I have a better idea. Why don't they include a course in the sophomore year: How to obtain financial aid.

How people can say that their college money is running out is beyond me. I'm currently enrolled for my third college degree and yes, I'm doing it with financial aid.

Posted by: Patrick at January 9, 2010 1:46 AM

But..but... they're disadvantaged! Scarred for life from the divorce! Sadly, they have this law here in Oregon. Non custodial or never married parents are required to support an adult child in college from 18 to 21 I think.

IIRC, the kid is required to maintain a certain GPA but don't hold me to that. This is a subject I can't bring up with my mother. She blindly supports it as a good thing (sore point in my parents divorce).

Posted by: Sio at January 9, 2010 3:46 AM

We're so messed up in this country regarding when adulthood is reached. I believe, legally, at least in some states, parents are still responsible for their children until age 21. We're expected to pay their medical expenses, like they're still "minors", but we can't see their health records because they're "adults". They can go to war, yet they can't drink.

College expenses are a problem for divorced couples. It's not so much the tuition, which can be covered with scholarships or financial aid, but the added expenses, like housing, books, and food. College kids today can't find jobs. There aren't any in many areas, and/or the ones that used to be filled by college kids are actually being taken by adults hungry for work.

I have a friend who is paying all of the extra college expenses for her two kids because the ex, who makes much more than she does, figures his obligation to them is done. It isn't fair, but I agree it would violate equal protection just to require divorced couples to do this.

Posted by: lovelysoul at January 9, 2010 5:11 AM

I have an even better idea Patrick. Don't marry, don't have kids, don't cohabitate, don't even look in their direction. The legal system is getting us there quicker than we will admit.

Posted by: Richard Cook at January 9, 2010 5:11 AM

Who the hell would even PROPOSE a bill like that, and with WHAT justification???

Posted by: Robert at January 9, 2010 6:53 AM

I have heard of many judges ordering this as part of child support obligations. Our system straddles the fence on this subject. When I wanted to go to college, I was unable to get any financial aid because of my parent's income regardless of the fact that they did not contribute a penny toward my upkeep and refused to help pay for college. They started charging me rent when I was 16 and still living at home. I think that we should either require parents to pay for college or declare young adults independent and eligible for financial aid.

Posted by: Jen at January 9, 2010 7:09 AM

I think that we should either require parents to pay for college or declare young adults independent and eligible for financial aid.

Or do away with (government) financial aid altogether and force the universities to actually compete on a cost basis.

There are strong arguments (with evidence) that suggest that the bulk of tuition inflation is due to the easy availability of student aid at no risk to the universities themselves.

Posted by: brian at January 9, 2010 7:41 AM

When two people divorce, they make up a divorce settlement agreement, which addresses who will pay for what (i.e., who is responsible for maintaining health insurance for the kids, who will pay for their school supplies, etc.). College tuition is almost always included as far as I have seen (I'm an attorney and work for the court). So, why is this law even needed? People can come to these agreements on their own.

My (not divorced, thank God) parents didn't pay for my college expenses (I earned a scholarship, went to a cheap school, and worked), and I've always thought that I was better for it. I took it a lot more seriously than most of my friends who were still on their parents' dole.

Posted by: Lyssa at January 9, 2010 8:01 AM

Sorry if this posts twice, am having server problems.

My parents' divorce agreement included our educational expenses. Halfway through, my dad declared that he "couldn't afford it anymore". I got a job, worked 30 hours a week and guess what happened? My grades skyrocketed.

You guys will love this one: Custodial mom pushes son to attend a college in hometown. Also pushes son to stay at home instead of moving out, and appeals to the judge to extend child support until son graduates from college. 'Cuz, ya know, it's really much LESS expensive for him to live at home then go out an establish another residence. It's really all in the son's best interest, wink wink. But the irony was the son had no interest in college, went into the Army and pissed his mom off to no end. She had plans for a three-season room off the back of the house that would have been financed by his remaining at home and drawing more child support checks.

Posted by: Juliana at January 9, 2010 8:21 AM

I ran into the same problem as Jen: couldn't get financial aid because of my parents' combined income, despite the fact that I was actually supporting myself. I wound up getting a private student loan which covered the first year and a half. After that, I worked internships, working around my school hours. It was exhausting at the time, but the internships gave me a big leg up in the job market after graduation.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at January 9, 2010 8:34 AM

Just a reminder, all you taxpayers are paying the salaries of the people who sit and come up with these things.

Posted by: Lobster at January 9, 2010 9:02 AM

I'm with Lyssa on the why needed?, this is often in the divorce decree. :shrug: The problem STILL is that even with the divorce decree, they don't respond to how much a parent can actually afford, if the other parent is in a position to force an amount on the other. Like going to an state college rather than a private one that costs 3-4 times as much. A friend has been in court 3x over this very thing. The kid wants to go to a certain school that is very expensive... but neither she nor anyone else can afford that. So? They are using the court to force one parent to pay for it.

As a parent, you want to help your kids. But as mentioned... If there is no money, you have to do the best you can. Ruining one parent to help the kid via the state is unconscionable.

My standard of expectation on this is, what would be reasonable if the parents were still together? Not what can you force one parent to pay under potential contempt of court and jailtime.

Posted by: SwissArmyD at January 9, 2010 9:14 AM

Another case of unequal protection under the law that effects mostly men. If I remember correctly the proportion of females that get sole custody after a divorce as opposed to men is in the high eighties. Around 87% if I can recall correctly but I'm too lazy to look it up today, if someone else wants to then feel free.

Want to know what my parents did when they wanted me to go to college, but; refused to pay for it? Took me straight to military recruiters at age 17. The army recruiter offended my mom; the Air force recruiter was an arrogant dick to me; and there was no way I was joining the marines, so I ended up in the Navy. I was in the delayed entry program by my senior year of high school, and was being shipped to basic training shortly after I graduated high school. I would venture to say I'm better off because of it.

While we're on the topic of unequal protection under the law for Non-custodial parents: Lets not forget that if someone in an intact couple loses their job, then the family automatically spends less and makes financial sacrifices. However if a NCP loses their job, they are expected to keep sending the same amount of money to their child and ex. If the NCP falls behind he will be thrown in jail, where it's impossible to find a new source of income.

Also if the member of an intact family chooses to take a lower paying less stressful job then that is his choice. However if a NCP does the same thing then a judge 'IMPUTES' his income, and he has to pay the same amount of CS [which is usually impossible] or go to prison.

I often have wondered how everyday citizens would react if politicians decided to implement tax laws in a similar way.

For example if you lost you're job you would be required to pay the same amount in taxes until a judge decided that you had suffered a 'change in circumstances' 6 to 12 months later. Or if after taking a lower paying job the government would make you pay taxes based on 'imputed income' still leaving you with a large tax burden that would be impossible to pay with your new smaller salary. All with the threat of prison time if you fail to comply.

I'm more then willing to bet that the reaction to such laws would make the first American Revolution look like a church picnic.

Posted by: Mike Hunter at January 9, 2010 9:29 AM

I am tired of people getting married, having kids, and then getting divorced.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at January 9, 2010 10:10 AM

"There are strong arguments (with evidence) that suggest that the bulk of tuition inflation is due to the easy availability of student aid at no risk to the universities themselves."

Makes sense. This is a by-product of a bigger issue, though. Most people in college shouldn't even be there. They are just doing it because so many companies require college degrees for jobs that don't really need one. This, in turn, is because a high school diploma no longer means anything. So all these middle-class people feel like they need to jump through those hoops, go to college for four years and buy a degree, just so they can make it past the trolls in human resources. This, when a high school education costs the taxpayers around $250K for a single kid.

"I took it a lot more seriously than most of my friends who were still on their parents' dole."

That's great, but they still got the same degree you did. C's get degrees.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at January 9, 2010 10:15 AM

In my state, NC, parents are responsible for the uninsured, 21 and over, children if they live in the same house with the parents. I call it the doctor's and hospital protective act.

Posted by: fatfred at January 9, 2010 10:40 AM

keep the government out of our homes! Let the parents decide when their children should be emancipated not the state.

Posted by: Peggy at January 9, 2010 11:21 AM

No to the nanny state. Parents have to take back authority in the house and not give everything to the child that they ask for. We are raising generations of spoiled brats who become criminals oftentimes. www.kalamazooobjectivist.blogspot.com

Posted by: The Kalamazoo Objectivist at January 9, 2010 11:24 AM

Richard Cook: I have an even better idea Patrick. Don't marry, don't have kids, don't cohabitate, don't even look in their direction. The legal system is getting us there quicker than we will admit.

I'm taking your advice to heart, Richard. I am not married, nor will I marry, and I certainly won't cohabitate.

Posted by: Patrick at January 9, 2010 12:02 PM

Same here, Patrick. This discussion has got me wondering, to expand on what I said above - Why don't people demand an overhaul of the K-12 system and make it worth something, instead of demanding government assistance with college? People stick their kids in the school system for most of their childhoods, and it seems more like tax-subsidized daycare than a real education. The point of school isn't to be custodial. Why not make sure a kid graduating from high school is actually fit to hold down a job and function in the real world? That alone would render most of this expensive college stuff unnecessary. It's nothing more than drinking camp for a lot of students.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at January 9, 2010 3:04 PM

I said :"I took it a lot more seriously than most of my friends who were still on their parents' dole."

Pirate Jo said: "That's great, but they still got the same degree you did. C's get degrees."

Not necessarily true. Many dropped out, and some did the drop in, drop out thing and took years more to get the degree. Also, GPA matters at least some- I certainly wouldn't have gotten into law school with many C's, and I still (like most I know) have my undergrad GPA on my resume.

Pirate Jo also said: "Why don't people demand an overhaul of the K-12 system and make it worth something, instead of demanding government assistance with college? People stick their kids in the school system for most of their childhoods, and it seems more like tax-subsidized daycare than a real education."

Word. That's what needs changing, but I'm really at a loss as to how.

Posted by: Lyssa at January 9, 2010 4:52 PM

Passing this idiot law will only result in a slew of divorced non-custodial parents moving out of Virginia.

Posted by: mpetrie98 at January 9, 2010 6:32 PM

@Richard Cook: Why bother getting married when you can just find a woman you hate and buy her a house?

Posted by: mpetrie98 at January 9, 2010 6:35 PM

don't states base the amount of child support on a % of income, rather than a specific dollar amount? or does it depend on the specific divorce agreement?
when my parents divorced my father was ordered to pay 17-23% of his check for child support. he paid 20%. but he wasn't required to increase the dollar amount if he got a raise - i know, because he made a big point of telling me that he did it anyway. my mother paid health insurance, my father started a savings account for my college. when i went, i had to work, get as much aid as possible and pay for whatever i could - but my parents covered the rest. i got a's and b's. except in organic chemistry. i got a c in that....
i don't think divorced parents should be required to pay for their kids' college any more than married parents should - but i think there should be a difference in the amount of aid available to kids whose parents aren't helping. and fyi, private schools have a tendency to offer a lot more scholarships/grants than public, so the actual cost is often the same or sometimes less than public. they have to compete, after all. not too many pay sticker price.

Posted by: whatever at January 9, 2010 11:29 PM

My brother's child support was set through a long legal formula...actual the child support is set and then apporationed to each parent according to a modified income and then one generally pays the other according to some balancing formula. Frankly, I think it is black magic. The payments stay the same (unless they end up in court for some reason) until the kids reach a certain age and once the kid reaches that age they get more support. Like whatever said, the amount after it is initially setup is not dependant on income without going to court. Whether a job is lost or a raised - the support is the same and has to be paid.

The one wrinkle I know of that is playing out is his ex-wife later had kid with another man. He was injuried in an accident and now is on a government aid program since he cannot work. This means the government has legally decieded his income (i.e. a judge could impute income to him because it has already been decieded in the eyes of the law) and that amount is at level where he would not have to or be able to pay child support.

Posted by: The Former Banker at January 10, 2010 2:53 AM

fyi, private schools have a tendency to offer a lot more scholarships/grants than public, so the actual cost is often the same or sometimes less than public. they have to compete, after all. not too many pay sticker price. -- Whatever

When I got my undergraduate degree I went to the most expensive school in the state. Yet because of all the aid I got I ended up paying less then my buddy from HS that went to the big State school down the road.

They just sent me a request for money. According to their flyer 97% of the students there recieve finicial aid through the finicial aid office.

Posted by: The Former Banker at January 10, 2010 2:58 AM

While we're on the topic of unequal protection under the law for Non-custodial parents: Lets not forget that if someone in an intact couple loses their job, then the family automatically spends less and makes financial sacrifices. However if a NCP loses their job, they are expected to keep sending the same amount of money to their child and ex. If the NCP falls behind he will be thrown in jail, where it's impossible to find a new source of income.

Also if the member of an intact family chooses to take a lower paying less stressful job then that is his choice. However if a NCP does the same thing then a judge 'IMPUTES' his income, and he has to pay the same amount of CS [which is usually impossible] or go to prison.

I often have wondered how everyday citizens would react if politicians decided to implement tax laws in a similar way.
====================================
Mike Hunter- Great Points!
Feminists groups have trained the courts and the media to view non-custodial Dads as ATM's only.
They make seperate laws for non-custodial parents (Dads) because they have made them so unpopular so that anything the court heaps on them they deserve.

Posted by: David M. at January 10, 2010 5:21 AM

The whole system is totally fucked, and I don't mean maybe.

Then there are guys like my Ex, whose parents give him an allowance, out of which I get my measly $69/weekly for 2 kids. I haven't been able to even apply for more child support, because he hasn't worked in over 8 years. But as long as his parents are paying his child support, he won't go to jail, nor will he have to take any kind of responsibility for himself or his children. Isn't that great? /sarcasm

Posted by: Flynne at January 10, 2010 8:32 AM

The whole system is totally fucked, and I don't mean maybe.

Then there are guys like my Ex, whose parents give him an allowance, out of which I get my measly $69/weekly for 2 kids. I haven't been able to even apply for more child support, because he hasn't worked in over 8 years. But as long as his parents are paying his child support, he won't go to jail, nor will he have to take any kind of responsibility for himself or his children. Isn't that great? /sarcasm

Posted by: Flynne at January 10, 2010 8:32 AM
=====================================
I'm paying a borderline mother $575 dollars a month for one child. She also gets $400 from the father of her other child. She is now going through a divorce with a man she was married to for 4 years and has no kids with. She is living in his $250,000 property in the midwest (3100 sq foot house and 10 acres of land plus out buildings)driving his $25,000 Suburban with video monitors all bells and whistles etc. While he and his kids live in half a duplex and she is driving him into bankruptcy.

I have spent $30,000 in attorneys fees and court costs so I can see my daughter and so her mom will use her legal name.
Isn't that great? Consider yourself lucky. He doesn't want to be involved- there isn't much you can do.
If my ex handed me our daughter and didn't want to be involved and never paid a dime I would be doing cart wheels and jumping jacks. It depends on your perspective and what you have been through.

Posted by: David M. at January 10, 2010 8:58 AM

I'm right there with you Flynne. My ex lives with a woman who makes a lot of money. For years he made a lot of money. I begged him to up his meager support when my industry collapsed and, especially, when I had to take a year-plus to battle cancer. Uh, nope. But he lost his job on Oct. 15 and on Oct. 16 notified me that he was cutting support because of his hard times. Mine apparently were irrelevant to him, as clearly were our kid's.

Couldn't afford to take him back to court then (I chose to pay the deductible for the chemo instead) and have just depleted my cancer fund defending myself against his demand for more custody AND EVEN LESS child support. He actually asked to be let out of sharing the cost of our child's birth, which I paid in full and have waited seven years to be repaid on his word.

Yeah, Mike, all the moms are bitches and all the dads are masters of goodness, at least in the imaginary world where you live. Where I live, in the land of single moms, almost everyone is struggling and would never deny their kid what they had to give. The dads? Not so much. I don't see them sacrificing for their children unless ordered to do so. I don't see them voluntarily offering more when they can. Nope, money is their weapon and they use it to punish us moms and to hell with it if the kids get punished along the way.

And, yeah, I picked horribly. I admit it. And every day I get up and feed and dress and educate my child to the best of my ability and try to make up for him. It's not enough but it's what I have.

Posted by: Elementary at January 10, 2010 9:03 AM

He actually asked to be let out of sharing the cost of our child's birth, which I paid in full and have waited seven years to be repaid on his word.

First, Elementary, it sounds like you've gone through a terrible time recently, and I'm sorry for that and hope you're in remission and doing well.

But, a question: How did you manage to have a child with a man who wasn't there from birth on?

Because I know what an enormous thing it is -- an enormous responsibility with enormous costs -- to raise a child, I'm shocked when people do it without planning it well with the person they're having one with.

Also, research shows that children have the worst outcomes when they are not raised in intact families. And it's the intactness or lack thereof, not whether you have money, that seems to make the difference.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 10, 2010 9:12 AM

I knew you'd go right there, Amy.

Actually we were together, until our child was three. He was present at the birth. He was present after. He just wasn't present one day when we came home from vacation (neither was the furniture, but that's another story).

He lost his job the day before I found out I was pregnant and after that was unemployed or underemployed and so while on bed rest and recovering from a C-section I paid all my bills, all his bills, and all the kid's bills out of my savings and income -- because parents who can have a moral obligation to provide. But at the time he promised to make it up to me/us. I'm still waiting for that day. His getting a fantastic paying job didn't seem to make any difference.

I know you disagree, but people change, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. If change wasn't possible you wouldn't have a job because your job is to instruct people in positive change. He changed for the worse. No one saw it coming. Today, for instance, he is paying $3000 for his dog's surgery but is withholding money for our child's $300 a month in medicine to punish me. He can do that because he knows I'd stand on the street corner and let people take swings at me for $5 a punch to raise money if I had to -- most fathers do, and that's why they can and do walk away financially (not always, maybe not even most of the time, but far too much of it).

And you can condemn my wonderful funny sunny child to a damned future all you want. I'll have her call you in 20 years to tell you what a wonderful life she had and is having. My entire being is dedicated to ensuring she doesn't become a statistic of any sort, unless it's a National Merit Scholar statistic.

Go lecture her father.

Posted by: elementary at January 10, 2010 9:27 AM

Go lecture her father.

That's your job. And if that doesn't work, then maybe you needed to have a conversation with his mother before you got horizontal with him.

You chose poorly. Now you reap the reward.

Posted by: brian at January 10, 2010 9:36 AM

Oh, and on the subject at hand - college costs and who pays. My motherless niece -- with a father who not just didn't pay for her but didn't want the bother of her around -- had herself declared an emancipated minor at 17. She graduated almost full scholarship from a prestigious university and is now all grown up and doing such good and so well in the world. She's also a whiz at finding money for things she wants (like getting her master's in public policy now while working full-time)

Posted by: elementary at January 10, 2010 9:39 AM

Thank you for the advice Brian. It's not surprising coming from you. But I'm done lecturing him. I've just helping my child live the best life possible.

Perhaps if men stood up and lectured other men for their bad behavior some of that behavior would stop. I know my role in this. But so much easier to beat up on the single mothers than say, "Any man who doesn't live up to his responsibilities to his child fully and completely is a bum and a bad guy and should be shunned by all of society."

Not that I care what you think, but he did in fact change. I can't wave a wand and change him back. I can only make the best life possible for my child.

Posted by: elementary at January 10, 2010 10:01 AM

Thank you for the advice Brian. It's not surprising coming from you. But I'm done lecturing him.

Perhaps if men stood up and lectured other men for their bad behavior some of that behavior would stop. I know my role in this. But so much easier to beat up on the single mothers than say, "Any man who doesn't live up to his responsibilities to his child fully and completely is a bum and a bad guy and should be shunned by all of society."

Not that I care what you think, but he did in fact change. I can't wave a wand and change him back. I can only make the best life possible for my child.

Posted by: elementary at January 10, 2010 10:01 AM

Perhaps if men stood up and lectured other men for their bad behavior some of that behavior would stop.

Ya know, I just don't see this happening. Because it's still the woman's fault for choosing poorly. Never the man's, mind you. People are so quick to throw the responsibility back at the other person, because it's easier to do that to admit you made a mistake. I admit mine all the time. I thank the gods for my parents, who have helped me and my girls through thick and thin. My ex's parents think my girls are little trophies to trot out when it's convenient for them, and ex treats them like pals, for the 6 hours that he deigns to take them one day a week. And bitches at me because the younger one needs braces. And the older one needs money for school. And so it falls to me to provide for them. And so I do, to the best of my ability. Their father can go pound sand for all I care, but the girls love him and so I will never say that to his face, though there have been MANY times when I wanted to. One day they'll understand. He probably never will.

Posted by: Flynne at January 10, 2010 11:07 AM

I doubt you'll see many guys lcturing for two reasons.

First, women reward such reprehensible behavior on the part of men, and the men who take advantage of that fact dont give a shit.

Second the guys who dont behave in such a manner are far more concerned with their own relationships to give a fuck about the problems of women they spent most of high school and college warning about such guys. Not that the guys in group one would listen to the guys in group two anyway.

Posted by: lujlp at January 10, 2010 11:46 AM

Agreed lujlp. Another reason that dovetails in with #1 would be getting tired of being lumped in with the "dogs" and having to constantly prove ourselves as being "fine upstanding men". The reward being a pat on the head, an "atta boy" and them ignoring us, till they need a sympathetic ear or money.

Posted by: Sio at January 10, 2010 1:29 PM

Virginia's HB 146 makes perfect sense when you understand an ulterior motive that's probably driving it. It's an annual "profit" that's otherwise known as the "Federal Incentive Match," and that's provided under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

In short, each state is "awarded" an annual incentive match by the federal government (us of course) for their total statewide "child support" collections. It's simple, the more child support dollars collected, the more a state is rewarded with your tax dollars.

Keep in mind that just because Virginia's custodial parents may end up collecting "child support" until their children turn 23, that doesn't mean those college kids whose "best interests" that order allegedly serves will see one dime of those extra monies. What it does guarantee however, is that Virginia's annual share of the federal incentive match pie will be significantly larger as a direct result.

See the last paragraph of page 2 in forthcoming link. At least Ohio is honest about it being an "award."
http://www.odjfs.state.oh.us/clearances/public/TransDocVIEW.aspx?tdid=433453

When you understand that your State's budgets aren't immune to today's brutal recession, then forcing noncustodial parents (NCPs), the father in 84% of cases nationally, to pay more child support over a longer period makes perfect sense for the States financially.

For example, in 2003 I believe the year was, Ohio "earned" an award of $229 million for making itself the middleman in collecting child support from NCPs. A quarter-billion dollars is a lot of money to add to a state's bottom line, just ask Ohio. In these economic times, it's probably becoming more of a must for some states.

This link from a federal government website http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/family/childenf/noncustodial.htm provides some interesting information such as the fact that up to 65% of an NCP's "net" income may be seized for child support. I note that to dispel those myths that anything to the contrary is true at the federal level.

I know of one noncustodial mom who was ordered to pay more in child support annually than she'd earned in summation over an eight year period as a stay at home mom pre-divorce. What "visitation" was she granted to her children? None. She hadn't seen nor spoken to them in years because her ex was well-connected politically, and thereby had completely alienated her from her children.

For those men who incorrectly think that not dating, cohabitating, marrying, or copulating protects you from paying child support until a child to whom you're not the father turns 23, 25 etc, think again.

That same link in the paragraph above advises, "it may be possible, depending on state law, to challenge the paternity finding." Understand that it matters not that you're truly not the father, all that matters is that you were named and thereby found to be the father in a court of law.

In layman's terms, that means that if you were served according to that State's (the one naming you paternally) statutes, then you're the father, end of story, period. Pay your "child support" or go to jail; "deadbeat."

In 2006, $5.6 billion was expended to enforce child support collections nationally. How much was spent that same year to enforce visitation? A shameful and paltry $10 million was "awarded" by the federal government (to the States) to enforce visitation orders nationwide. Those dollars were divided between 54 (sic) States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands). Sadly, the federal government brags of this financial “accomplishment.”

$5.6 billion spent nationally to enforce child support collections, and $10 million to enforce visitation orders for those very same children? That's utterly despicable! Moreover, it speaks volumes as to whether today's draconian child support collection efforts are truly in "the children's best interest," or alternatively (and more aptly), in each state's best financial interest.

Stated otherwise, only 1/1000th of 1.7 percent (or .00017 percent) of the monies spent to enforce child support orders is spent to enforce visitation orders for those very same children. It's hard not to argue then that dollars are more important than dads in the eyes of our government.

Perhaps then, this partially explains why society views us fathers as nothing more than living, breathing (albeit absolutely devoid of love and adulation of course) ATM machines that are to be accessed with impunity by the courts, and on behalf of our children as we're told? Sadly, the following acronym accurately depicts Fatherhood as it exists today, and with the ever increasing degenerative ills of our society reflecting it as such all too well? DAD = Debit As Dictated.

Maybe if it were the other way around, (where dads where more important that dollars) those like me who drive eight to ten hours and over 500 miles one way to "visit" their children bi-weekly, wouldn't hear the words "you're not seeing your daughter" uttered by the custodial parent, and out of nothing more than blinding and vindictive hatred.

The fact that I'm nearly $7,000 overpaid in my "child support" doesn't afford me anymore access to, or contact with, my beloved daughter whom I love so dearly and miss tremendously. Nevertheless, those regularly scheduled "child support" debits keep coming, and that, while her cheerful voice becomes more and more of a very painful and distant memory to me, her proud and loving father.

My endless attempts to reach her on the cell phone that I've provided to her continue to prove futile. Thankfully, when my call to her cell phone goes to voicemail (as it has every day for nearly two weeks now), I am reminded of that precious sound of my beautiful daughter's voice.

Speaking as one who grew up exceedingly poor and without a father, I can tell you with 100% certainty that if the choice were mine and to this day, I would have chosen my dad over dollars every minute of every day of every year. This is especially true of those years that were spent in an orphanage and in various foster care homes while my father was alive.

Tony Fantetti
Ohio Council for Fathers Rights

Posted by: Tony Fantetti at January 10, 2010 2:11 PM

Lujlp, Sio -- How about standing up to them because it's the right thing to do, and the thing a good man would do?

You guys sound so much like anti-choice activists. Think of the children, think of children, until it actually comes to taking care of the children. Better to let little ones suffer from their fathers' sins than man up, indeed.

I find your categorization that these are all bad boys doing this to their children hilarious. Middle-age men walk away from their families every single day after 20-plus years of marriage. If you could have predicted each of these in college, then you need to open up a service right now. You will be rich in a week.

Tony, I don't see anyone as an ATM. I do see a child who has somewhat serious medical issues and very serious dental needs and a father who, like far too many I know, understands that the mother would die before letting her child suffer and so doesn't step up. Again, what kind of man who is able does not provide everything he possibly can for his child, especially one who sees his child on a regular basis? Without complaint or bragging.

Why doesn't your daughter want to take your calls Tony? In this blame-the-mother mood here, I'm sure it's not your fault at all. But I can't imagine any circumstance under which my own wouldn't leap to talk to me, especially if she had her own phone. She'd keep that thing at her side as her most precious possession. She'd never let anyone -- including her father -- take it from her. So why isn't she answering?

Posted by: elementary at January 10, 2010 5:34 PM

Tony,

Please hang around.

We're pulling for you.

Posted by: Jim P. at January 10, 2010 5:37 PM

"She'd never let anyone -- including her father -- take it from her. So why isn't she answering?"

It couldn't be parental alienation... no siree bub.

Posted by: Sio at January 10, 2010 6:45 PM

Flynne:

Out of which I get my measly $69/weekly for 2 kids. I haven't been able to even apply for more child support, because he hasn't worked in over 8 years...

If you can't afford to support your children by yourself, then; you shouldn't reproduce. You are a woman after all, so it was a choice.

Every custodial parent in a courtroom screeching about the money that their entitled to should be asked one question: 'If your ex died how would you feed your children?' If their answer is something along the lines of: 'Derr my children would starve' then the custodial parent is an unfit parent.

But as long as his parents are paying his child support, he won't go to jail, nor will he have to take any kind of responsibility for himself or his children.

The law holds him responsible for himself; that should be obvious. He's also financially responsible for his children, as you also know, since you're collecting $3,360 tax free from him every year. If you don't think that is real money then feel free to send it to me.

Elementary:

First of all sorry that you have/had cancer. But it's not relevant to the overall discussion. If you think that I'm just going to check my beliefs at the door because life kicked you in the teeth, and you decided to play the 'poor me' card then you're sadly mistaken.

For years he made a lot of money. I begged him to up his meager support when my industry collapsed...

It's not called mommy support for a reason. Child support is suppose to cover half of the cost of raising your children. That money is not suppose to be spent on the custodial parent although some of it usually is; and, child support from him isn't suppose to pay for your half of the costs of raising the children you decided to have.

Uh, nope. But he lost his job on Oct. 15 and on Oct. 16 notified me that he was cutting support because of his hard times. Mine apparently were irrelevant to him, as clearly were our kid's.

Your hard times are irrelevant. Again it's child support not mommy support. Also if one of the providers in an intact family loses their job, then; the family has to cut back and make sacrifices. Why should it be any different when a couple is no longer together?

You should be grateful that you won't have your drivers license suspended or be thrown in jail if you are unable to spend the same amount of money on your children while going though hard times. That's a luxury that a NCP doesn't have, and it usually takes 6 months to 1 year for the judge to consider it a change in circumstances and lower the amount of CS. That's not even counting the 3 - 6 months that it takes to even get to even see the judge to ask for a downward modification. In the meantime you'll be getting charged interest and penalties on the child support that you can't pay.

depleted my cancer fund defending myself against his demand for more custody AND EVEN LESS child support.

OH NO!! Anything but more custody! If you really are having financial difficulties supporting your children, and the amount of child support per day that you receive is too low, then dad having more custody will ease your financial burden. Of course the amount of child support will go down, it's not mommy support remember? If the children spend less time with you, then you don't have to spend as much money on them.

Unless of course it really is about the money. In which case you were planning on spending that extra child support on you instead of your children. Which is defacto child neglect.

Yeah, Mike, all the moms are bitches and all the dads are masters of goodness, at least in the imaginary world where you live.

Why debate someone with when you can just put words in their mouth? Please tell me where and when I said this. Remember to be specific.

Where I live, in the land of single moms, almost everyone is struggling and would never deny their kid what they had to give. The dads? Not so much. I don't see them sacrificing for their children unless ordered to do so. I don't see them voluntarily offering more when they can. Nope, money is their weapon and they use it to punish us moms and to hell with it if the kids get punished along the way.

I would rebut this comment, but there's nothing to rebut. The entire thing is sexist misandry. I wonder how a comment like this would fly on here or even in public if you changed the group that you were attacking. For example if you replaced the word dad's with the word jews.

It would look something like this:

Where I live, in the land of single moms, almost everyone is struggling and would never deny their kid what they had to give. The jews? Not so much. I don't see them sacrificing for their children unless ordered to do so. I don't see them voluntarily offering more when they can. Nope, money is their weapon and they use it to punish us moms and to hell with it if the kids get punished along the way.

And, yeah, I picked horribly. I admit it.

Bingo we have a winner!

Perhaps if men stood up and lectured other men for their bad behavior some of that behavior would stop.

You could say the same thing about women I suppose. But that's part of the human condition isn't it. Every group of people is going to have a few bad apples.

But so much easier to beat up on the single mothers than say, "Any man who doesn't live up to his responsibilities to his child fully and completely is a bum and a bad guy and should be shunned by all of society."

I had to laugh at this. When has society ever 'beat up' on single mothers? It's enabled them every step of the way, and in the past couple of decades has made them out to be martyrs.

Shunning is fine with me. I wouldn't want to associate with someone who doesn't respect my rights as a human being because of my gender or custodial status anyway. Taking away other peoples liberty and property at gunpoint to enforce a chauvinistic worldview is the problem.

Posted by: Mike Hunter at January 10, 2010 6:45 PM

You guys sound so much like anti-choice activists. Think of the children, think of children, until it actually comes to taking care of the children. Better to let little ones suffer from their fathers' sins than man up, indeed.

First of all as a bitter middle age divorcee you don't know the first thing about being a man, so stop telling people to "man up".

Second of all if you don't support a man's right to unilaterally abandon his parental responsibilities,after a pregnancy has already occurred; legal protection which women already have, then, you are an anti-choice activist.

I find your categorization that these are all bad boys doing this to their children hilarious. Middle-age men walk away from their families every single day after 20-plus years of marriage.

So do middle aged women; the only difference is that they do it twice as often. Women initiate 66% of all divorces. However in states that have laws of presumptive shared custody unless one parent is considered unfit, the percentage of divorces initiated by women is much lower, and divorce in general is much lower. I wonder why? It seems that many men are not "walking away" from their families; but, are instead being driven out of their families by vindictive ex-wives.

Posted by: Mike Hunter at January 10, 2010 7:02 PM

Mike Hunter -

I wish I had time to read that entire thing. I think I got the laughable gist.

I paid for my child's entire, extraordinarily expensive prenatal care because she had huge problems in utero. I paid every cent of the hospital/C section bill. I paid every single cent of her expenses for the 3 years her father and I were together after her birth. When he left he didn't pay a cent in child support for a year -- including when I got cancer. Still, I allowed him to see our child whenever he wanted. Then he got a job and paid the absolute minimum until he lost said job, and then immediately slashed what he paid. Please explain to me where your hilarious notion of mommy support fits in.

I on the other hand live in a great school district where rent is high so my child can attend the public school. He lives in a lousy one and has low rent -- not an option for me. I pay her health insurance, her medical bills, her dental bills. What he pays doesn't cover half of her food bill and half of the rent for a second bedroom in this school district, much less everything else involved in raising a child. He has never once offered to stay home with her when she was sick, and as she has been sickly that has meant tons of lost wages for me while, again, I am the one largely supporting her and for a long time was the only one supporting her.

Let's not forget he had $3000 for surgery for his dog today.

By the way, he begged me to have this child.

I tell women all the time that children need fathers. For a long time he had keys to my house and came and went as he pleased. Funny how he waited 7 years -- until he wanted to stop paying anything at all -- to seek any sort of custody.

My kid has seen me cry at the pharmacy when the bill was handed to me. She's seen me go a week with virtually no sleep to earn enough extra to pay for the dance lessons she adores. She's seen me 90 pounds and bald collapse in the alley as I walked her to preschool because he had other plans that day.

I'd never play the cancer card. But a man who would abandon his toddler to a woman who cannot walk, who cannot lift her, who will and did tear stitches three times trying to tend to her -- well that's not a man who gets to suddenly decide now he wants more custody. A man who abandons his responsibilities has abandoned his rights.

Parental alienation? I think it's time some men -- not all -- admit they do a damn fine job of what I call child alienation.

I own up to every mistake I've made. And I atone. How do I do that? By being the absolutely best parent I can possibly be -- which, yes, means encouraging a relationship with her father. But tonight when he called, she didn't take the phone, either. She listened to him on the machine and walked away.

Who do you think is responsible for that?

Posted by: elementary at January 10, 2010 7:02 PM

I wish I had time to read that entire thing. I think I got the laughable gist... Please explain to me where your hilarious notion of mommy support fits in.

Why bother? You won't read it anyway. I already explained my position, and it makes sense. If you want to have a debate, or, even a conversation with someone you have to at least listen to their replies. By the way it might behoove you to take some of your own advice:

Again, what kind of man who is able does not provide everything he possibly can for his child, especially one who sees his child on a regular basis? Without complaint or bragging.

The majority of your rambling posts contain you complaining about your ex or bragging about how you would do anything for your child.

Posted by: Mike Hunter at January 10, 2010 7:37 PM

And yet I never complain about having to take care of my child. I am proud to do so, and enormously relieved that I could through impossibly trying circumstances that prove a parent who wants to provide will find a way to do so. There is no can't when you must.

I don't brag about what I do for my child. I just do it. Again, as any decent and responsible parent would.

Go hate on women. Doesn't matter to me. I'm too busy loving my child, my father, and so many other men in my life. My disrespect is quite clearly aimed at one person who earned it and one specific type of behavior, which is deplorable and indefensible, except by you. Yours? An entire gender. I hope you don't have daughters. It'd be awful to know your dad thought about women the way you do.

Posted by: elementary at January 10, 2010 8:55 PM

Thank you for the advice Brian. It's not surprising coming from you. But I'm done lecturing him.

Wait wait wait.

What's this "coming from you" shit?

I've got no abandoned children or failed relationships in my wake.

People don't just change. An asshole is an asshole. You did the horizontal bone dance with a douchebag, and somehow, you expect us to believe that he was Mr. Wonderful until one day he just up and changed?

Did he have a nervous breakdown? Alcoholism? Drugs? Those things will "change" a person.

Otherwise, I refuse to believe that you couldn't tell he was a douchebag when you were sharing your bed with him.

No, for some reason modern women are attracted to douchebags, and they get burned by them, and then they complain that the "nice guys" aren't interested in listening to their sob stories.

Look, you failed. If you aren't using the legal avenues available to you to go after the douchebag, then that's fine - you don't need to rub everyone's nose in how wonderful of a mother you are in the face of his abandonment.

But maybe you'll be more careful in your choice of prospective mates in the future. If not, at least you can serve as a dire warning to other women about the danger of the douchebag menace.

Posted by: brian at January 10, 2010 9:01 PM

Brian, I actually judge people's characters for a living in a sense (Amy knows what I do) and I missed this one by a mile.

To this day people still shake their heads and say, not in a million years. People who don't know the details would still vouch for him in a second. But privately he is a man who would punish his child in order to hurt her mother.

I am not a kid, he is not a kid, this isn't some hot bad boy thing gone wrong. It's just gone wrong. If I could explain it, I would. And, yes, it is my absolute greatest regret and shame. I have never ever said otherwise.

Again, if you have the powers to foresee every relationship where someone will change for the worse, PLEASE open a business. I promise to be your first client.

Finally, I wish I had had the financial means to go after him, or the emotional ones. But -- and again I am not seeking sympathy -- I had other more pressing concerns when this first began. I thought the best thing I could do for my child was to focus on surviving. Still, I'm sorry if I offended you. Trust me, this situation has offended me enough for both of us.

OK, I"m done with this topic. I don't know what set me off about it today. But this need to blame women in general is just wrong. Even youjust now Brian. "For some reason modern women are attracted to douchebags." So every guy who has a modern woman is a douchebag? Eighty percent? Fifty? Because if that's what modern women are attracted to we have to assume that men are mostly douchebags. A sweeping generalization like that just undercuts everything that precedes and follows it.

Posted by: elementary at January 10, 2010 9:31 PM

I think one of the big problems is how support is determined. I look at my brother's divorce. Our parent's and me (to a lessor extent) had to support him for two years after the divorce. I mean that my parents were buying food for him and the kids during his time. When you think about it, it makes sense. They were getting by but not by a lot before. After the split, two houses have to be maintained, the legal fees, etc - clearly the total costs are going to be significantly more yet the income is the same.

My brother seriously considered giving up - he worked the math and he would actually have basically as much just becoming bum. Sure, he might loose his DL, and couldn't hve much. Been he wouldn't have to work near so hard either and would still have about the same amount.

Posted by: The Former Banker at January 11, 2010 12:22 AM

Hi
The recent emergence of online college and university programs is providing wonderful opportunities for many people to earn college degrees who would not otherwise be able to get them. College and university tuition costs can be prohibitively expensive for many people. The advantage of an online degree program is that it costs much less.
Most online college and university programs give you the option of paying per course, making it easy to earn your degree at a pace you can afford. Also, because you are learning from home, there is no room and board to pay. In addition, all your reading material is on the web, so there's no need to buy costly textbooks.
Another advantage of earning a degree though online college and university programs is that you can do it at your own pace. Working professionals and busy parents can earn degrees while also attending to their everyday lives. You can study whenever it's most convenient for you, in the evening, on weekends, during breaks at work.
Also, you can study from whatever location is easiest. Many parents who are studying for online college and university degrees choose to study at libraries or coffee shops because there is less distraction. As long as you have computer access from your location, you can study there. This allows for a freedom and a flexibility that is simply not possible when earning a degree on campus at a ?brick and mortar? university.
The benefits of earning a degree through one of the many online college and university programs are numerous. Many people are stuck in careers they don't like, or are unable to be promoted within their company, because they lack a college degree. Employers value employees with college degrees for good reason ? college graduates tend to be more diligent, more thoughtful, more creative and more driven than other employees.
Online college and university programs teach students to think critically and creatively, and to analyze information in an intelligent way, skills which prove invaluable in the workplace. Not only do job chances improve with an online college and university degree, but you can expect to earn more money as well.

Posted by: buy degree at January 11, 2010 4:45 AM

But this need to blame women in general is just wrong. Even youjust now Brian. "For some reason modern women are attracted to douchebags." So every guy who has a modern woman is a douchebag? Eighty percent? Fifty? Because if that's what modern women are attracted to we have to assume that men are mostly douchebags.

Not mostly, but it's often a safe bet.

The more attractive a (young) woman, the more likely she is to go for a douchebag. Douchebags are beta males who have managed to successfully mimic alpha traits long enough to get a woman to make an emotional investment.

I'm not blaming women, just stating observed reality. Blame genetics if you like. The douchebag is someone who's figured out how to use your genes against you.

A sweeping generalization like that just undercuts everything that precedes and follows it.

Pot. Kettle.

Generalizations are useful for explaining things. The only generalizations that undercut anything are ones that are wrong.

Posted by: brian at January 11, 2010 6:01 AM

Elementary said:

"Perhaps if men stood up and lectured other men for their bad behavior some of that behavior would stop."

Yeah, YOUR decision to mate with a fellow and his subsequent behavior are grounds for YOU to demand that WE men collectively take action in response. Narcissism.

"I know my role in this."

Honestly, I don't think you do.

"But so much easier to beat up on the single mothers..."

Yeah, *that* is what we do in this society, "beat up on single mothers"...by sending them welfare money in various forms, offering state-paid armed guards to collect child support from fathers, and lionizing single mothers to the point where you can, without irony, demand action from other men to shame the man *you* selected.

"Any man who doesn't live up to his responsibilities to his child fully and completely is a bum and a bad guy and should be shunned by all of society."

Let's start with you first. What are we to say about women who mate with such men? What should we say about such women, particularly the ones who expect society to intervene and act on behalf of such women AFTER the child arrives?

So after all the sex and romance and good times, when the kid shows up, and the guy is a bum, me and all the other guys are supposed to take on the burden of both shaming your sex partner AND providing for our own families? That is what you expect?

Good luck in life. Seriously, I mean that--I wish you the best. But just leave all of us out of it, okay? I had nothing to do with creating your kid--that was all your fun. Don't get all loud now, after the good times are over and the hard work is here, and start self-righteously demanding that other "guys" (i.e., me and other men not your sex partner) have any obligation to lift a finger helping you. We don't.

Posted by: Spartee at January 11, 2010 7:09 AM

And yet I never complain about having to take care of my child. ...I don't brag about what I do for my child.

Yes you do. Most of your previous posts consisted of: You complaining about how hard it is to take care of your child; you complaining about your ex; and you bragging about how you would do anything to care for your child. No one here takes you seriously because you can't even live up to your own standards. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch.

Go hate on women. Doesn't matter to me.

My disrespect is quite clearly aimed at one person who earned it and one specific type of behavior, which is deplorable and indefensible, except by you. Yours? An entire gender. I hope you don't have daughters. It'd be awful to know your dad thought about women the way you do.

As an MRA I'm use to being called a woman hater, it comes with the territory. But don't confuse insults with arguments. The only person who is attacking an entire class of people is you. As I said before look at your hateful anti-father rant, and replace the word dad's with the word jews or blacks. Now ask yourself if you would say something like that about any other class of people.

Also I never defended the actions of your ex, or attacked mothers in general [although you had no problem trashing all of the fathers out there]. So stop putting words in my mouth.

Posted by: Mike Hunter at January 11, 2010 8:01 AM

If you can't afford to support your children by yourself, then; you shouldn't reproduce. You are a woman after all, so it was a choice.

Who said I couldn't afford to support my kids? The reason I was "awared" $69/week for 2 kids was because I WAS MAKING MORE MONEY THAN MY EX. Why? Oh I dunno, because I WAS WORKING FOR A LIVING. Take your holier-than-thou attitude and shove it. The only thing I EVER wanted my ex to do was to BE A FATHER. He failed in so many ways it's not even funny anymore. I'm so glad you're such a better person than the rest of us, Mike. Now have a nice big glass of STFU.

Posted by: Flynne at January 11, 2010 8:26 AM

And remember, he WANTED these kids. It wasn't JUST me, asshole. Where the fuck to you get off thinking that it was a one-sided deal? Ex didn't know he didn't want the responsibility until he had to deal with it. And then he decided he didn't want to deal with it anymore. So he didn't. Marriage and raising a family is supposed to be a PARTNERSHIP. What is one supposed to do when the other partner BAILS, eh? They carry on AS BEST AS THEY CAN. Which is what I did. No thanks to the EX. Wake up. Wake UP. WAKE UP. Do you honestly think women like me and elementary WANTED to raise our kids alone and without the means to do so?? You're an imbicile of the highest order if you think that.

Posted by: Flynne at January 11, 2010 8:32 AM

Who said I couldn't afford to support my kids? The reason I was "awared" $69/week for 2 kids was because I WAS MAKING MORE MONEY THAN MY EX

Then what the hell are you bitching about? Money is obviously not an issue. Are you complaining because you want the judge to take even more of his meager earnings to punish him?

You were the one who chose to reproduce with this guy. Complain to him not me. I don't think I'm better then everyone else. But if you think that it's acceptable to use your children as a way to try to hurt your ex emotionally or financially, then I know I'm better then you.

Posted by: Mike Hunter at January 11, 2010 8:38 AM

First of all, I wasn't complaining to you, specifically. You CHOSE to answer me. Secondly, I would like the judge to enforce some responsibility on the ex, because he refuses to accept any of his own accord.
I have NEVER and WOULD NEVER use my children as a way to hurt my ex in ANY way, shape or form! HE can see then any time he wants to. That he CHOOSES to only see them on Sundays for 6 hours is on him, especially when I've told him he can take them any day of the week after school, and he can't be bothered! How dare you even insinuate such a thing! What an asinine thing to say. Maybe SOME women do that, but not THIS woman. Honestly you really are on some kind of high horse, aren't you? (Although I will admit, I had to hide a snicker when one of his friends told me about the time he got hit by some guy at the bar who pays over $400 a week for one child, when ex was "bragging" about "how little child support [he] got away with having to pay"!

Posted by: Flynne at January 11, 2010 10:17 AM

Wow. My recollection is that the Pennsylvania law was in place for years; I recall horror stories like a divorced Dad being forced to pay out-of-state tuition for a son who refused to see him and openly disrespected him - even admittedly having spat in his face on occasion.
I'm all for personal responsibility, but I will not beat up on anyone- male or female - who got hosed by their ex. So easy to say "You shoud have" - "should have known he/she would screw you over," whatever. The sad fact is there are plenty of asswipes out there of both sexes who will use their kids as pawns and do whatever they can to make their exes' lives miserable. How sad.

Posted by: Mr. Teflon at January 11, 2010 2:53 PM

"Why doesn't your daughter want to take your calls Tony? In this blame-the-mother mood here, I'm sure it's not your fault at all. But I can't imagine any circumstance under which my own wouldn't leap to talk to me, especially if she had her own phone. She'd keep that thing at her side as her most precious possession. She'd never let anyone -- including her father -- take it from her. So why isn't she answering?

Posted by: elementary at January 10, 2010 5:34 PM

Elementary, in addressing one of your comments,I was not by any stretch inferring that you treated dads as ATMs, I was speaking of "the system."

My main point is that if a child's "best interest" were truly the issue in family courts, then noncustodial parents having their "visitation" rights enforced would be a much higher priority for the system than it is.

Moreover, your words in many posts above "My disrespect is quite clearly aimed at one person who earned it and one specific type of behavior... are quite to the contrary from your insults hurled at me.

Nevertheless, I'll answer you because I was addressed. Speaking to my daughters phone, first, her charger "was lost." This despite her only being in fourth grade and never taking it anywhere outside her bedroom. After I replaced that, her phone shortly thereafter "fell in the toilet" while she was at school. Next, she's forced to regulary turn it off.

Why don't you explain to me why you think a nine year old child might not be "able" to take a noncustodial parents call?

Do you think that at age nine they're emotionally and intellectually capable of taking a stand on issues relating to custodial interference?

Could it be she doesn't (for reasons beyond her control) have possession of her phone, or fears what may happen while she's on the phone?

Did I mention that she's not texting or calling her friends either? That's been so out of hand in the past that I've had to disable her texting. Perhaps I also failed to mention no one else can reach her?

Alas, the conclusion you draw (which doesn't require much inference) is that my daughter doesn't want to speak with me. I presume that's because I too am a horrible father, just like the majority of others you want the "good fathers" to lecture?

By the way, I never said she "didn't want to take my calls," you did. And for the record, she "leaps to talk with me," when she's able.

Finally, please advise as to how she's to prevent anyone from taking that phone from her as a 4th grader, and I'll pass it along to her.

Posted by: Tony Fantetti at January 12, 2010 5:11 PM