There's one word in this account that explains where this unreasonable stance on the man's reduced financial situation comes from: "she."

Since "Julian" is one of those names where the gender cannot be assumed with reasonable certainty, I was wondering what gender Judge Piggotte was. Then the pronoun "she" came up. Big surprise.

She's collecting 2200 dollars month, and doesn't earn a single penny of it. But ex-hubkins can go live in the street for all HRH ex-wife cares. "Surely, you're not suggesting that I get a job! I'm a mother!"

If she gets the kids, she can pay for the privilege.

I have a stay-at-home mom friend whose husband lost his job, and who has a job now where he doesn't make anywhere near as much money as before. They have two kids, and they've cut back on everything, and she's trying to pickup freelance work. Why should it be different in a divorce? Money can't come from a stone. And a guy is likely to end up homeless or in other bad circumstances -- where children will end up with no money at all -- if he is tapped to the bone like this.

Child support is usually just the title given to wealth transfer from men to women. I read that something like 2/3 of child support is spent on the mother, not the child. That's why divorce lawyers call the first child "the insurance policy." Goes hand in hand with "take him to the cleaners."

We promise women that their husbands will be forced by the government to keep supporting them even if they divorce (in other words, stop being a wife) then we wonder why so many women divorce for such petty reasons. If she actually stood to lose something (other than her responsibilities) the marriage may actually be more important to her.

In a divorce, the woman keeps everything but her husband, and the man loses everything except the financial obligations.

I personally know a man who caught his wife cheating and doing drugs (with her felon lover). He divorced her, now her and the felon live with his kids in his house on his dime. Since he makes so much, the alimony and child support are enough to pay all the bills so the ex and her stud don't have to work. That should be criminal.

@Trust: "I personally know a man "
__________

Typo. I meant "personally know of a man." He's not a friend, but I know his wife's brother who is appalled by the situation.

Note that while many people believe O.J. killed Nicole...nobody ever wonders why.

Read about her settlement, and it becomes a "duh" sort of question.

Not much difference in the above.

And what worries me now, is that there is an increasing number of men who will be sympathetic, as more and more fall victim to whimsical divorce, brutal support payments, and terrible visitation or custody rulings that don't even make a pretense at justice.

Robert, that worries me too. When it seems like there's no way out, some people become less constrained by the threat of punishment. Society needs to break the cycle of unfairness, not enable it.

Perhaps alimony and child support need to be described as a percentage of income. That would solve this particular problem.

This story is a tragedy. It is so wrong. The way that laws vary from state to state is crazy. I did not fact check to make sure laws have not changed, but these are accurate to the best of my memory.

This occurred in Florida. In California, woman may collect alimony until they marry again. In New York, a woman put her husband through medical school and bore his children. She was awarded half of his wages for life. More than 10 years ago, this was $250,000 per year.

I live in Texas. Child support is 15% of income for 1 child 20% for 2. For the first time, alimony is permitted if the couple have been married at least 10 years and one person does not work. Alimony is for 2 years only. If the non-custodial spouse makes a high income, child support is reduced to prevent it from becoming de facto alimony. In addition, a degree acquired during the marriage is not considered joint property. 60% of people earning professional degrees divorce their spouses within two years of earning a degree. I think spouses should have to reciprocate the educational support at least.

I imagine that one could find a strong correlation between state laws and things like divorce, putting a spouse though school etc. If I were a man who lived in Florida, I would be tempted to get a vasectomy.

I always find it really interesting to hear these stories of "He only had ___ a week after child support". In Texas, maybe not other states but here, you are capped at (I think) 1/3 his salary, no matter how many kids you have. Fewer kids means less. And it automatically readjusts with pay changes.

From what I can tell, family courts assess the father's obligation based on a neo-local family unit under one roof where dad works and mom stays home. With so many single moms out there, we all know that this is a ridiculous idea.

But even after taking the nuclear family as a given for the purpose of child support, it is also implied that the child is entitled to the product of the father's labor. Were not the recipient of the support a child, this would be slavery.

But even when we accept both nuclear families and slavery as given proofs, the child is a minor, so mommy gets the money and doesn't have to justify how she spends it. If daddy's rich, the court forces him to pay as if the child lived in a rich neighborhood, but the court never forces mommy to move to a rich neighborhood.

The child support money is for the support of the child. If mommy spends even one penny on herself, she's stealing from her own child. Good luck getting her charged with theft.

Further, the non-custodial parent has no standing to bring a civil suit for the child against the custodial parent who is stealing the child's money. This is a shame because the standard of proof in civil suits is lower than for the criminal, and it would be fairly easy to show that mommy is probably spending the money on herself.

This finally brings us the points made above about the size of the support as a percentage of daddy's income. What if he wants to take a less-stressful job at half the pay? Does he need a doctor's note to get prove he has an ulcer, migraines, and a bad back? What if he wants to take a less dangerous job closer to home so he can live to see his kids get married and have kids of his own?

Smart men don't get married these days.

hold on yall....this guy is a scam. Nelson dupped the original source article reporter and is attempting to rally support under false pretense. Read the Glenn Saacks article for much more recent entries and you will see that the story Mr.Nelson tells is much different than others coming out

"Smart men don't get married these days."

So true. However, I am a woman, and I think getting married and having kids would be detrimental to my life, as well.

yeah, momof4, It happens. It happens because they tell you what your income SHOULD be based on what somebody with a degree or experience like yours SHOULD earn. The laws are written something like, a child's welfare should be prima to anything else, and to keep people from gaming the system, they make it hard. The catch is, they make it hard on the people who try. The guys who have no intention of paying usually disappear and get off scott free. I pay 52% of my takehome PLUS and extra medical bills, and once the alimony ends, her income goes down, and the child support goes up. Except I can't deduct the child support, as I could the alimony.

Also? The courts are really snowed under in work, and are essentially under funded, so it can take a year to get a date, and YES THEY CAN decide to put your support UP not down. I tell my friends that ask why I haven't taken her to court for some of her "interpretations" of the decree, you have to be very careful before you poke that badger, because it can ALWAYS be worse.

It varries a lot state to state, and the laws can change while you live there...

As for this being a woman judge, that makes NO difference. Most judges are male, and they often think that the 'little woman' should be taken care of, regardless of who or why this all started. Lawyers are not stupid, they play up that aspect too. My lawyer told me if I ever get married again to "never, EVER, let her stay home." My reply was: 'great, NOW you tell me.'

Deosn't matter if it's better for the kids, or makes financial sense at the time or what. If you ever have the misfortune of divorce [since ~75% are initiated by women] if she wasn't working, you are screwed, and not in a good way.

Smart men don't get married these days? And how sad is that?

"Note that while many people believe O.J. killed Nicole...nobody ever wonders why.

Read about her settlement, and it becomes a "duh" sort of question."

I must have missed the part where it was funny to insinuate that a woman getting her throat slit almost to the point of decapitation is a joke. It must really be hysterical that her friend was murdered also.
Nobody wonders why OJ murdered Nicole or Ron Goldman. It certainly wasn't over alimony payments. It was because he is an animal.

I sympathize with anyone going through the divorce process. Its a horrible experience and both sides get screwed. My ex and I were in court again yesterday. Its always fun when the Law Clerk and the Law Guardian want to move the case along because of overwhelming case loads. My ex seems to think he's the only man in the world who works and cannot juggle his job with being a father. He talks of what a wonderully involved father he is but just lessened his visitation to 4 days a month down from 6 days a month. I will pick up the costs of him spending less time with his children when it comes to meals, spending money, misc. items, etc, but my children are really the losers because this man will never care about being a father.
Btw, we were in court because he took me to court because he was furious that I had the audacity to be upset that I woke up one morning to find him in my kitchen. He apparently thought that this was ok and was asking a judge to back him up. The Law Clerk laughed along with him and then winked at me and said, "husbands, huh." After picking my jaw up off the floor I corrected her and said, "ex-husbands." His case was thrown out, but his visitation time decreased which was at his request. Funny thing is that he tells everyone that he sees his children every day and how involved he is and there are people who believe him.

jus da truth, oerhaps you missed the third an last sentance of the FIRST paragraph

Robert Franklin, Esq. blogs at GlennSacks.com:

The poor man, how horrible that the woman he used to be married to cannot use a little common sense and decency and come to some arrangement with him without forcing him to live in poverty. I cannot imagine why she thinks that draining every last penny out of their father whilst he is left in poverty is setting a good example for her children. This is the sort of thing that really does drive decent men into desperate straits.

10 yrs form now her children will loathe her - $20 says she'll have no idea why

"I cannot imagine why she thinks that draining every last penny..." AlisonD

This is called retroactive punishment. The money is important, but making life hard is moreso. I think a lot of women are in denial over how much they are getting vs. what the guy makes. So they are willing to wreck you financially, even though that will eventually adversely effect them. My ex always seems surprised by the financial statements, like somehow I'm hiding something. A 4th grader with a calculater could figure it out.

And lujlp is probably right... not all kids pick up on it, but many do.

Regarding the contention of anonymous commenter "jus da truth," here's what Robert Franklin, Esq. responded with at the site:

Robert Franklin Says: December 4th, 2009 at 12:25 pm Mr. Ahmed - Since you seem to know so much about the case, I'm sure you can also tell that I got my information from the newspaper article linked to. Therefore, if you're right, the newspaper article must be wrong in essentially every detail. More importantly, Mr. Nelson says he has $58 per week to live on following Judge Piggotte's ruling. I notice you don't dispute that in your very lengthy comment. And that, after all, is the important point. The judge ordered him to pay child support which results in him trying to live on that amount. Does that make sense to you?

"never, EVER, let her stay home."

LET her?? Do women LET you do things? Are you a child? My husband doesn't LET me do anything. I do stay home, because 1) it's better for the kids and 2) daycare for 4, besides being crappy, is damned expensive. Why have kids you won't raise? DH said from day one that staying home or working was my choice, he'd be working either way. Which is true. And 4 year BF before that said a version of the same thing. And husband before that. Who did not get hosed. Who in fact OFFERED alimony, signed the decree, and then never paid. Oh well, life goes on and he's an ass. I have a great life which is really all that matters now.

I have issues when adults talk about LETTING other adults do something.

momof4: LET her?? Do women LET you do things? Are you a child? My husband doesn't LET me do anything. I do stay home, because 1) it's better for the kids and 2) daycare for 4, besides being crappy, is damned expensive.

I agree in principle that people do not "allow" other adults to do anything. I think your objection is more semantics than justifiable outrage, however. I think the lawyer wasn't suggesting that he get married without discussing with his bride to be what their lives will be like, rather than just walking blindly into a marriage, the learning that his wife wants to be a stay-at-home mom, then exercising his "authority as head of household" to veto the suggestion.

I think it might be better expressed as saying, "Do not marry someone who is going to be a stay at home mom, and do not allow to renege on this promise to be a working mother."

In one respect, I do think we "allow" our spouses something: we allow them, barring extraordinary circumstances, to break their word to us.

If I were to start living with someone (which I consider a terrible idea) who suddenly decided that he was going to quit his job and live off me, I would veto that idea toute de suite.

If they quit their job raise the issue and find out were their head is at. Then go to option D.

"Let" is an interesting word, but it does have a point when what one's spouse does or doesn't do "makes" the other do something.

A wife understandably "lets" her husband have children with her. He can't very well make her just because he wants kids.

A husband "lets" his wife stay home, because he then becomes responsible for supporting her. Moreso than he realizes, because once a woman quits working, the husband is even more financially obligated to her even if she decides to quit being his wife.

Of course, all these "lets" and "makes" really should be mutual decisions, ideally most should be settled before the marriage. But of course there are certain things husbands and wives alike "let" each other do. Stay home is one of them, otherwise how is alternative -- "making" someoe support you -- any less controlling?

I will pick up the costs of him spending less time with his children when it comes to meals, spending money, misc. items, etc, but my children are really the losers because this man will never care about being a father.

As a poster above pointed out above if you choose to have children; and after the divorce you volunteer to raise them, then there is no reason that you shouldn't be required to provide for them. I wonder how many single mothers would be trying to dump the kids with the father if they didn't receive their monthly child extortion.

LET her?? Do women LET you do things?

No they MAKE you do things. Like financially support them after they: Unilaterally decide to stay at home after they're married to you; Or unilaterally decide to have a child and keep it after they become pregnant; Or unilaterally decide to divorce you and seek child support & alimony.

A man can talk about 'letting' his significant other do things, but; is actually powerless to legally force her to make any decisions. A woman can actually make [force] her S.O. into certain life decisions by co-opting the governments monopoly on legal violence. Refuse to pay your monthly child extortion, alimony, or hand over your house to your unfaithful lover? Then men with guns will come to your house and take you away. That's a pretty big difference.

I have issues when adults talk about LETTING other adults do something.

I have issues when adults actually make other adults do something against their will, using force or the threat of force. Whether the use of force is legally sanctioned and carried about by the government is immaterial. I don't care what people say. I care what people actually do, again; that's a pretty big difference.

Mike and Patrick both have both explained better than me... momof4, imagine it this way: If your DH came home tomorrow and informed you that he had quit his job and now it was your problem... how would you react? Married women can do that pretty easily. What can be done? Do you divorce them over something like that, and suffer the consequence of their one sided action?

Patrick puts it this way, with precision:
"I think it might be better expressed as saying, "Do not marry someone who is going to be a stay at home mom, and do not allow to renege on this promise to be a working mother."

It's the second half that is a problem. How do you make tham not renege. Mine did. What was I supposed to do? In hindsight I should have known that was it. At the time I thought that it was the part of a marriage when one spouse does something you don't agree with, and you work through it. What it really meant was, I was the one who would be working, and since she was making significantly more than I, I had to go back to school, find a career that would make up for the deficit, and take a job I never wanted.

And? Her bosses kept her position open during her 3 month maternity leave, and she told them the week before she was to return that she was quitting. Oh, and then she told me. Should I have nuked the marriage then? It is hard to figure out what to do when an intelligent person asks for an unreasonable thing, in a completely reasonable way, and won't back off when you call them on it.
When the stake are high like that, it's a battle of will.

momof4 it worked for you because your husband agreed, what would have happened if he had not?

Also intersting is that many divorce books for women actually advise them to not work for a period of time before they actually file. That way they can argue that they have diminished income because of the marriage and leverage it for more alimony.

My position is, and has always been, the same, and it is the same for both man and woman. When one chooses to no longer be married, a consequence of that choice is one no longer gets the benefits of having a spouse.

Imagine a divorced couple, and the courts make him pay her enough alimony and child support that she does not have to work. Easy to imagine, happens enough. Now, imagine the court further rules that, since she is not working and he is continuing his financial obligations (and had become used to a "standard of living," a common phrase in divorce court), the ex wife is now mandated to do all the husband's laundry while he is at work. I can imagine the reaction--"do his laundry? I'm not his wife any more!" BINGO--you're not, and remember that when you want him to support you.

I do have to wonder why his ex needs that kind of money anyway. I don't see it costing more to raise a carpenters kid or an exec's kid. The fancy salary pre-divorce has nothing to do with the cost of covering the child's needs nor should it have anything to do with the obligation.

Especially if you consider the fact it's probably not all being spent on the child anyway. His ex doesn't need to account for the large sum of tax free money that she receives every year. It's one thing if a 6 figure earning parent wants to spend that kind of coin on their kids, it's another thing to force anything beyond the basic needs.

Ive often wondered about the system and the similarities to rape. I think most parents get joy out of spending money on their kids(beyond the basic needs).. same as most people would consider sex an pleasurable activity. But both these things are completely different when they are forced on you. It takes an act of joy and makes it an act of horror. Both leave you feeling powerless and dirty.

I think it's interesting that when a commenter at the following post on stigmatizing welfare mothers suggested that there were some situations in which a woman couldn't help becoming a single mother, a lot people (particularly men) jumped all over her. The overwhelming consensus was that you're responsible for who you choose to marry, so if your spouse turns out to be an asshole, well you should have seen that coming:
: http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/11/30/welfare_losing.html#comments

I wonder if the commenters who espoused that view would also agree that if your spouse quits his/her job to stick you with a high alimony bill, then that's your fault for marrying badly.

Or, as lujlp put it, "I'm sorry but when you settle for something that seems "good enough at the time" without bothering to turn over a few rocks you'll get no sympathy from me."

Shannon you took that out of context here's what he said:

You simply can't predict this 20 yrs in advance - which men will succumb to this temptation and which won't

And yet even though they apparently know this a majority of women still have children 6 to 12 months into the marriage with an average engagement/relationship of less than a year.

I'm sorry but when you settle for something that seems "good enough at the time" without bothering to turn over a few rocks you'll get no sympathy from me.

My life was hell growing up becuase my parents didnt bother to find out anything meaningful about eachother until it was too late.

He was commenting that it's not a good idea to have children with someone until you get to know them. I think everyone can agree with that. Sure there are situations in which a wife can avoid becoming a single mother. Her husband can die making her a widow, or; he can divorce her. But that's not usually what happens. Almost 70% of divorces are initiated by women.

Anyway the two cases aren't comparable. A wife leaving a marriage, and going on welfare is being cared for and protected by society. People are forced to subsidize her decision. A husband who's wife unilaterally decides to stay home, and then divorces him getting a large sometimes lifelong [in my state at least] alimony payment is being exploited by society. He is forced to subsidize her decision to screw him over.

Starting to see a pattern to this legalized theft? He is forced to hand over his money; she gets to spend it. This pattern repeats its self with a shocking frequency frequency whenever the courts get involved.

"If your DH came home tomorrow and informed you that he had quit his job and now it was your problem... how would you react? Married women can do that pretty easily."

That is precisely what my ex did. And no, there wasn't a damned thing I could do about it.

Mr.Franklin,
I do not believe I quoted you and left anything out. Just simply said to those who have interest to check the latest comments. The original reporter did not do enough research is my contention.
The answer to the question in the last sentence is no, it does not make sense to me. Mr. Ahmed's response included the following:
Mr. Nelson also testified at his hearing that he had begun work as a financial planner in March of 2008 and expected to earn up to $35,000 his first year, $70,000 his second year and $120,000 his third year. Mr. Nelson later provided information to the trial judge that he had taken a second job as a teacher paying him an additional $37,001 annually.

Mr. Nelson's testimony was that he had 2 jobs. The 58.00 a week that Mr Nelson claims would mean that the teachers salary nets a take home of 116.00 a week. The 37k salary and those numbers just do not add up. Income deduct orders in Florida are max 50% and 5% for back support if over a certain amount. The claim can not be credible. Plus, he still had a Financial Planner position at the time and that was not touched apparently. Just another thing Mr Nelson failed to mention to the ORIGINAL source television reporter at the time Mr Nelson solicited the newsreporter.

jsut da thruth are you an idiot?

First you tell us to look at glenn sansks sight for the "truth" when the article was FROM sacks sight

Now you are claiming Franklin said you mis quoted him?

Frankiln isnt even on this board,

I got a hint for you, if you expect people to pay attention to what you write you should pay attention as well

you said it lujlp.

he had begun work as a financial planner in March of 2008 and expected to earn up to $35,000 his first year, $70,000 his second year and $120,000 his third year.

Is he still working at this, or did he get laid off? If he's not working in that field anymore, due to a layoff, then that income shouldn't even be looked at. And expected, is much different than what is actually earned.

And let's do a little math. 37k as a teacher. Before taxes. We'll say 18% tax rate. That's 30,340 after taxes. Take out the 26,400 for the child support (2,200 x 12) and you get 3940. Divide that by 52 and you get per week left over.

The only way that jus da truth's statements make sense, is if he is still working as a financial planner, and making those amounts of money. And we have no way of verifying if that is the case. Nothing in the story says he still makes that kind of money.

Sorry, that sentence should read:

Divide that by 52 and you get 75.77 per week left over.

So his claim of 80 per week isn't far off.

The system is certainly flawed. Judges should take a more objective approach at making life after divorce feasible for all involved. I see many fathers struggle to pay their child support, and although I feel support is necessary, both parents should be held equally accountable.

Don't forget to deduct health insurance, and then the $2,500 amount would not be met on a teacher's salary. In which case, Mr. Nelson would still be held in contempt which has severe consequences; leans on properly, licenses suspended, jail time & who knows what else. And if my memory serves correctly, didn't the market crash in 2008? Who would be able to make any money as a 1st year financial planner in our downward economy? Like my real-estate buddies, many industries are suffering, I would bet that’s the case with any career involving the financial world which is commission based. Not to mention, I have a few friends who are teachers and I know their 1st year was the hardest. They had no free time to do anything but be a teacher.

That's just my 2cents.

correction: i should have written: "liens on property"

regardless; i feel for the poor guy. What happen to men simply being able to be daddies and love their children? Why do these woman make everything so damn complicated?

I said back in 1984 or 1985 that any man who married under the marriage/divorce laws in place then was a fool. My opinion hasn't changed. The good news is an increasing number of men are agreeing with me. Marriage rates have dropped rapidly, which is covered by the increased population over the years. It will get worse.

On O.J., few people really understand what happened there, thus their ideas are not well connected with reality.

Does anyone remember that a few weeks before the murders, he received legal service that she was suing to have his parental rights taken away, based on his violence.

He would go over to her place and look in through the windows and see her committing sexual acts with men, while his daughters were sleeping in other rooms. And, he would throw a tantrum and beat on her. And, always he was shouting at her not to do that with the girls in the house.

All she had to do was shut the drapes, or use some of the large amount of money she was receiving to pay security to keep him out.

Yet, she kept on provoking him, obviously deliberately. It was obvious to me there was a conspiracy to provoke him to violence to justify taking his rights away. Her record keeping system was exactly what I taught men to use to prove misconduct by wives.

And, he went over there and whacked her, which is not what she expected to happen.

An animal? Of course. But, smart people do not poke animals with sticks, which is what she was doing.

And, if you have followed the record, he actually did a good job with his daughters.

you know you're middle class if you call it "paper scissors stone"...