hater or a highway hater (or both?)

By your logic, were I to recount the Sinking of the Lusitania, the Titanic, the Oceanos, the Laconia, etc... than I would be a ship hater.

By your logic, were I to recount the disasters of the Akron, the Macon and the Hindenburgh... I would be a dirigible hater.

In the zealous veil of your gynocentric world you simply cannot fathom the slightest chance I may ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Ergo, anything I say to expose the fallacy surrounding the oh so socially correct 'Myth of the Male Beast' is evidence of misogyny on my part.

When the simple truth, with no ulterior designs or motives, is simply that I DO KNOW WHAT I'M WALKING...

and I'm right when I say:

* That 61% of children murdered by family members are murdered by their mother.

* That for the past 15 years consecutively the vast majority of abuse and neglect inflicted upon children is at the hands of their mother.

* That despite your cherished FemiNazi rhetoric more women ARE NOT killed by Domestic Violence than any other cause.

* That Domestic Violence IS NOT the leading cause of injury to women, more than car accidents, muggings and rapes combined.
{In truth this factoid is traced to a 1994 article in 'Parents' magazine citing an alleged claim by then US Surgeon General Antonia Novello, whi in fact cited a study of an exptremely poor crime ridden inner city neigbhborhood in Phila by Dr Jeane Ann Grisso who when asked about thet citation answered by saying that even if her study had concluded that ‘domestic violence’ was the leading cause of injury, she would "never apply that conclusion to the total population of American women"}
In fact over tens later in 1997 the U.S. Dep't of Justice released a report which placed women going to ERs as a result of Domestic Violence at 0.3% for all ER visits.

But none of this matters to you in your sordid little man-hating reality because it doesn't mesh with your cherished (albeit false) beliefs.

You man-haters are quick to cite that one study divulged that "OMG, IT'S A CRISIS! Every 15 seconds a woman is assaulted by a male intimate partner!!!" (what you so conveniently ignore is that that same report also showed us that every 14 seconds a male is assaulted by a female intimate partner).

Y'see T's Grammy, you're unconcerned with the truth, because a vicious slanderous lie is easier to believe when it supports your persecution of men. You could care less that in 1985 (note: 24 years ago) the FVRA revealed that in every category of family violence female aggression against males matched (in some cases exceeded) male violence against women, and in fact when surveyed the women conceded that they initiated the violence more frequently than did the men.

You're utterly disinterested in the US DoJ/BHA NCJ 174508 that ten years later (1994) revealed in many categories men were victimized by violence at twice or more the rate of women.

None of this matters to you as you cling desperately to your self deceptions and recoil against anyone and anything that suggests women are less than "sugar and spice and everything nice" and of course rail at the mere notion that man are anything less than vile and evil.

Even to the degree of claiming that "Domestic Violence causes more birth defects than any other cause". OMG grow up will you?
More than lead in paint?
More than toxic dump sites around the nation?
More than illicit or illegal drug abuse?
More than SMOKING???

Oh gads what an outrageous lie that is.

What's despicable is not merely that you embrace it so warmly, but that you embrace it so fervently you leap to attack any person who has the unmitigated audacity to suggest otherwise.

And I saved this gem for last "1 in 4 women will be raped in college". Are we truly to believe that 25% of the young men on college campuses are RAPISTS??? (or are there like 1 or 2 really busy guys running around out there doing all this raping?).

I've said it before T's Grammy, and I'll say it again: gynocracies 'De Guello!" attitude will be your undoing.

Gunner Retired

Amy,

Please excuse the cut and paste here, Tami wrote this and I think it really applies to the paradigm illustrated in the previous post (and as you read this, remember the name Steven Bandusky... there are MANY parallels):

The Knight in Shining Armor
A modern day fairy tale.

Once upon a time there was a man, who fell in love with a woman (Emily). Emily had had such a hard life, growing up with child abuse, only to enter into a relationship that involved domestic violence at the tender age of twenty-one, her abuser was twenty-five, and assumed to have grown up with an abusive father.

One day she finally got out!

This man, his name is Scott, moved her and her six month old little girl in with him...Life was so perfect, they went to fine restaurants, he brought her flowers each day after work, they went on weekend vacations to all parts of the world...no more abuse, no more living in squaller for this woman and her tiny child, that was growing rapidly in this now loving home with a mother and father, where no abuse occurred...

Scott even helped her restrain the abusive ex, from mother and child, and asked her to marry him. Soon, this idyllic life was complete and so absolutely perfect.

After the restraint was permanently ordered Scott was able to adopt the baby girl, Kari, now two and give her his last name, and soon after that they had a son, Scotty Jr., life could not get any better for this family of four now.

Emily had her freedom to go where she pleased, do what she wanted, free from her former life of abuse, Scott would sometimes lie awake at night and just watch her sleep, wondering what she would have been had she been left to that monster, male perpetrator, abuser...what his little girl would have turned out like, had he not saved her from that situation.

Emily started going to her mother's off and on when Scotty was around one, staying for a week or more at a time, telling Scott that she just needed a break, which was ok with Scott, after all it was HER mother, and no one can replace family. Although there were times when Emily's mother looked at him funny, he thought maybe she did not like that he did not go to the same church or maybe that he did not make as much money as his step-father-in-law, whom was an attorney.

Scott worked harder, and at Emily's insistence moved closer to her family, he bought a larger home, he bought a better car, he bought a boat, and although it was not comparable to his step-father-in-law's it was still a prized possession, and “bling” to show off to the neighbors. Being in debt like this he worked his way up the ladder, and by the time Scotty was five, he was working sometimes sixty hours a week, rarely home, but this is what Emily wanted...

Sometimes she would get upset and tell him he worked too hard, but so often the very next day he would come home to new purchases, once to a new tennis bracelet she had bought...he felt so proud to be able to provide for his family, especially since Emily had never had such things before.

One day the carpet was swept out from under him. While in his office, a process server showed up with divorce papers, he did not understand, and thought this had to be a mistake, so he called her right away....when she answered, and realized it was him she hung up right away without saying a word.

Scott rushed home, parked on the street, and went up to the front door, it was locked! He tried his key and it did not work...He called her quickly from his cell phone, and although her car was in the drive, there was no answer. Scott dialed her mother's number, when she answered she was in a foul mood, and would not tell him anything, before hanging up she called him a jerk.

Not knowing what to do, he sat down on the top step of the deck, and was sitting there with his head in his hands, when out of the corner of his eye, he saw red, blue, and white light...raising his head up he noticed that there was two police cars now parked surrounding his car. Starting to stand up, an officer growled at him to get on the ground! Stay where he is! Do not move!

Disbelieving this was happening he took a step forward, on weak knees, and was tazed into submission, the pain going from his chest to his entire body...being shackled at his ankles, cuffed behind his back, still reeling from the shock of the tazer. Scott was not fully aware of what had actually happened until he came to his senses in the back of the police car. He tried to ask what was going on and all he got was dirty looks, and ordered to shut up.

After being strip searched, fingerprinted, and booked for the night into county jail, all he could do was sit there, he had no one to call...finally realizing that he had an attorney, he called the same attorney they had used to garner custody of Kari, the secretary told him that the attorney was not able to talk to him, and suggested he find someone new.

The next morning at arraignment, the prosecuting attorney detailed a scenario to the judge involving heinous abuse against Emily and the children, not believing they had the right man, he just sat there stunned, pleading not guilty, and begging to be allowed out of jail, the judge told him no, that he was a danger, even though Scott told him he would lose his job, lose everything, the prosecutor reminded him that he had chosen to do what he did, and now must deal with the consequences.

Scott was held on thirty thousand dollars bail.

He called his parents, and they reminded him that when they were in need, he had moved...he called his brother and sister. His brother was not available, and his sister told him that he already burned his bridges, choosing his wife over his family. He called some friends, they too told him that he had dug his own grave, they could not help him, they knew what a monster he was...they were not about to help an abuser either.

Scott called his employer and tried to pull some of his 401k...he was told that he could not do that, to read the divorce petition. No party was allowed to spend any money...neither party to the divorce was allowed to touch retirement income, or bank accounts, accept for normal living expenses and household bills.

He was served with the restraint petition while in county jail...a week later was the permanent restraint hearing, he showed up to that in handcuffs...the judge ordered the restraint permanent, he could not go within five hundred feet of his home, family, children's daycare, school, etc...

He was fired from the job he had held for ten years a week later, due to the restraint, and charges against him, his company dealt with a lot of children, and families, and they did not want any fall-back from his situation.

Scott sat in jail, and at the hearing Emily brought in witnesses to the abuse, detailing how she had told them daily, and weekly of his abuse, one lady in particular, detailed how she had been told by Emily that he would not let her have any money, that she had to beg and plead, he controlled all the assets. Several of her friends from the Domestic Violence Shelter detailed how she had told them that she suspected child sexual abuse, that they did not want to interview the children to avoid causing them pain, but that Emily told them about the atrocities that happened in their home, on a daily basis.

Scott was sentenced to time served, and when he was released, still restrained from his family, the divorce now final, she got the house, car, children, he was ordered to pay child support, imputed, based on the employment that he had prior to all of this..working now at a fast food place, and a local newspaper, living in a tenement building for now, utilizing the local food bank.

The new man in Emily's life, petitioning to adopt both children, giving Scott those nasty looks, hating him for being a “monster”.... jumping in once again, a Knight in Shining Armor, to save this poor, victim of domestic violence, at the hands of a male abuser...

The moral of the story?

Although all men are raised to be that Knight in Shining Armor, this is what is creating the epidemic of false allegations, and allowing women to get away with them, pitting man against man, removing fathers from children's lives...Our society is being preyed upon by these psycopathic women, and in order to avoid this type of scenario, we now suggest that men refrain from saving women...It is hard to suggest this, however, this seems to be the only way to stop false allegations, abuse of courts, fraudulent restraining orders, etc...and our men are sometimes at fault too for removing these fathers from children's lives, simply by being told one side of the story, and being that Knight in Shining Armor, willing to stand up to protect.

Tami Pepperman- Victim/Child Advocate

GR

Great story GR.

Sheesh said "Trish, your "rethoric" is sad because it is only about money. Look back at your posts and all the "$$$" and whining about extra money that you have to pay.

I wondered when this comment would come.

The reason I am talking about the money, is because the original post was about THE MONEY and the effect of unfair divorce lawss on men and subsequent families.

The emotional aspect of this is a huge OTHER post. You see, men get screwed over in SO MANY WAYS, that we can only choose to pick one topic at a time, or things get all muddled.

The absolute WORST part about this divorce is that my husband lost weekly contact with his kids. He is devastated, and it really is not something I wanted to get into. HIs children are GREAT and absolutely ADORE they step-brothers, and when they are here for 2.5 months, we all have the best time together. I feel sory for all the children that they will not grow up with a close bond (that only happens with close contact). So PLEASE don't get me started on this topic, you know nothing about the pain involved.

The ONLY person NOT a part of this family is the ex-wife. I wonder how her kids would feel if they knew she told my husband "I don't care if you and the twins live on the street, I am ENTITLED to 50% of your net pay" How would her kids feel knowing that is how their mother feels about the brothers they adore.

So my posts were about the money, cause that is the easiest part to take, and like many countries that have already decided "second kids don't come second" there are really easy ways to ensure ALL kids are entitled to the means of both parents, first and second. This in not about taking away from anyone or anyone eles's problem. This is a real problem that exists and change can be made for the good and fairness of all. I really don't see a problem with that.

As for the emotional scars, I am sure that the ex wives kids will have some when they realize one day their mom selfishly took a GREAT dad out of their lives for no good reason. I just hope none of GUNNER'S stats. end up being them

T Grammy,

You wondered why we don't sue for custody? Because we can't afford a lawyer, while the ex-wife has had the same FREE lawyer for almost 6 years. We have 4 kids to support and that sadly, is not a financial option for us now.

And why was she allowed to leave? Again, she had a FREE lawyer. I wasn't with my husband at the time, but he couldn't afford a lawyer yet was NOT entitled to legal aid. He didn't understand that when she stood up and LIED in court, and said she needed the support of her family, that the judge would actually allow her to leave. He is devastated, let's just leave it at that.

The ex-wife moved away from her "family" after a few months anyway. Even though the kids were born here and the dad has family here, the mom still got her way. She actually told my husband "she missed the ocean" so she wanted to move home.

And before people start asking "why didn't he move"? There are no jobs in his field there and not much hope for a future there. He had kids to support and CS to pay.

I think that unless you are directly affected by these events, it seems unreal that they actually happen.

They do, they happen all the time, and in family law, men get the short end of the stick 90% of the time, but women get media attention 90% of the time. Women definately yell the loudest.

Here we are dogging on some very good men and forgetting about the real deadbeat parent. Mothers. These women typically ignore their responsibility and are not even mentioned most of the time. Yet statistically they are the worst at paying no matter what the circumstances are. So when are their heads going to be put on the chopping block?

I am fed up with knowing t5hat there are so many men in hardship that try to pay and can't. Yet there are so many w0omen who outright refuse to pay and they are not anywhere near prosecuted like men are. So where ids the equal justice out here? The fact is the women have so many built in loop holes and free rides being handed to them by the courts and nobody is doing a damn thing about it. I know of one personally and another few who taught her how to get over on the system. So the first thing she did was get herself pregnant and apply for public assistance. And what do you know? Now Child Support Enforcement will not go after her because it is customary, not law mind you, that they won't do so. No wonder a man can't get a break.
So let it be said by me here and now that women are the real true deadbeats.

Huh.

In 1981 my dad went to the bank and transferred all the accounts to get my mom's name off them. He did the same with the mortgage, the vacation property, club membership, all investments. He left her name on the older of their two cars. He left her a checking account with $300. Racked up the credit cards so there was no credit left to buy anything. He did however leave her name on all the bills. The day before most of those household bills came due, he called her from work and told her he was divorcing her. He had secured an attorney who advised him to do all of this. His next step was to make his demands as to the terms of the divorce; she was in no position to negotiate. No job, no current skills within the last 15 years as a SAHM. He gave her a real working over. So when he offered her what settlement he did, she had to accept, no choice.

Don't paint with too broad a brush, Butch. It gets sloppy.

Juliana,
In the past many women did get screwed over big time and there was nothing much they could do about it. However, unless people are IN the system, they wouldn't know that things have gone 180 degrees, and now it is the men getting screwed over. Only problem is, the media and mass perception is still "man leaves ex-wife high and dry", when the truth NOW is "ex-wife bleeds ex-husbands dry".
Not to minimize what your mom went through, and many like her. But millions of men are going through hell right now because the laws have been changed SO MUCH and are so biased against men, without even a thought, care or grain of truth from the masses and media. And very little sympathy from most women.

Wow, gunner, do you even read what I type? Way to put a lot of fucking words in my mouth that I didn't say.

What I did say was that if you're going to play a numbers game, you're going to lose because more men screw women than vice versa. Nothing about who leads in child abuse etc. And femi-nazi? I guess that's anyone who doesn't call all women scum? I never claimed that domestic violence is the largest killer of women or that women are more often injured by domestic violence than anything else. Stop putting NOW's words in my mouth. I fled them because I found them ridiculous. I personally know Marcia Pappas and let me tell you, she's out there. Well, was. I haven't spoken with her for years because I want nothing to do with her.

What I did say was that each case should be tried in the family court system on a case by case basis. The evidence and testimony from all parties analyzed and then whatever is in the best interest of the child should be what goes. The child. Not favoring either the man or the woman. I also said if all things are equal between mommy and daddy and they're both relatively good parents than the 50/50 split with each parent supporting the kid(s) when in their care that someone suggested seems the utterly fairest thing. I said too that if you share a child in common with someone you shouldn't be able to up and move out of state with said child.

That you're not reading but hearing me say what you expect a woman who disagrees with you (and actually doesn't even entirely do that; I disagree with you thinking the courts should swing back to favoring the men instead of hearing the evidence and not favoring either gender) to say only reinforces the impression you're giving of being woman-hating. I am not man-hating just because I think the man isn't always automatically in the right any more than the woman is. These cases should be decided based on the facts, not by gender -- ever. Neither gender should be automatically regarded as right or wrong.

Oh, and this:

"And I saved this gem for last "1 in 4 women will be raped in college". Are we truly to believe that 25% of the young men on college campuses are RAPISTS??? (or are there like 1 or 2 really busy guys running around out there doing all this raping?)."

Would indicate that you lack basic reasoning skills even with that assinine last statement. I do not know how accurate or not the stat is but even if it were accurate and 1/4 of women in colleges are raped (frankly, I have a little trouble buying it's that high) it would not mean that 1/4 of the men on college campuses are rapists. Of course, again, you're putting words in my mouth.

I don't like you much. You're kind of an ass. Doesn't mean I dislike all men. I find many here impressive. I'm sure you don't like me much either. Fine with that. Pity is you only seem to like women who want to blame all women for what one or two do. Kind of like you. All the while for condemning women who blame men for what one or two do.

"What I did say was that if you're going to play a numbers game, you're going to lose because more men screw women than vice versa. Nothing about who leads in child abuse etc. "

If you would like to know the statistics regarding child abuse...

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/table3_18.htm

Table 3-18 Victims by Perpetrator Relationship, 2006

Mother Only: 39.9%
Father Only: 17.6%
Mother and Father: 17.8%
Mother and Other: 6.1%
Father and Other: 1.0%
Female Partner of Parent: 0.2%
Male Partner of Parent: 1.8%
Female Legal Guardian: 0.2%
Male Legal Guardian: 0.0%
Relative: 4.9%
Foster Parent (Relative): 0.0%
Foster Parent (Nonrelative): 0.2%
Foster Parent (Unknown Relationship): 0.1%
Residential Facility Staff: 0.2%
Daycare Staff: 0.5%
Other Professional: 0.1%
Friend or Neighbor: 0.4%
More than One Nonparental Perpetrator: 1.4%
Unknown or Missing: 7.6%

Mothers (not women, but specifically mothers) are involved in just shy of 2/3 of all child abuse. Fathers (not men, but specifically fathers) are involved in just slightly more than 1/3 of all child abuse.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/table4_5.htm

Perpetrator Relationships of Child Fatalities, 2006

Mother: 27.4%
Mother and Other: 11.5%
Father: 13.1%
Father and Other: 1.5%
Mother and Father: 22.4%
Female Relative: 3.0%
Male Relative: 1.6%
Female Foster Parent (Relative): 0.0%
Male Foster Parent (Relative): 0.0%
Female Partner of Parent: 0.0%
Male Partner of Parent: 2.9%
Female Legal Guardian: 0.1%
Male Legal Guardian: 0.0%
Foster Parent (Nonrelative): 0.5%
Foster Parent Unknown Relationship: 0.4%
Staff Group Home: 0.4%
Daycare Staff: 3.0%
Other Professional: 0.0%
Friend or Neighbor: 0.2%
More than One Nonparental Perpetrator: 2.5%
Unknown or Missing: 9.5%

Mike, well DUH! Moms are around them more. Control for hours spent in caring for the child, and see what happens.

As I wrote at the end of one of my earlier posts "This is a real problem that exists and change can be made for the good and fairness of all. I really don't see a problem with that."

Answers of they type "that's just the way it is, so quit crying about it" are completely lame, and don't acknowledge the problem.

Didn't we put in steps to help divorced women when they were NOT regularly being paid CS from ex-husbands? We didn't just tell them "too bad, that's just the way it is". What kind of society would that be? Our society would never progress on ANY issue.

This is a real issue, with ex-wives taking a much higher percentages of their ex-husbands income than they reasonably need "for the children". The laws have gone TOO FAR in the other direction, and now more men are suffering because of it.

We need to come to the center, to have a balance. We need accountability of each partner after divorce, on the same even playing field. We need to treat men and women with REAL equality, and this problem would not even exist.

"Approximately one in six boys is sexually abused before age 16"

http://www.jimhopper.com/male%2Dab/