Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    
    I don't think that sending someone to jail is an effective means
    of collecting child support.  However, I do feel that a parent
    must work to support thier child.  That goes for both moms and
    dads unless there is a physical/mental disability that prevents
    work.  If a person is able bodied and has a child which is 
    thier responsibilty, they should work to ensure that child
    is supported financially.  Even if it means taking a minimum
    wage job slopping burgers.  Course I also believe they should
    be supporting that child emotionally as well but thats a choice
    which can not be court ordered.
    

    I know a man who was sent to jail because of non-payment of child
    support. He did not have a job.

    I know a man who had his lively hood sold off to pay bills owed by the
    ex's attorney. He had a business installing pools, and maintaining
    them. He use to make after all said and done close to $60,000 a year.
    Which is a healthy chunk of change for New Hampshire. Now he works in a
    scrap yard at a dollar over min wage. He is being threatened with
    incarceration because he is not able to pay child support based upon
    his $60,000 a year income. And is told that he has a great deal more of
    earning potential. But the state, the attorneys, and etc had a court
    order to sell off his lively hood. 
    
    If you go to jail, as a Digital Employee, you face loosing your job on
    the spot. Please check your personel. I have found that to be the case
    here where I report in. 
    
    How do you pay all the bills, child support, and keep a roof over your
    head on $28.00 a week? I know a couple of men here in Digital who are
    trying to do just that. 

    Additional information:  the jail sentences are officially for contempt
    of court.  You can't be thrown in jail for owing money, but since child
    support payments are court ordered, faliure to pay is legally contempt
    of court.
    
    Daniel

While it's true that it makes no sense to jail someone for not having a job
since they still wouldn't be able to pay the child support, I can see where
refusing to take a job, quitting a job, or taking a lower paying job in
order to not pay child support or pay less is a reason for action.  And I
do know someone who quit his job because he didn't want to pay court-ordered
and garnished child support.  Seems like an extreme action to me, but then
I know this guy and nothing he does would surprise me.  So while most of
the fathers in this forum who are supposed to pay child support do pay it,
there are many more who do whatever they can to avoid paying support.  It's
these fathers (and mothers) that I think the law is addressing, though I
really doubt how effective it would be.

    I don't believe the government should be able to force anyone to work
    no matter how much they owe to whom.  It's too close to slavery.
    
    					- Vick

    This is a curious question:  what about the fact that non-custodial
    parents who do not pay their court-allotted child-support are, in
    fact, in contempt of court.  That is a jailable offense.
    
    Daniel

    The answer Daniel is Yes. If you do not pay all that you owe you can be
    found in contempt of court and incarcerated. Bottom Line. Barring the
    fact that you have external genitalia. If they are internal you can bat
    your eyes, cry, and get off much easier than the external people. 
    
      

    You'll probably be disappointed (though not surprised) to learn that I 
    believe the government should pay for the support of children whose
    parents fail to.
    					- Vick 

    We already do Vick. I am sure you have heard of AFDC?

    Debtors Prison:  Didn't work in the past, I wouldn't think it would
    work now.
    
    Jeff

    Has a non-custodial parent (female) _ever_ been held in contempt of
    court for not allowing visitation rights let alone gone to jail!?
    
    If so how often:  contempt?	Jail?
    
    
    Steve

    The judge can do whatever he/she wants. A judge can decide that even 
    though you have been laid off you still "owe" the same amount as if you
    were still being paid at the same level as before. 
    You cannot appeal a probate decision except on a class action or
    constitutional basis. All you can do is file a complaint with the
    judicial review board and it takes months to get a ruling. 
    This is a very complex issue that is being "disposed of" by a broad
    brush approach called "support guidlines". But there is no maximum or
    minimum level defined or accountability to reason. 
    There is an assumption alot of people make about the probate courts and 
    that assumption is "fairness and justice". Neither exist today. 
    No one wins in divorce or "un-wed" relationship break-up. Why should
    the non_custodial parent be treated like a wallet? 
    All people see today is some guy being handcuffed and dragged off to
    jail for non-payment of support. No one is arguing the responsibilies
    of parenthood. The problems are with defining fairness and being
    flexible. 
     

     >Has a non-custodial parent (female) _ever_ been held in contempt of
     >court for not allowing visitation rights let alone gone to jail!?
    
    If she is a non-custodial parent, she does not have custody. And if she
    is a custodial parent she has custody or possession. And if that is
    what you ment. Yes, she can be held in contempt. But the courts do
    nothing about it. There is one gentleman whom I know, has not seen his
    daughter in 21 months. And has been waiting to hear from the courts
    about. And HE pays his child support faith-fully!!!
    
    Another gentleman I know has not seen his son in 10 years. And he too
    has paid. And has been waiting for that long to get a reply from the
    courts. 
    
    Sounds like a oneway street to me.

    	I am a male Custodial Parent.  
    
    	I was required to pay alimony, although the ex received a
    substantial salary, and I have custody of the children.
    
    	In the last three trips to court, the Judge chose to ignore the ex
    being in contempt, even though documented and submitted.
    
    	It is indeed a one-way street
    
    

    Well, I;d some clarification on the complaint:
    
    Is the *concept* of being jailed for being in contempt of court for
    failing to pay the complaint? (as indicated by the title and basenote)
    or is it simply the unequal application of the concept?
    
    Number 2 can be addressed.  Number 1 gets a little sticky.
    
    Daniel

Well if the courts are going to make such a ruling about payments, so be it.

What I want to know is: are the nonpayment women also going to be put into
jail?

In N.H there are about 700 dead beat mothers. What do you think the chances of
one of them being taken off to jail?  NH could not even put one of the mother's
name on the dead beat parents list.

                        LEC

       If it's fair to jail a man for refusing to take a particular job so
       that he can pay child support isn't it also fair that a custodial
       mother be made to take a job to support the children?

       I've been both a Non-Custodial Parent and a Custodial Parent.  When
       I was a NCP my ex did not work.  Her old man did not work.  They fed
       clothed and educated their kids, and bought houses cars etc with the
       money that I paid for child support of my two daughters.  My oldest
       daughter left the house (they lived in another state) when she was
       17 and my ex threatened to shoot her if she told me.  She continued
       to collect child support from me while I also secretly sent
       additional money to my oldest so that she could live.  When I went
       to court to get her to return the money she fraudently got from me
       her defense was that she didn't have a job.  After I got custody of
       my other daughter I found out that my ex got a job.

       So I say again why doesn't a Custodial Parent have to account for
       the monies they get for child support?

       Patrick

    ....I suppose that would be contingent upon what the judge requires
    specifically from the coustodial parent.
    
    Daniel

    The concept is to be jailed or fined for contempt of court. It works
    well if you have external genitalia. It doesn't work for those who do
    not. They seem to be excused, absolved, looked the other way. ;)

    An man I know has had his truck set on fire. His mail and telephone
    tampered with. And has Proof that his ex had a hand in all of the
    above. Even the FBI refused to get involved because they feel that it
    is STILL a domestic problem. And not a violation of federal laws. 

    Yet, this same man was FALSEY Arrested for supposingly harassing his ex.
    He had an alibi, and was with his family for sunday dinner. When he
    returned to his apartment that evening, the police were waiting for
    him.

    .23 

    ..yet this man still pays child support. And despite it all, he has
    gone Pro-se. Meaning that he is out of money, and is going on his own
    to fight his ex's refusal of visitation of his nine year old daughter.

    The opposing camps attorney, has grown weary of this and is now decided
    to verbally harass this man every time he is goes into the Superior Court
    House in Manchester N.H. She, the lawyer, has yelled at the top of her
    lungs at this man. Name calling him, telling him to stop sending porno
    mail to his ex, stop the phone harassment (false statements!), and
    to stop his fight. 

    The guards of this court house have seen this all happen. I am totally
    amazed at this mans determination. I am sure that there would be many
    who would have given up. 

    
    I have a new problem as a non-custodial parent. At the moment I have
    not had my legal visititation rights with my two daughters for over
    four months. This is also the same period that I have begun the 
    process to gain physical custody. I've always paid child support on
    time each week. What my problem is, as of last week my ex decided
    to move and refused to give me the new address that they were 
    moving to. This left me with a problem of where to send my payments.
    I decided the best thing to do was to open a custodial account at
    my bank with both daughters names on it. I would like any responce
    from anyone that may have had this problem. I feel she may use
    this against me if we go to court.
    
                                             

    
    You can open it and title it as such with account numbers. I would
    also have a motion written to hold her in contempt for visitation
    denial. It is the 'ol rock in the boat'. Every time she does something
    dumb like this, it makes her boat sit lower in the water. Till finally,
    she starts to really goof and make serious mistakes. 

    Remember to document this! Each time you are refused. Every time you
    are denied write it down in a note book, a three ring loose leaf binder
    that you can keep all correspondence in. And Good Luck!

    She wants her cake and to eat it too.  Wants child support payments and
    won't tell you where they will be living, what a nerve.  Unless there
    are extenuating circumstances this seems like a raw deal to me and I
    would fight it with every legal means at my disposal.
    
    Jeff

       re: .25

       I went through the denial of visitation part of your dilemma.  I got
       a judge's attention by hiring an off-duty Police Officer to
       accompany me when my Court ordered weekend came around.  The
       off-duty Cop then told the Judge that he was with me on the
       designated days and that she was definitely not home.  The Judge
       ordered her to give me visitation or go to jail.  She moved, left me
       no forwarding address and later filed through the DA for the support
       I told her mother I would send when I had an address.  I then had to
       pay through the DA near her mother as she gave her mothers address.
       She was then free to move anywhere as her mother then forwarded the
       checks to her.  In the next seven years I saw my kids twice.  I had
       hired PIs to find them and each time they found my kids she moved
       again within the month.

       Patrick

     You know, its really tragic to hear some of the stories here. I wish I
    understood the motivation of women who run from their husbands for
    malicious reasons. But at the same time, the amount of anger that many
    men are feeling is very powerful, and to be honest, its a bit
    intimidating. I wonder if there is a fear present, perhaps unfounded,
    in some of these women, that they'll be physically punished for what
    they're doing. 
    
    I am NOT saying that anyone here has laid a hand on his wife; I'm only
    wondering if some of these women are just scared of the possibility.
    
    I was once threatened by a man who never actually laid a hand on me. I
    had seen him rush a friend of mine, only to be restrained by four other
    men as she fled. And I know he once broke a shop window, simply in
    anger. I haven't seen this man in over 10 years, but the possibility of
    encountering him still gives me the willies. If I thought he was in
    this state, and worse still looking for me for ANY reason, I would
    probably move. Quit DEC, pack up and go.
    
    I used to live with a woman who had had her face beaten in by a man.
    She moved over 1000 miles to get away from him. 
    
    I know that this is mennotes. And that the side presented in this file
    is the Man's side of the story. But in the back of my mind, I'm
    wondering why so many of these women are doing their absolute best to
    keep their ex-husbands at a distance. Maybe I just haven't met that
    many malicious women. Or, I don't know them that way.

    re .31

    >I know that this is mennotes. And that the side presented in this file
    >is the Man's side of the story. But in the back of my mind, I'm
    >wondering why so many of these women are doing their absolute best to
    >keep their ex-husbands at a distance. Maybe I just haven't met that
    >many malicious women. Or, I don't know them that way.

    The main reason is the _me_ generation.  So many women get divorced 
    because they think that getting rid of the s.o.b. will solve all their
    problems.  After all, what have they got to loose?  They'll get the 
    kids, the car, the house, half of all other assets, and the s.o.b.
    will get his just deserts.  Too late they find out that as long as
    there are children, there is going to be some kind of relationship.
    Financial problems for both parties skyrocket.  Angry and hurt 
    feelings multiply.  It seems that very few CP's can resist using
    the kids as weapons (however, you'll look long and hard to find one
    who will admit to it).  Problem with this tactic is--it works.  If
    the NCP cares anything at all about the children, he is going to 
    be hurt and angry.  The relationship falls into a vicious circle
    of hurt, anger, and retaliation.  

    The next step is to move totally away from the NCP.  After all,
    the CP will still have the children, and the courts will still
    enforce the child support and alimony, and--oh yes--it will be
    better for the children since the parents aren't fighting all the
    time.

    >I am NOT saying that anyone here has laid a hand on his wife; I'm only
    >wondering if some of these women are just scared of the possibility.

    Does being afraid of the _possibility_ justify their actions?  Yes,
    there *are* times when moving to avoid violence is necessary, but
    IMHO this is a much overused cheap-shot fanned on by the man-hate
    organizations.  After all, a woman couldn't possibly be anything 
    other than a sweet little victim.  Could she?

    fred();
    

    .31
    Perhaps if there was alittle more justice in the justice system, there
    would not be the violence that you fear of. Men have no options, and
    what options they have are scammed away by attornies who are out to
    make a fasts buck then to uphold the civil rights of us. 
    
    Insofar as the fear of men who have never threatened you. That is
    purely a cheap shot. You have not read that the violence that was taken
    out in the burning of a truck was done by a woman. The tampering of the
    United States Mail was also done by this mans ex, who is a us postal
    worker. She is a woman. I really don't think that your grasping this at
    all.

    Having no options is no excuse for violence.
    
    Maybe you didn't mean it to sound that way, but it sure came across as
    an "excuse"
    
    Violence should not be considered an option even in worst case
    scenarios.
    
    IMHO
    
    Daniel

    One can only be pushed so far.  At some point you realize that you have
    nothing left to lose.  Then, what difference does it make if you take
    your antagonist with you?  It's not a particularly unreasonable
    response to a situation that will cease to exist when you make it cease
    to exist.

    IMHO I will concur that violence is not an option. It is a resultant.
    Guess you gotta be there. Apparently your not. Perhaps, you should
    take a vacation day off and go sit in a court house and see what goes
    on. Watch these vulgar men get their just deserts.

    I am not making excuses for anyone. I am making what one would call a
    casual observation.

    Peace

    re: .35  Sorry...can't possibly agree.
    
    Taking violent action is a quantum leap, IMO.  I have plenty of
    sympathy for people who have been screwed by the system in these kinds
    of proceedings.  Lots of sympathy for people who have lost through ugly
    divorce proceedings, but it's no excuse for violence at all.
    
    And before you ask, that goes for Betty Broderick as well as for any
    man who used violence against a former spouse.
    
    It's a line, very clearly marked and there's just no excuse for it. 
    
    re: .36  Okay...I can certainly see the *reason* but that doesn't make
    it necessarily "reasonable" in my book.  
    
    Daniel

    Then quit sitting on your hands behind your terminal in a dream. Go see
    what its like in a court house. Monday mornings is the best time. Want
    some actual experience? Get out there and see! 

    re .34

    All of the "experts" that deal with "abuse" ( sexual, physical, and
    emotional) who's material I have read will tell you that it's the 
    non-physical abuse that does the most damage and lasts the longest.

    I do not condone the use of violence to solve problems, but if you
    back even the mangiest dog into a corner and kick him enough times
    he will turn violent.  Again I do not mean this as an excuse, just 
    a fact of life.  As Mr. Spock of Star Trek once stated, "It's
    not always logical, but often true".  Too many people hide behind
    the "you shouldn't be violent under any circumstance" as a shield
    while they maul the other person with emotional and verbal abuse.

    I too don't think enough is done is being done about those who
    are truly physically violent, but what irritates me at least 
    as much are those who use the _possibility_ of violence (often
    their own paranoia) to justify their actions.  Too many people 
    get condemned because of someone else's unfounded fear.  I thought
    such things were supposed to have gone out with the Salem Witch
    Trials.

    fred();

    Hoplesness breeds desperation. When you've basically lost everything in
    your life that means anything to you and you are treated like a
    dispensible item emotions can overcome anyone. We are only human
    beings, not unfeeling,uncaring animals. The fathers rights are
    secondary to the kids, the ex and the state. The system shoves an
    unlivable situation down your throat and your just suppose to sit there
    and take your medicine. You either fight like hell or submit to an
    oppressive set of living conditions. Some people just can't take the
    strain and lose there cool. There is no justification for violence but
    people do have limits and the present system will test anyones self
    control.

    re: last 2-sad but true.  This doesn't mean I condone or support
    such acts, just that I can understand how a person could feel they
    have nothing left to lose, you strike out at the person causing the
    pain.  I see a parallel to the abused women who snap and kill their
    abusers.  True, in those cases, actual physical abuse is used, but
    who can really say that a man denied access to a child he loves for
    not other good reason but to make him suffer doesn't feel similar
    or greater anguish/pain?
    
    Christine 
    
    

>    Having no options is no excuse for violence.

 Correct.

>    Violence should not be considered an option even in worst case
>    scenarios.

 True, but the fact remains that when cornered animals attack. It's absolutely
ludicrous to suppose that because violence shouldn't happen that you can do
anything you want to men and ignore the effects that has on their behavior.
It needs to be recognized that some of the violence is a direct result of 
fundamental unfairness perpetrated on men by the courts under the guise of
justice. When viewed in this light, it becomes obvious that continuing to
subject men to this treatment is having a negative effect on women that can
be reduced by simply being fair. The failure to be fair and just and the 
resultant negative impacts on women must be understood to be the responsibility
of those who seek to continue this inequity as much as it is the fault of
those actually physically harming women.

    I can understand that as a "source" but I have trouble with the
    "cornered animal" analogy.
    
    A truly cornered animal is responding to flight or fight instincts
    because real, PHYSICAL danger is present.  Lashing out is in
    self-preservation of the animal's physical well-being.
    
    It seems like a stretch of the metaphor to apply it to responses in
    these case, whoever the violent party is.  It doesn't seem like the
    same source of response at all.
    
    Daniel

    p.s.  and I would certainly agree with the latter half of the analysis,
    however.
    
    Daniel

    Mr. Levesque states the reality quite well. The fairness issue is key.
    Men only want equality and fairness. When the system creates indentured
    servitude, oppression and total disregard for basic legal rights then
    any response can be in order, even violence. The animal analogy is only
    accurate to the extent that when flight (reasonable options and hope
    for reconciliation) is not available then lashing out is in order.
    Unfortunately some men (and woman) choose physical violence as the
    medium to vent the frustration and anger. 

             <<< Note 837.31 by ASDG::FOSTER "radical moderate" >>>
                          -< Its probably just me... >-

>     You know, its really tragic to hear some of the stories here. I wish I
>    understood the motivation of women who run from their husbands for
>    malicious reasons. But at the same time, the amount of anger that many
>    men are feeling is very powerful, and to be honest, its a bit
>    intimidating. I wonder if there is a fear present, perhaps unfounded,
>    in some of these women, that they'll be physically punished for what
>    they're doing. 

       With my ex there were many times when I wondered what her
       motivations were.  Years later I found out.

       Before we got divorced I kept telling her things that I wanted to
       change in our relationship.  I felt she was too possessive.  She
       once ordered me to quit college becuase she did'nt want me sitting
       next to 'all those whores'.  She already had her B.A. at the time.

       For two years prior to my leaving her I told her things that were
       intolerable to me.  She ignored my requests.  When I finally left
       she was shocked.  She told a friend of ours that she had no idea why
       I left 'the perfect wife'.  The friend pointed out all the things
       that I had been saying to my ex for two years and my ex told her she
       was wrong.

       Years later I found out (through friends) that my ex did what she
       did so that 'He would hurt worse than I did'.  She was never afraid
       that I would hurt her physically.  She didn't keep my children from
       me because she was afraid.  She simply wanted to get even.  She did;
       and then some.

       Patrick

>    A truly cornered animal is responding to flight or fight instincts

 Tell me what you think the options are. Flight? Why? So they can chase you
down? The law is entirely stacked against men here. Men have literally no
options. Placing people under such incredible stress often has tragic 
consequences. It's time that this was recognized and addressed.

    
    
    re .31/.32
    
    I've seen a woman flee a man and take the child without any notice
    out of fear.  This man at the time was very abusive emotionally
    and physically.  I watched as he once ripped the glasses from
    her face and smash them up against the wall.  I've heard him
    say to her that his kid is never leaving the state until she
    signs a legal agreement or over her dead body.  
    
    On the other hand I also watched in terror as this woman would
    routinely pick the child up and have her in her arms while she
    goes after the man with punches and kicks screaming nasty things
    the whole time.  I guess she thought that if she had the child
    in her arms that he would not hit her back.  But what abuse that
    child suffered from these truamatic experiences will one day pay
    to put some shrinks kids through school.  
    
    So it goes both ways,  all too sadly with the kids being the
    ultimate victims.  

    The following reply has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






I am custodial parent.  I would like to explain to you how much money a 
custodial parent has.

This is really what I make and have to support my 3 1/2 year old.

Annual income	22,464.00
Monthly income	 1,872.00

NOW THEN FOR THE BILLS.

Rent		575.00/ month
Electric	 30.00/ month
Phone		 75.00/ month
Car Insurance	120.00/ month (for 6 months)
Car Payment	235.00/ month
Day care	360.00/ month (90.00/week)
Preschool	 56.00/ month
Food		300.00/ month
oil		 54.00/ month (basised on last year approm. $650.00)
 

And the grand total is $1,805.00 that leaves me with $67.00 for the month
lets hope that my child does not get sick, because it is $10.00 to see the 
doctor and $3.00 or $5.00 for the medecine.  Dont forget how much a 3 year 
old will grow in just a couple of months (new shoes, jacket and etc.)

Annual income	22,464.00
Monthly income	 1,872.00

NOW THEN FOR THE BILLS.

Rent		575.00/ month  this can stay the same
Electric	 30.00/ month  "     "    "   "   "
Phone		 75.00/ month  "     "    "   "   "
Car Insurance	120.00/ month  "     "    "   "   "
Car Payment	235.00/ month  "     "    "   "   "
Day care	360.00/ month  This goes away because you have no child
Preschool	 56.00/ month  This goes away because you have no child
Food		300.00/ month  This can go to about $200.00  
oil		 54.00/ month  this can stay the same but really it would
				go down because you only have one person
				to bath and you can alway boundle up to 
				keep warmer.

For a total of $1,289.00
So let see you have left over $583.00 for the month 

Even if you were to pay what my ex is ordered and does not that would be 
$60.00/ week or $260.00/ month you would still have more than me.

    Beats living on $28 dollars a week like a digital employee I know. And
    he doesn't have a place to live. Unless you can say living on someones
    couch is living. Or living in your car. He just sold his used car that
    was worth $3,000 for a car less that $500. Kinda gets yha there. 
    Oh, Yes, his daughter lives in Florida and he works here in New
    England. 
    
    The car was sold because of a chapter 7 that was written his life.

    Re .49
    
    Everyone's case is different.  I could point out that $75.00 a month
    for telephone is too high.  I could say that you are spending too much
    money (and too little time) on food.  You have your own situation,a nd
    as .50 points ouot others have theirs.
    
    -dick

    re.49
    
    One last thing about this man. He makes twice what you have listed, his
    house has been forclosed upon. But her attorney has been hansomely
    paid, so has the GAL who also shot him in the foot. There are some
    bills he cannot get from under in a chapter 7. Amazing reading this
    book about bankruptcy, never mind the injustice of the justice system
    that we support. 

    RE. 49,
    You've ended up as a custodial parent. How? Why did your
    marrige/relationship end up like it is? Did the father want his kids?
    Which of you two is  in the best position to provide. Did custody just
    automatically go to the mother or did the court look at each parent as
    equal and decide who could best provide? I'm just asking some
    questions that may or may not be asked in child support/custody
    proceedings. Each case is very complex and all factors must be
    evaluated to determine fairness. Sounds like you aren't getting child
    support. Why?
    					concerned and curious
    

                     <<< Note 837.49 by QUARK::MODERATOR >>>
                              -< Anonymous reply >-

       I stated earlier that I thought that a Coustodial Parent should
       account for the child support they recieve.  I have been both a NCP
       and a CP.

       The truth is for me that it's not really a matter of money.  It's
       not knowing whether the money you're sending every month is helping
       the child or being spent to replenish your ex's wardrobe or drug
       habit.

       TO ALL YOU HARD WORKING SINGLE MOTHERS READING THIS PLEASE
       UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU.

       If you want to understand what I mean when I say it's not about
       money ask yourself if you would give up custody and pay the other
       spouse child support in an amount 1/2 what he was paying.  Most of
       us would not do this.  My ex never payed me any child support and I
       was much happier.

       Patrick

    Sounds rather sexist Pattrick. In the day of equility, and fair play
    your ex is absolved from paying her fair share? Sounds like a new
    version of the Deadbeat list should be developed? :) Imagine if you
    never paid? Even if it was based upon present so called value(s) of
    women making 60/80/90 cents to the males dollar.

just you're luck if you're a dead beat mom though isn't it....

    A man in Littleton New Hampshire has custody of his two children. And
    has had custody for 18 months. He is Still paying child support to the
    ex. Not alimony or maintence. Child support. She has a job, has a new
    live in beau and a lovely abode. Mr. Littleton has the bills (his,
    hers, and theirs) no child support, carries the mortgage of the
    marital abode as she haggles for a settlement. Mr. Littleton has
    offered half of the marital home, undeveloped land in a neighboring
    town and off the hook for 1 year of child support of she settles now.
    Funny, if the shoe were on the other foot, there would not be any
    haggling. 

    re -1
    
    George,
    
    Does  this man have legal physical custody?  Is it legally
    documented that he has full physical custody?  If it were
    all done through the court, then how can the court justify
    him still paying support for a child that he has physical
    custody over?  I am not doubting your word that this is
    indeed happening.  I just fail to see if this were all
    done through the court system that his support payments
    were not terminated immediately upon him receiving full
    custody of his kids.  Though I know how screwed up the
    courts are too.  I just think this would be something that
    if said directly to a judge and everything were legal as
    far as his having custody, how the judge would not terminate
    his payments.  
    
    It sounds like the legal documentation has not been changed
    to reflect the change in custody.  If this has not been done
    and he stops paying, he could be held in contempt of court.
    But if all has been documented legally, and he chooses to
    stop payments to her, then he would no longer be in contempt
    and if she did decide to take him to court for nonpayment
    (which would be a pretty stupid thing to do) he would then
    have a chance to get this resolved without cost to him.
    Has that route been tried yet?  
    
    Michele

    If a woman has possession of the children, and custody has not yet been
    determined why is it she received child support from the getgo and men
    do not? Yes, custody wise it is a done deal. And I can support this
    with other men who are in similar positions. It took me 4 months to
    receive child support. And I had to fight like hell for it. 

    There is no rational to many of the decisions made in probate court.
    The judge has total latitude. His decision stands. If he/she decides
    the woman not pay then she doesn't pay. The fact is there are no checks
    and balances in the system to insure fairness and equality. Injustice
    is rampant. There are hundreds of cases similar to what Rah describes.
    There are guidlines but no maximum. Here lies the major problem. The
    guidlines are unfair to begin with (about 30% of gross income). Many
    judges see that figure as a minimum and actually exceed it. How can
    anyone manage a normal life with the constant uncertainty hanging over
    you like a financial gun pointing at your head. 

    If Mr. Littleton decides to stop payment, he is in contempt of court.
    And it might not fall upon a fair and equitable ear. The opposing camp
    seems to do a legal maneuver to stall a hearing on this matter. Like
    the opposing camps attorney will say that he cannot show up that day
    because of other case(s) work. Or is off on vacation to Europe for a 
    month. Or what ever else will favor his client to give him/her clout
    for other women to see him for divorce then some other attorney. 
    Hence, your have an attorney, using his/her judicial clout to an unfair
    advantage. Thus making the male CP suffer financially more than reason.

    
    
    Re -1
    
    George,
    
    Can't this man just go into the court and have a chat with
    the magistrate showing the legal proof he has full custody
    and that he is still court ordered to pay child support
    and he wants to get it changed becuase he has full custody?
    I guess I just don't see how a judge can order someone who
    has full custody to pay child support to someone who does
    not have full custody.  Of course having been in court watching
    some of the garbage, I can easily see how it could occur.
    Has he called in anyone other than his lawyer?  Like state
    reps or that such person?  Or better yet, has he called the
    tv stations and papers with this story?  
    
    Michele

    re 63
    I had a chat with a friend who's knows a guy with a similar problem.
    His son joined the Army full time and the judge is having him continue
    to pay his ex child support. Crazy huh? 
    This is the condition the system is in and the total control judges
    have over probate issues. If the judge is having a bad day you end up
    having a bad life. 
    Judges continue to issue "illegal orders" with impunity. Another kid
    who was grossing $600 a week was ordered by a judge to pay $700 a week
    for one kid! Figure that one out! 
    No wonder some men have to run from the system. They have no protection
    from it. They are assumed to be guilty of anything the custodial parent
    feels like allegating. There is no due process.
    Some people will say these are rare instances and are not a measure of
    the system but I beg to differ. Abuse is rampant. NCP's have become one
    of the moral whipping posts of society and have been deemed to have no 
    rights.  

    In New Hampshire, it has to be a legally done deal. Mr. Littleton could
    be tossed into the Graybar Motel with only the word of the ex stating
    that he has not paid. And he would loose custody. Custody would revert
    back to the ex. Which would not be, in the best interest of the
    children in this case. The ex has a few problems that EVEN the GAL has
    acknowledged!! Imagine that! :) 
    
    I have know idea why things are going the way they are. I have not clue
    #1!:)

       From what I've experienced there seems to be several factors working
       in the divorce arena.

       1. For the most part the press does not print stories of men getting
       the shaft.  It is just too Politically UNcorrect.  They would catch
       crap from a lot of women who would say that the man deserves what
       ever he gets and that women have gotten the shaft for years because
       of being under paid etc.  They would also get lots of nasty letters
       from men who would say that the guy should buck up and accept the
       pain like a real man.

       2. If a judge makes a bad call against a women it could end up
       hurting the Judges career because there are several Womens Rights
       groups who will get very vocal and call the Press Corps.  (See #1)
       If a man gets shafted he has no recourse except the courts and if it
       the courts that are shafting him he's screwed.  Most male Judges
       still look at women as the weaker sex and will rule in their favor,
       especially if things get tense and she starts crying which is going
       to happen often in a situation like divorce.  Most Judges still hold
       to the Ozzie and Harriet notion that a man doesn't have a clue on
       how to rear children and women have it written into their DNA.

       3. Most divorced men have a HUGE guilt cloud hanging over their head
       because we were taught that failure is unforgiveable.  A failed
       marriage is looked upon as MAJOR FAILURE even if our ex wives are
       frigid, herion shooting, child porno film makers who let the kids
       play with fully loaded automatic weapons.  This puts us at a
       distinct disadvantage.  For many men this is not a position they
       find themselves in very often.  We simply don't know how to handle
       it.  This intimidation can be seen by everyone from the Judge and
       Attorneys to your children who will then start asking you for a new
       bicycle or pony.  You have this written all over you.  We join the
       collective bandwagon and beat the emotional crap out of us.

       I could go on but you divorced guys out there know what I'm talking
       about.

       Patrick

    How about this scenario?  (I haven't read all replies to this so
    apologize if a similar case has already been mentioned.)
    
    A male friend of mine was layed off from DEC this past July.  He had
    been having child support payments automatically deducted from his pay 
    every week, so when he got his separation check from Digital quite
    a large sum of money had been deducted to cover the child support for
    the number of weeks he was being paid for.  Apparently, this money goes
    to the Massachusetts Dept of Revenue.
    
    Well, to date, his ex-wife has not gotten this money from the Mass Dept
    of Revenue.  She keeps calling to ask about it, but hasn't received it
    yet.  Meanwhile, he just got some sort of bill in the mail from the
    Mass Dept of Revenue saying that he is behind in his child support. 
    But, the child support was already taken out of his pay.  The Dept of
    Revenue already has it, but they won't send it to his ex, and now they
    want him to send it to them again. 
    
    Is this system screwed up or what?  If I was a guy and this happened to
    me I think I'd go bezerk.  As a matter of fact, I almost went bezerk
    when he told me about it.  Where is the damn money that was taken out
    of his pay?  did they lose it?  Talk about incompetence.  I think it's
    the state that's a dead beat, not the dads, in some cases.
    
    Lorna
    

    Six years ago, my former and self filed the proper income tax papers.
    As most good citizens do. She worked in the state of Mass, and when we
    filed and paid the state of mass what we owed, the Dept. of Rev decided
    to ask for more. Well they sent us threatening letters, and we, income
    tax consultant and self, sent letters and tried to call with no
    response. The rev dept. likes to hide behind their desk, their people
    and refuse to talk to you. Period. It was like, taking to a gangster,
    who threatened to sell my home, embellish my wages, etc. all for what
    they claimed that we had owed of $65.00!!! 

    I too cannot imagine what it would be like to have them attack my
    wages they way they have and hold my sanity. Yes, one can visualize
    standing in front of their office, building with a rocket launcher, or 
    a wire guided missile to run thru the halls, up the stairs, and to 
    the stall that the perpetrators of such are really hanging out at. 
    But this doesn't solve any real problem(s). Well.... Just maybe....;^)
    
    
             

    re .67.
    
>    Is this system screwed up or what?  If I was a guy and this happened to
>    me I think I'd go bezerk.  As a matter of fact, I almost went bezerk
>    when he told me about it.  Where is the damn money that was taken out
>    of his pay?  did they lose it?  Talk about incompetence.  I think it's
>    the state that's a dead beat, not the dads, in some cases.
    
    
    I'd send them back the bill along with a copy of the pay stub that 
    showed that the money had been deducted from my pay along with a
    letter stating that if they didn't get their &^%$ together and quit
    harassing me, the next letter they'd get would be from my lawyer.
    
    fred();

    TO ALL OF YOU:::::::
    
    	Only GOD has a better job than a judge!
    
    Talking District and Federal Judges:
    
    	1. Judges are appointed by the President for LIFE!!!!!
    
    	2. Judges interpert the law and rule. 
    
    	3. Judges are NEVER wrong, NEVER repremanded for a judgement.
    
    	4. Judges can only be fired by impeachment in the US house of
    Representatives and trial by the US Senate. Takes too much time and
    effort. They are asked to resign and are paid for life.
    
    	5. Judges make as much as a US Senator.
    
     	6. Judges rarely give a rat's patoot what anyone thinks as long as
    there is a precedent by which they can make a decision.
    
    	7. If a male judge has MSB (massive sperm buildup) or a female
    judge has PMS they can take their frustrations out on just about anyone
    and there is little, if any recourse. 
    
    	This is a MAJOR reason for spousal abuse and murder/suicide. The
    level of frustration is such that the only way out is death to the ex
    and himself. If you think it'll get better under Clinton you're dead
    wrong.....the more liberal the judge, the worse for men.
    
    Ken

    If you can prove your judge is blatant discriminating against you,
    remember to have a court recorder going at all times during your
    trials, hearings, etc. This insures that you will have a fair
    hearing/trial. 

    The other thought, is that if you loose your attorney, because of
    things like paying for her attorney, the GAL, the bills, your attorney.
    You can actually subpoena your favorite judge, WHILE the are hearing
    your case! It does mortal-ise them, it does bring them down from their
    lofty seats. And it does work! At first it will make them angry, and
    they think that your wasting time. But it does give them something to
    thing about. It has been done here in New Hampshire. And it did have a
    positive effect. Something to think about as many of you are getting
    your stomachs pumped.:)
    
    Your attorney wont do such a fool crazy thing because he/she is a
    member of the brotherhood. And the other thought is that they are
    really not at all interested in your case because your going to loose
    anyhow. So, why waste good time and money? What is civil rights? Who is
    looking after them when your attorney is only in for the money and not
    your cause?

    RE a ways back about judges decrees:
    
    If there is a no-fault divorce in NH and the two parties agree upon
    custody, assetts, etc no matter how lopsided, are you telling me that
    the judge can over rule the agreement between the divorcees?
    
    
    Steve

    It was done in Keene New Hampshire by the locals there. A disabled Vietnam 
    vet HAD custody, and had it reversed even thought it was not in the
    best interest of the children. But the ex wanted the money, only.
    Batted her eyes, and it was granted. He is also living on a disability
    moneys and the courts have said that he is to pay her for
    maintence/alimony even though it is a federal law stating otherwise! 
    Weird? Welp. Sit tight sports fans! Its about to go for the field goal!

    What I find so horrendous about this string is that these situations
    are true...  I am one of the happily married that reads this stuff and
    could never see myself in these situations.  Seems that if these
    horror stories were related at the appropriate jr/sr high school level
    then perhaps it might make some of these kids think twice, i.e., what
    you will be faced with if you don't do the mating dance correctly...
    
    George, did you happen across yesterday's paper where the NCP had to
    pay some huge amount and didn't have a job yet the judge that made this
    ruling was only paying $50 a month to support his children?  
    
    I wish I had some answers for you guys...  From my perspective, the
    priority in these cases should be the children when a family splits up.
    When both parents share this attitude, the divorce seems to be
    amicable.  When one parent seeks retribution, then ALL loose...
    

    re .70

    What you said is true for Federal Judges.  However State district
    judges and county judges must usually stand for re-election every
    so often.

    Here in Colorado, State and County judges are appointed by the
    Governor and must stand for re-election every 6 years.  However,
    with no opposition in the election, they are almost guaranteed
    to get re-elected.  More judges die in office than are re-elected.
    My personal belief is that if a successful campaign could kick a
    couple of them out, the rest would take note, but I've also found
    it next to impossible to get a political group together to wage
    a successful campaign.  

    Eight years ago I went after a judge with the help of a few friends.
    We did get some sporadic help and a lot of "we'd love to help, but we 
    have to go before him".  Not a single attorney would lift a finger,
    and I *know* a lot of them would have liked to see this a**h*** out.
    We got a little publicity by picketing the court house, but were
    unable to generate any kind of a "movement".  The week before election,
    I went out on the busy street corners with my picket sign.  He got
    about 20% less of the vote than the other judges but was still 
    re-elected.  He died in office before the next election.

    The funny part is that because I had openly campaigned to have him 
    removed from office, he had to withdraw from my case because he now
    had a personal interest in _me_.  The faint-of-hearts were stuck with
    him.

    fred();

    I have met a man who has been jailed because he did not have a job.
    Lost it because his plant moved to Mexico. He was a handsome paid
    employee of a company I will not mention. Anyhow he was paying a common
    amount of money for men of his earnings. Was laid off, had EVERYTHING
    either returned to banks, reposes, etc. And spent time in jail for
    a couple of months because the courts moved slowly to hear his motion
    for reduced child support. But jailed him faster than a blink of an eye
    because the opposing camps attorney wanted to make an example out of
    him as one of the first to be jailed for non payment of child support.

    This is done so that the attorney can have clout amongst the peer group(s)
    that he is the mightiest litigator of valley. 'Yea, I wall the valleys
    of death alone, for I am the biggest, meanest SOB in the valley.'
    
    

    disclaimer: The following is under the heading of "let's be
    fair", not "let's get out of everything we can".

    I think that one thing that should come under the heading of 
    "what every NCP should know" is how to file for a reduction in
    child support themselves.  If/when you get laid off, one of
    the *first* things you should do is file papers for reduced 
    support based on current earnings.  If you voluntarily quit your
    job, they will not reduce the support based on your "potential 
    earning ability".  However if your are involuntarily booted, then
    by the guidelines that they so piously tout, you should get a
    reduction.  
    
    Ask that the reduction be made retroactive to the date of filing.
    If you don't ask that the change be made retroactive, then you
    *still* owe the money.  If you ask that the change be made retroactive,
    they shouldn't be able to throw you in the clink at least until the
    motion for reduction is heard.
    
    Problem is that most that are laid off do not have the money to 
    pay a lawyer.  Therefore you need to know enough to at least get
    the papers filed yourself.  If you don't file, the meter just
    keeps running and the courts and SRS don't give a rats' ***.

    fred();

    I heard on the radio yesterday that the PRM is moving to collect
    fines for non-payment or late payment.  They expect to raise an
    additional $150 MILLION from this.
    
    goood luck guys.
    
    ed

    Whether its PRM or GHNH (Granite Heads of New Hampshire) their pretty
    much the same thoughts of mentality.

    What is wild about the stories that I have told, I would not have
    believed them myself had I not gone to the fathers support group
    meetings that I had attended. It is a humbling experience. And yet
    some of them are from Dec employee's! Men who work in your group, who
    are hanging on or hanging in. Wishing there was another way. 
    
    When I was leaving the secure nest of my folks home to go to college, 
    my dad told me a story that home is where you come from. 
    If there is trouble at home its hard to focus on what you have to do 
    at work, in your life. He is still very much right.
    
    
      

    People who refer to Massachusetts as PRM are rude, insulting jerks.
    

    	I must be one of those jerks also, as I regularly refer to
    Massachusetts as PRM and will continue to do so until somebody 
    comes up with something better.

    Joe

    re.82 I take it you don't live here? 

    I will apologize for the terms to all who are offended. 

    What does it mean?  PRM?  
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    Saw two stories last night, one on local news and one on national
    news broadcasts about the deadbeat dads newest collection
    schemes in Mass.  While I was watching it I couldnt help but
    think of calling the stations to tell them of these stories
    particularly the one with the guy who was laid off and the
    Mass DOR is screwing him to the wall.  Maybe an ITeam report
    of the DOR would help?  Or maybe the news stations are afraid
    of Mass DOR?  

    It has been termed from the editorial column of the Manchester Union
    Leader in New Hampshire long ago by a man named William Lobe. Will had
    not very many kind words for the way things were managed. Had a dislike
    for the liberals and the liberal mind set that went along with it all.
    He had a very strong dislike for the Kennedy's and the clan. But that
    is/was the day. 

    The term PRM is the Peoples Republic of Mass. Or CWM is the Commie
    Wealth of Mass. But then again Mr. Lobe lived in Prides Crossing in
    Mass. So I am confused as hell about it all except the local folk lore
    of his not being able to spend the night in New Hampshire because of a
    divorce he was in and if he did, he would have to default a family
    built, handed down news paper company to his ex wife. Perhaps Lobe was
    reading other papers like the Boston Globe that he also had a dislike
    for. 

    Anyhow, its said, explained.

    Peace

    	No I have to say that I haven't read all 80+ replies to this file
    but I have one question.  Is this discussion regarding a man's
    obligation to pay child support for his children and what lengths the
    state should or shouldn't go to to ensure payment?
    	If so I have one thing to say, how can any man fight paying child
    support when it is due?  If these are your children then how can you
    refuse to give them money?????  Now if the answer is that the amount is
    ridiculous or that the mother now has more means than the father I can
    see an arguement for adjusting the payment, but come on folks.....these
    are children!  I think people lose sight of that fact that it's the
    kids that are really hurt, sure the parents have hurt feelings and
    maybe the father has lost his job and is having a hard time but what if
    you were happily married and had kids and lost your job, wouldn't you
    do anything you had to to provide for your children.
    
    	I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, but I think that any man
    that doesn't pay is selfish.
    
    Just My Humble Opinion
    Tom

re .82, Herb,

>    People who refer to Massachusetts as PRM are rude, insulting jerks.

Actually, it seems to me to be more a political comment on the nature of
state government as practised in that state.  Political comment will often
take such satirical forms, and people who propound it are not thereby 
'jerks'.  Herb, are you making nasty personal comments about other people 
with insufficient knowledge of their intents and motivations, again?  If
so, I strongly recommend you desist.

DougO

    re .90, I think you should read all the replies.  There are a lot of
    men who are paying child support, and are still getting accused of not
    paying.  As I mentioned in a previous reply, one of my friends had over
    $2K taken out of his DEC severance pay for child support, yet the
    Mass. Dept. of Rev. has yet to send the money on to his ex.  Meanwhile,
    another office from the Dept. of Rev. is sending him harrassing letters
    for being behind in his child support payments!  *He* isn't behind -
    *they* are behind.  I think most men are perfectly willing to pay, they
    just want to be treated fairly.
    
    
    Lorna
     

    RE 90
    The issue is how the system administrates support of children. How do
    you define "child support"? The first thing most people think about is
    money. If all the system thinks a Non-Custodial Parent is is a weekly
    check in the mail then we are all in big trouble. 
    
    This is exactly how NCP's are being treated. It's humiliating!!!
    Since when is a parent a "visitor" to his children!!! Think about that
    statement and what it implies. 
    
    Because of the inequities built into the current legal system once
    someone obtains custody they can at will rain financial and emotional 
    hell on the NCP at will. 
    
    Take some time and read some of the stories in here and the NCP
    conference and you'll start to appreciate the complexities involved.
    Money is just onre piece of the overall issue.
    

>    People who refer to Massachusetts as PRM are rude, insulting jerks.


	I think it's kind of funny, actually.  However, the story that
	an ancestor of Herb's was found abandoned as a baby in the woods
	and raised by Chief Massasoit himself could very well be true, 
	and this would explain his impassioned defense of our beloved
	state.  Give him a break.

	Di

    	Thanks for the replies.  I think I understand the jist of the
    discussion now.  You are right, there is much more to being a parent
    than just paying for clothes etc and I think that a father who hasn't a
    penny can be just as good if not a better parent than a billionaire. 
    It's all about love not $.  And I think that the thing that NC fathers
    are antagonizing about is the beaurocracy rather than the intent.
    
    Thanks
    Tom  

    There was another story of a man who got a letter from PRM's
    social services concerning a recently born child he was alleged to have
    fathered and suggesting a hearing concernign support payments.
    This certainly was news to him and his wife.  A call to Child Welfare
    got him little more than chuckles on the line and no satisfaction.
    I think they said WBZ's Call for Action got involved and the man
    got an apology from some administrator.
    
    His wife said something to the effects that it's a good thing they
    have a strong marriage ...
    
    ed

    Funny how the system assumes things.... I know another man, he Has
    custody. And has had the local Nashua DCYS serve papers upon him for
    non payment of child support. And Its his deadbeat Ex that has now
    slipped out from her job, has moved someplace to another apartment, he
    suspects in town. And there is that usual rasuts/rasputain association
    that plagues men. 

    She is now 4 months in arrears. Plus another couple
    of months that she has owned from the last time she did a bug-out. 
    A bug-out, for those who do not understand the term, is from the
    military for moving fast cause the bad guys are at your heals. Stealthy
    Ain't it?;) 

    People who refer to Massachusetts as PRM are rude, insulting jerks.
    

    
    Deja vu snarf.
    

    
 >>   I use the term myself from time to time so I guess that means I'm a
 >>   jerk in Herb's eyes.

	This is tantamount to bragging, Mike.  8^)

> Herb, are you making nasty personal comments about other people 
> with insufficient knowledge of their intents and motivations, again? 

DougO

    People who object to others' use of irony in expressing political
    opinions are rude, narrow-minded jerks.

    
    The thing that I simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND is why men don't band
    together and do something to end this inequity.
    
    I keep thinking about Fred Haddock's comments about what it means to be
    a man, and it seems like men have just decided to take this abuse as
    individuals instead of filing class action suits, discrimination suits
    and anything and everything else they can.
    
    Its like there's this silence conspiracy. Don't tell people that men
    suffer. Don't tell anyone that men can feel pain. Don't destroy the
    myth that only mothers love their children.
    
    I've heard all of these individual stories and I want to know: WHERE
    are the grassroots organizations arising from our good ole democratic
    Americana system to solve this problem? Why aren't men banding together
    to form legal aid societies? Why aren't more men going into specialized
    divorce law, NOT FOR THE MONEY, but to help other fathers get through
    divorce?
    
    I just can't believe that this problem is SO rampant, and people just
    listen and say "Hmm, interesting story", instead of lobbying night and
    day for new laws, fighting City Hall and in general doing all the
    things that other "special interest groups" have done to insure their
    civil rights. Its as if there's finally a REASON for normal white men
    (and other men) to be classified as a special interest group, i.e.
    disenfranchised dad's, and its just too humiliating a concept.
    
    Is it unmacho or something?
    
    Why aren't men across the country SCREAMING THEIR HEADS OFF ABOUT THIS?
    
    I don't get it...

    Ever heard the ole saying, "It's like fighting City Hall." ???
    
    It's expensive to boot.  It is getting fought, somewhat.  But it ain't
    a lot of fun, trying to over-turn a system, (even a bad one), that is
    this much of a giant.
    

    After they get all your money how can you fight?  If they find out
    you have 2 more nickles to rub together they come to get 'em and
    then where can you find a lawyer to work for what's left?
    
    I don't think the lawyers want to change the system, they make too much
    money off it.
    
    And the real deadbetas find that skipping is a lot easier.
    
    ed

    
    	There is an organization....DADS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
    
    	but, I can't obtain the number...when I do, I'll post it.
    

    Its .106 and .107 that leave me cold.
    
    What poor, lame, absurd excuses. If women had believed this, we
    wouldn't be voting. If blacks had believed this, we'd still be on the
    backs of buses. If its personal, and its important, you fight for it.
    If you make excuses, you live with a bad system.
    
    I'm not trying to dog the men who are so devastated by this that they
    can't even think straight. But I think of their FRIENDS, their
    FAMILIES, and their LOVED ONES. And I simply can't understand how such
    a system continues, except that the men and their closest compatriots
    aren't willing to put in the time, energy and money to bring about
    change.
    
    Nobody likes a truly "deadbeat" dad. But there's GOT to be a way to
    bring about a more just and fair system. In fact, I think the thing
    that's bothering me the MOST is that I'm hearing so little about what
    men are doing to change this.
    
    I mean... I always thought men liked a challenge. 
    
    Yes, I'm being obnoxious and rather rude. I'm so disgusted with the
    apathy and complacency it makes my stomach turn.
    
    In this string I have heard violence "understood" and sympathized with
    as a reaction to the pain of this system. If we were talking about
    black men rampaging a city over their bitterness against racism and
    watching Rodney King get beaten up, SOME of the same folks would start
    citing Dr. King and "non-violent solutions".  But getting violent with
    your ex-wife for financially taking you to the cleaners and keeping you
    away from your children is "understandable".
    
    I am honestly of the opinion that the men who are affected by this
    phenomenon are either ignorant or overly-prideful. A strong grass-roots
    movement could put an end to this problem. And then men who are
    complaining and sympathizing over the problem are the best ones to
    solve it.
    
    A nation-wide states and federal lobby, a legal aid and defense fund, a
    scholarship fund for lawyers who will defend the rights of
    non-custodial parents. FOR STARTERS!!! Hell, put principles aside for a
    split second and get someone like Trump to fund the project. Make
    organizations like "DAD" a household word. Run ads on TV (after 11pm).
    FIGHT... *NOT* with violence, but with organization, determination, and
    the fire that comes from knowing you're right.
    
    Or... don't fight the system. Just come back to the notes files and
    share the sad stories, year after year after year.

    
    
     Maybe it's time for a revolution? 
    
    
    David

    re .110
    
    It certainly sounds like it! If the women's movement has INADVERTENTLY
    caused the courts to go overboard, discarding fairness and justice by
    subconsciously mixing traditional morality and bias towards motherhood
    with a legal crusade against "dead-beat dads", then its up to the MEN
    to fix this. NOT by discounting the reality of "SOME" dead-beat dads,
    but by fairly examining the system of divorce and custody, AND by
    changing the "sole arbitration" system that permits a grumpy judge to
    wreck havoc on the lives of non-custodial parents.
    
    I shouldn't minimize the fight. Nature is against you. A woman can have
    a child by you, and if you haven't protected yourself against it, it
    could happen without you even knowing. And I have to support the law
    that says that this child deserves financial support from BOTH parents.
    But I think this underscores the fact that MEN need to wake up about
    their need to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies. And, with
    this out of the way, the dads who love their children will have clearer
    water to swim in as they head upstream in the fight against a biased
    court system.

I think a large part of the problem is that our society insists that women
need "protecting" and that men don't.  Women who complain about injustices
get attention (not always what they want, but at least people listen), men
are considered "whiners" (I've seen recently seen several newspaper and
magazine articles to this effect.)  Men who complain about unfair alimony
and child support decrees are often accused of sexual molestation of their
children and thrown in jail.  And nobody seems to care.

I wish I knew what it would take.

			Steve

    
    -1 -2  Good notes..
    
      I suspect it will take the giant waking up from it's nap and fighting
    those parts of the system that are unfair. The problem is that men are
    ( in general) such lone wolfs. NOM will be a plus in the fight, and
    hopefully the NOW will see that perhaps they can be of some help
    in this situation. It's time for joint custody with no cash exchanges
    to become the norm, and or unless one parent is unqualified..
    
    David

    
    	You know what it takes.......money!  I have tried to fight and
    fight and fight.  Now, I've ran out of money to fight with.  What
    do you do next?  Do you give up everything you have now to fight or
    give in to the system?  Is it worth it?  Losing everything... 
    and, nothing is guarenteed.  

    
    I guess I just keep reading about so many other kinds of "activists",
    and they get past the money obstacle.
    
    If you read about people with rare and serious diseases, many of them
    have been totally financially devasted. AND are caring for a very ill
    loved one. But they have banded together and developed a kick-ass grass
    roots lobby which is making the AHA and ACS stand up and take notice.
    
    Another thing to consider... maybe 20 years seems very far away now,
    but sooner or later, ALL the kids will be grown. Seems like THOSE
    fathers would be PERFECT lobbyists, and the very ones to get these
    organizations off to a running start. Yes, it does take money to fight
    your battle as an individual. And yet its the very mindset of "I am
    alone in this" that strikes me as totally myopic and damning... and
    pitifully male.
    
    You're only alone if you choose to be. No matter how much you may
    believe that asking for help, financial or legal assistance or a
    shoulder to cry on is "unmanly", you're still better off for doing it.
    
    I wonder how many men ask for help? I wonder how many men ASSUME that
    there isn't any... when there is?
    
    As long as men continue to hold onto antequated ideas about machismo,
    stonewalling, stoichism and individualism, they will be the LAST to
    benefit from some of the changes taking place in our society. Women,
    and minorities, are recognizing the benefits of banding together for
    strength... 
    
    Looks like men have some catching up to do.

    
    Another thought...
    
    What's wrong with "Shelters for Non-custodial Parents"??? Essentially,
    a huge rooming house with several open areas, and perhaps sets of guest
    suites for when children come to visit or stay. They would be low cost, 
    such as a "handyman house", and it may be that many of the men would be
    interested in fixing them up.
    
    Within the shelter, there could be informal support groups for the
    specific problems of non-custodial parents. But there could also be a
    combined effort toward finding legal and financial assistance, and
    there could be fund-raisers. The whole thing could be non-profit.
    
    Maybe its not an option for some men, but its better than nothing.

    
    
    -1
    
     That's a possibility. I would like to see men unite and begin funding
    a private legal center for male legal/legislative interests..
    
    David

    re .105

    Like most problems, this one has many pieces.
    Many of them, as you said, are problems men have control over, 
    but won't.

    1) Men who are not married are more concerned about getting laid 
       than the consequence of getting a woman pregnant.
    2) Men who are "in love" are also in deep denial that "we will be
       in love forever and this can't possibly happen to me".
    3) Men who are married are either in denial or hope to God that
       it won't happen to them.  If the subject does come up it usually
       makes the little woman very nervous.  So the subject is usually
       dropped in the interest of family harmony.
    4) Men who are in the divorce process are usually dealing with a lot
       of &^%$ at the same time.  Not knowing the basic laws or their
       rights, they will usually rely on some lawyer they picked out
       of the yellow pages.  My experience with lawyers is that cases
       where the lawyer will really go to bat for you happens only
       in the movies.  Lawyers that I have dealt with are looking out
       for themselves and will not do anything that will irritate a
       judge (he may well have to go before the same judge in his next
       case), or another lawyer ( if not out and out buddies, he won't
       want to have to look over his shoulder for the other lawyer to
       "get back").  Most lawyers will advise a man against fighting.
    5) Fighting is _EXPENSIVE_.  Most men usually run out of money
       before the lawyer runs out of time.  It is easier for women
       to find a lawyer that will give them a break on fees.  It's
       not uncommon for the man to be ordered to pay _both_ lawyers.
       It is very uncommon for the woman to have to pay both lawyers.
    6) Many men have a very heavy guilt load during divorce and will
       take the attitude "give her anything she wants", or "I want to
       be fair" (not knowing that the the system is heavily weighted
       against him), or "if I don't make waves, maybe she'll wake up
       to what a _nice_ guy I am".
    7) Very often it's not until after the final court hearing that
       the man will wake up to what is happening to him.  By then 
       it is too late. 
    8) After being run through the meat grinder of divorce court, many
       will be bankrupt emotionally and financially and will not be
       able to go on with the fight.  At this point the choices are
       a) cut and run (aka deadbeat) b)pay and pay and pay and starve.
    9) As Steve said, society is a lot more responsive and attentive
       to the complaints of women than they are of men.  Women need
       protected.  Men are whiners.
    10)Men have bought into the "bad men" propaganda of all of the 
       "minority" groups who believe that men, especially white men,
       have set themselves up in such a superior position that they 
       don't have any right to complain about anything.
    11)Any discussion of this problem usually gets rat-holed (especially
       in notes) into another tirade by certain "feminist" activists.
    12)Given the above, it has been very difficult for men to get organized
       into any kind of a group that will have the political clout to fight
       this.  They continue to take on the system one at a time and get
       ground up in the grinder.

    The reasons listed above may occur singly or in groups.  However, IMHO
    reasons 8, 9, 10, and 11 have the biggest impact.  What will it take
    for men to wake up and fight back.  Probably will have to wait until
    enough men are in enough pain to decide something has to be done in
    order to get organized into a political force.  With all the "deadbeat
    dads" campaigns, that day may come sooner that you think.  If you
    back a dog into a corner and kick him enough times, sooner or later
    even the mangiest mutt is going to fight back.

it seems that one big step to solve this problem would be to focus efforts
NOT on relieving the man's burden - which would not be popular with many 
who are knee-jerk responders to stimuli and who cannot see that sometimes
the pendulum shifts back too far - but to focus on what support the child
or children of divorce need...and to identify where the support can be
sourced.  A quick check-list might be:

	1) adequate childcare for all pre-school children
	2) adequate afterschool care for all school age children
	3) adequate living quarters for children and custodial parent
	   near schools in which the children are enrolled
	4) dental, medical care for the children
	5) food, clothing, transportation to necessary events like the
	   doctor, dentist, visits with grandparents, etc.

when the actual cost of all necessities are computed, and when the actual
earning potential of both parents are reviewed, decisions must be made on
who should be held responsible for what $$ each month.  Unfortunately, when
a man finds he is without funds, it is easy to blame the woman who isn't
working...but, if she has 3 small children at home all day, it may be a greater
burden, in the financial sense, to support the child care costs, and pay
the extra money a working woman must spend to buy clothes for work and
pay transportation expenses than an unskilled woman can bring home from
a job. If men approach the subject, fully focused on the needs of the child,
perhaps the angry accusations might not start flying so fast...and maybe
both parents could get a more equitable settlement in front of a judge. 
Demanding that a woman pay half when all she is trained to do is waitress
work doesn't "get even with her" - it puts children on poverty scale living.
and they aren't responsible for the problem.

at the very least, this should be a lesson to all that job training is
important for BOTH parents in a marriage - so, married men should be
willing to spend some time at home taking care of the kids while a wife
earns a degree or gets further job skills training.  It takes both incomes
to run one house these days - two homes is twice the price.

RE:  Note 837.109 ASDG::FOSTER 

Glad you're willing to jump on the wagon and fight the injustice, Sweetheart!

Just send me your pay check every week and I'll keep fighting the fire!

    Not

    re .119

>	1) adequate childcare for all pre-school children
>	2) adequate afterschool care for all school age children
>	3) adequate living quarters for children and custodial parent
>	   near schools in which the children are enrolled
>	4) dental, medical care for the children
>	5) food, clothing, transportation to necessary events like the
>	   doctor, dentist, visits with grandparents, etc.

    	All paid for by the father of course.  ( re: what I said about
        the discussion getting rat-holed ).

    How about:
    	1) Give custody to the parent most capable of caring for the 
    	   child.  Most states have laws to this effect, but few judges
    	   can get past the "mother is best" bigotry.  
    	2) Enforce visitation rights of the children and non-custodial
           parent.  Research shows that a NCP will be much more willing
    	   to pay "child support" for a child that that they are allowed
     	   to maintain contact with.  Visitation is a _child's_ right as
    	   well as a NCP's right.  This would include removing custody
    	   of a parent that is using the kids as a weapon against the NCP.
    	3) Make custodial parent accountable for how the "child support"
    	   is spent.  Research shows that NCP's are more willing to pay
    	   "child support" when they know that the money is going to 
    	   take care of the children instead of taking care of the mothers
    	   clothing, drug habit, or boyfriends ( not always, but all too
           often).  
    	4) "Child support" awards that allow the NCP a decent standard of
           living also.  Having children should not be a life sentence to
    	   poverty for the  CP, children, _or_ NCP.

    fred();

    according to an article in the current Newsweek. Fully 15% of the
    single parent homes are headed by men. Over 1 million
    
    
    				herb

    It's not fair to just hand the child over to whichever parent makes the
    most money, either.  It takes more than money to be a good parent. 
    Yet, since most men make more money than their wives, if the children
    were simply handed to the person who makes the most money, then we
    would have a reverse situation where in most cases men would
    automatically get custody of the kids, and that wouldn't be fair
    either.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    
      How about joint custody by default???
    
    
    David

    The problems of NCP's are a symptom of a dysfunctional court system that
    is disconnected from the society it is supposed to serve. I am stating
    the obvious but this is the major focus that will allow the system to
    become self-correcting. Judges are usually appointed for life. They
    are then only accountable to each other an a rather unresponsive
    judicial review board. All judges should be accountable to the
    jurisdiction they preside over. If their constituencies are allowed to
    give a thumbs up or thumbs down every few years the bench will become a
    much friendlier and fairer institution. " A system can only be just if
    it's instruments rule by consensus, not by appointment" IMO.  

    I think one of the main problems with the judicial system (and to
    a certain extent with society as a whole) is that judges are still
    stuck in the "Mom stays home and takes care of kids and Dad goes
    to work and pays the bills".  Especially when it comes to awarding
    "child support".  The only way Mom can stay home and take care of
    kids is if she is collecting enough "child support" to enable her
    to not have to work or she is on welfare.  Society is much more 
    tolerant of women on welfare ( women need help ) than they are of
    men ( men are whiners ).  Women want equality everywhere except where
    having equality is not to their benefit.

    fred();

	>> Women want equality everywhere except where
        >> having equality is not to their benefit.

	How terribly enlightened of you, Fred.  Amazing.

	Di

    RE: .127  Fred
    
    > Society is much more 
    > tolerant of women on welfare ( women need help ) than they are of
    > men ( men are whiners ). 
    
    Not true.  Reagan and Bush didn't run on the anti-"Welfare Queen"
    platform for nothing.
    

    re. 129

    (as I said about topics of this type getting ratholed)....


>                  <<< Note 837.129 by CSC32::WSC641::CONLON >>>
>                           -< It worked, of course. >-

>    Not true.  Reagan and Bush didn't run on the anti-"Welfare Queen"
>    platform for nothing.

    Judging from increase in the Federal budget for "entitlement" programs
    and the number of women actually kicked off welfare, you sure coulda'
    fooled me.

    One of the oft' repeated promises of Clinton/AlGore was to "end
    welfare as we know it".  We'll see.  He hasn't mentioned it lately
    (along with a lot of other stuff).  Also he didn't really say what
    he was going to replace it with.

    fred();

    
    Fred, I think the more accurate statement is "SOME women want equality 
    everywhere except where having equality is not to their benefit."
    
    I honestly believe that we live in a society in which some of the more
    traditional gender inequities need to be eliminated. BUT I don't think
    either sex should be able to get out of personal responsibility.
    
    *I* don't have a problem with women being drafted or asked to fight and
    die in battle. After looking at how the women in Bosnia were gang
    raped, I know I'd rather die and take a few men with me if given the
    choice during wartime.
    
    I think we need to make decisions based on proven capabilities of
    individuals, not based on assumed functions by gender. AND its
    imperative that we teach ALL children about personal responsibility,
    and personal excellence when they are young so that they can cope in
    today's world.
    
    But I simply cannot buy into that generalization. I've taken too many
    men to dinner, I've been rejected enough times on the dance floor. Yes,
    it SUCKS. But its part of the price you have to pay for having control
    over your own destiny.

        43 .132

>             <<< Note 837.131 by ASDG::FOSTER "radical moderate" >>>
>        -< Fred, that's an awfully bitter and sweeping generalization. >-
>
>    
>    Fred, I think the more accurate statement is "SOME women want equality 
>    everywhere except where having equality is not to their benefit."

    Probably,  sort of like "deadbeat dads", "abusive men", "all sex
    is rape", "sexual harassment", "male patriarch", ad nauseum.  Not 
    saying that _you_ are saying these things, but these "generalizations" 
    are what men get faced with every day.  Maybe you didn't mean it to
    come over that way, but I find it rather interesting for you to make
    such a statement about me being "bitter" after you asked why men find 
    it so hard to stand up against the b.s and "scream bloody murder".

    I figured I'd probably take some heat for that.  However, I think
    MOST would be a more accurate description than SOME.  The female
    minority of exceptions to the generalization are probably more than 
    offset by the number of men who have bought into the double standard.

    fred();

    re .127, I could just as easily say that men are happy with the old
    status quo - man as head of household, makes more money than his wife,
    etc - until they realize that in some instances it is to their
    advantage to have women considered as equals.  
    
    To a certain degree we're all looking out for ourselves first.  It's
    human nature.  Fortunately, most of us try to temper it by stopping
    short of being truly nasty and mean to other people.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Fred, do you have daughters or sisters?
    
    Do you want them to live in a 50's world where women are second class,
    or the 90's world where they have a chance at taking responsibility for
    their lives without being ostracized by all of society?
    
    A lot of the things *I* applaud the women's movement for have to do
    with the strides they have made in removing barriers women face in
    obtaining good medical care, establishing credit, owning property,
    earning a fair wage.
                                       
    I don't see how men have suffered from at least 3 out of 4 of these
    things. Healthier women help society. Women with the ability to spend
    what THEY earn help the economy. Women owning property is not a bad
    thing.
    
    Yes, like any movement, the women's movement has radical element. And
    yes, the pendulum has swung TOO FAR in the treatment of custody. But I
    guess I don't understand why you seem to feel such bitterness toward a
    movement that has tried to give women the means with which to take
    responsibility for their lives.  
    
    Do you honestly believe that the ripples of change which the women's 
    movement has inadvertantly caused are so negative they they outweigh
    everything else which the movement has directly sponsored?
    
    The answers you give will let me know how far apart we stand on these
    issues. Maybe there is no bridging the gap. If not, I'll have to walk
    away and let you simmer in your anger at women for wanting to be able
    to take charge of their lives. I know that my peers do not represent
    the majority of American women. Most women are not engineers. Most
    women do not hold graduate degrees in the sciences. Heck, most American
    women aren't black! All of those things shape my outlook and my peer
    group. But those of us who DO fall into these categories have the
    women's movement to thank for allowing us to strive to reach our
    potential as contributors to society. 
    
    If you see this as wanting equality everywhere that it benefits us, I
    may have to accept it.
    
    And walk away from the subject.

    re .134

>    Fred, do you have daughters or sisters

    I have two daughters.  I have two sons.  They and the 9 1/2 year custody 
    battle before I regained custody are why I am so familiar with this
    problem.  They are the reason the double standard _still_ infuriates me.  
    I'm one of those "screaming bloody murder".

>    Do you want them to live in a 50's world where women are second class,
>    or the 90's world where they have a chance at taking responsibility for
>    their lives without being ostracized by all of society?

    I think that you are taking something wrong here.  Sometimes I make
    a better linebacker than I do a politician :^). As I have oft' stated,
    but you may not have see, there are many of the things of the "equal
    rights" (double quotes as in so-called) movement that I agree with.  I 
    believe in equal rights and fair treatment... for everybody.  That's 
    why I get so infuriated.  Its the hypocrisy and double standard that 
    makes me want to gag.  Too many of the "equal rights" movements have  
    become covers for their own radical hate mongers.

    fred();

    SO FRED: WHICH ONE OF YOUR KIDS ARE YOU GROOMING TO BE A BLEEDING-HEART
    LAWYER WHO TAKES ALL THE POVERTY CASES FOR MEN WHO GET F*CKED UP THE
    *SS IN DIVORCE COURT???  :-)

    re .136
    
    I find this response quite puzzeling when compared to your entries
    a few back.
    
    fred();

    RE: .134  'ren
    
    The thing is - if one woman has one set of beliefs (and lifestyle)
    and another woman has another set of beliefs (with a different life-
    style,) some men will consider both women hypocritical because of
    these differences (even if the women have never even heard of each
    other.)
    
    Further, if the women's movement pushes all/most women to have careers
    outside the home, some men berate the movement for not considering or
    representing all women.  If the women's movement shows support for
    fulltime homemakers, some men berate the movement for what they regard
    as the "double standard" of women having careers *and* being fulltime
    homemakers (or at least having the choice,) although many men still
    marry women with the agreement that they will work in the home.
    
    Basically, some men berate the women's movement for breathing (and
    call it hypocrisy *and* a double standard.)
    
    Meanwhile, the stats show that the vast majority of people living in
    poverty are female single parents and their children (so the societal
    push is to do something about this serious problem.)  It isn't the
    women's movement that is pushing for a solution here as much as it
    is our society in general (who believes that something must be wrong
    if so many women and children in our society end up living in poverty
    after divorce.)
    
    It's always easier, of course, to blame it on feminists (if one needs
    someone to blame.)

    
    Fred,
    
     Ditto that puzzled look..  Foster if I were you I would claim you left
    yourself logged in while getting a cup of coffee in the cafeteria.
    Quite an unexpected note from someone who thus far has been so, well,
    pleasant to read??????????
    
    
 David

    Well, it didn't surprise me.
    
    'ren was being very supportive of the concerns some/many men have about
    divorce/custody issues, then one guy calls her "sweetheart" and tells
    her to give all her money (and savings?) to the cause and another guy
    starts tossing around words like "hate monger."
    
    Nice going, fellas.

    I keep seeing people quoting census stats as saying a vast majority of
    people living in poverty are "single mothers with children". I for one
    feel anyone stricken with poverty needs help but I have to argue that
    the statistics being used today to argue "child poverty" and "deadbeat
    dads" is grossly misleading.
    There is a propoganda campaign raging across the country to "blame"
    absent fathers as the cause of all the ills of society. Broad brushing
    the issue with incomplete statistical arguments to allow the system to 
    gouge NCP income to fund the welfare coffers and allow state DOR's to
    invest as much cash in short term cash management bills as possible.
    This has become a revenue issue, not a societal one. Politicians are
    going to stand aside because it means more money for special interest
    and power peddling. What a mess!!! 
    

    re .140
    
    As contrasted to ::FOSTER, this response _doesn't_ surprise me.
    
    fred();

    
     Suzanne,
    
     All the more reaon to remain reasonable,right??
    
    David

    RE: .142  Fred
    
    > As contrasted to ::FOSTER, this response _doesn't_ surprise me.
    
    It *shouldn't* have surprised you to see someone call attention to
    some of the notes that have been written to 'ren today, if you've
    been following the discussion.
    
    Myself, I'm used to the fact that you have very serious trouble
    refraining from using the word "hate" in nearly everything you
    write.  I just consider it the default (for you) and try to overlook
    it.

    re .138, Suzanne, your first paragraph is *so* true.  You articulated
    what I've often thought, in exasperation, before.
    
    re .134, 'ren, that was beautifully expressed.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Say a blip on a news show last week about a guy who was identified in
    Mass as a "deabeat dad."  State notified his boss at work and also
    started proceeds against the man.
    
    He filed the appeal forms that came with the notice.  He had an affi-
    davit from his wife that he is paying on time and the right amount.
    He had cancelled checks, too.
    
    At the time of the report, the state was still proceeding with action
    against him.  State employee on camera was of the opinion that, since
    they are catching lots of real deadbeats (no mention of whether or not
    these guys can pay when caught) a few mistakes is not a big deal.

    
    
    -1
    
     Real sensitive bucnha *ssholes arent they.
    
    When will people wise up and recognize that the most bacis instinct is
    the instinct to survive; don't make it my survival versus the
    childs,make it joint custody..
    
    David

    Yeah, well, he was a white heterosexual oppressor, err ... I mean
    male, so it's not a big worry.

    
    Well as I predicted back in .118.
    
>    11)Any discussion of this problem usually gets rat-holed (especially
>       in notes) into another tirade by certain "feminist" activists.
    
    Thanks Suzanne, et al. for proving my point.  Even what initially
    appeared to be a refereshingly understanding ::Foster joined the
    fray when some of the Sacred Feminist Cows started getting gored.
    
    fred();

    RE: .149  Fred
    
    All I did was to comment.  If you turn it into a rathole (by lamenting
    for the next several centuries that a feminist DARED to comment,) then 
    it's your own doing (so take responsibility for it yourself.)
    

    
    re .150
    
    Keep up the good work Suzanne.
    
    fred();

    RE: .146  
    
    > At the time of the report, the state was still proceeding with action
    > against him.  State employee on camera was of the opinion that, since
    > they are catching lots of real deadbeats (no mention of whether or not
    > these guys can pay when caught) a few mistakes is not a big deal.
    
    Mistakes will be made, but it's absolutely inexcusable for the state
    to (apparently) refuse to correct such mistakes when they've been
    discovered (by the person having cancelled checks, etc.)
    
    It's inexcusable to continue to prosecute once they KNOW a mistake
    has been made.  An appeal should be sufficient to correct mistakes.
    
    Did the employee on camera explain why they intended to prosecute
    anyway?

    Suzanne,
    	You apparently are unfamiliar with the term "Peoples' Republic of
    Massachussetts" (PRM) and its appropriateness.
    						John
    

     re: -2
    
    		Do you know how much an appeal costs???
    
    	Just appeal....sounds funny to me...I know how much an appeal
    costs.  I'd have to work 3 jobs to afford one.  
    

>>    Suzanne,
>>    	You apparently are unfamiliar with the term "Peoples' Republic of
>>    Massachussetts" (PRM) and its appropriateness.
>>    						John

    Uh-oh.  Sic 'im, Herb.

        

>    	You apparently are unfamiliar with the term "Peoples' Republic of
>    Massachussetts" (PRM) and its appropriateness.
    
    Are you trying to imply that "People" are unjust or just "Republicans"?
    
    Ray

    The term is meant to convey the idea that the state of Massachusetts
    is run like an eastern European style socialist state.  And so it is.
    
    mike

    re .158, yeah, but then, how come we have all those nice, big shiny
    shopping malls like Copley Place and Burlington and Emerald Square?  I
    thought a sure sign of an eastern European style socialist state was NO
    shopping malls, and we have plenty of shopping malls in Mass., so
    that's why I always thought we were capitalists!!!!
    
    Tell me!  Do they have a Copley Place or a Burlington Mall in those
    shabby old eastern European countries?  Huh?
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, if what folks say about Massachusetts is true, someone should
    take a camera into the courtroom to show prosecutors taking action on
    cases where the 'deadbeat dad' has actually paid properly.
    
    I've still only met one woman in my life who got a decent child support
    payment set up (and her ex went 'deadbeat' for years before he showed
    up again to see his son.)  She let him see the child as often as he
    liked and he started paying 1/10th the monthly amount he was supposed
    to pay (until she lost her job and he finally started paying the whopping
    $500 per month he was supposed to pay as a Airline pilot with a huge
    personal income, a plane, a boat, and very nice house for his new family.)
    
    My friend wanted equality, alright.  She worked to put herself through
    graduate school in the years after the divorce, but it was tough getting
    her income going in a new career.  The child needed his father's help
    and he deserved it.  The father took off (to marry a stewardess he'd
    met through his airline) when her child was an infant.  It was right,
    just (and 'equality' minded) for my friend to expect him to live up
    to his obligation.  He didn't do it for several years (and he'll never
    make it up to them for going 'deadbeat' with his new wife those years.)
    
    My friend still got the best support arrangement (even with the years
    the guy went 'deadbeat') of any woman I've ever met personally (who
    has discussed this subject with me.)

    Re: .160
    
    Well, Suzanne, I'm sure you'd be the first to agree that one can't
    extrapolate your friend's experience with her ex to all fathers.
    
    			Steve

    
    I really didn't mean to offend or puzzle anyone with .136. I was being
    quite honest. Although I wouldn't seriously suggest that anyone GROOM
    their child to be a male divorce lawyer with the intent of championing
    the cause for men, I would think that men who have been put through the
    ringer would feel very proud if one of their children said: "Dad, you
    got a bum deal, and when I grow up, I'm gonna fight the system. I'll be
    the first honest lawyer you ever met, and I'm going to be a champion
    for the men out there who just want a chance to love their children and
    not starve in the process."
    
    Now, if this STILL puzzles you, i.e. the very idea of being delighted
    that your children recognize the injustice of the system and determine
    to fight it as adults, then I guess I can't be any more clear.
    
    But I am sorry to have alarmed folks with the way I said it.
    
    My mother "groomed" me. I'm not sure what I would have been if she
    hadn't looked at my math aptitude and said "ENGINEER! YES!" As it is,
    I'll probably end up a math teacher, although there are parts of my job
    I'd be loathe to give up. I *DO* have fun with me work.
    
    My sister decided early on to go into medicine. Her first Halloween
    costumes were those of nurses... by the time she was 7, mom had planted
    the idea of "doctor" in her head. And she is now a doctor. She, like
    me, is not 100% happy with where she is, but will probably teach
    medicine in the end.
    
    I think that if I'd seen either one of my parents get totally screwed
    by the law, I would have more of an interest into going into law to be
    a maverick; one of the few uncorruptible ones.  So, perhaps I am
    projecting some of my personality biases: I'm big on noble acts, I
    think a career should also contribute to society.
    
    Its still me. Lauren Foster. Same head, lots of complex ideas.

RE:  Note 837.134 ASDG::FOSTER 

>    Do you want them to live in a 50's world where women are second class,
>    or the 90's world where they have a chance at taking responsibility for

Can't speak for Fred.. but...

The 90's suck.  I'd take the 50's or the 60's... even the 70's... over this
decade.

    Hey, the 90's haven't even gotten started...
    
    7+ to go...
    
    ed

    Agreed... from the way it's started though... it's off for a crazy
    adventure.  Scary.
    

    Speaking of (what was that nickname for Massachusetts?) MA divorce/
    custody laws, I knew a man who worked at Dec.  He and his wife had
    a very bitter divorce, two kids.  The wife was a homemaker at the
    time of divorce, but had a masters degree (I'm not sure of what her
    field was).  The two childeren were 9 and 11.  Mom did not feel she
    should have to go back to work because Dad wanted to divorce her. 
    Mom got alimoney plus 500.00 PER WEEK child support, plus additional
    funding for college education.  This man has met all his obligations
    and is constantly denied access to the children.  When he does see
    them, he hears stories about how Mom said this about you, and none
    of it is nice.  The man met a new woman and wanted to marry her.  The
    woman heard of this and took him back into court to get more support
    money.  Apparently, his wife has the right to fight for more money from
    the man as by marrying, his income will be increased.  THIS IS INSANE.
    I realize that not all women are that bitter, but 2000.00 per month
    for child support, alimoney and college ed funds, she's certainly not
    getting screwed by the system....

    
    
    
      I know a guy here at the plant that had to pay child support,alimon
    ,and put his x through college. I used to share mu lunch with him. He
    stops paying alimony next month. That's 3 years of alimony, what the
    hell does the word divorce mean anyway?  
    
    David

The problem with 166 and 167 is they don't tell a complete story.
In both cases background such as the husband's income wasn't included.

As has been stated before, most men do want to contribute child support,
so the issue there would seem to be amount.

In .166 if the exhusband is earning $2000/week, perhaps $2000/month isn't
unreasonable.   If on the other hand he is earning $1000/week, $2000 seems
enormous (even given he was the one who wanted out of the marriage).
Let us also remember that $2000/month is certainly not a lavish income these
days.

The problems with visitation sound unreasonable, but can't his lawyer
ask the judge to discuss it with her.   If a documented pattern exists
perhaps something could be done.

In .167 frustration is expressed at having to put an ex through college.
If this meant the wife would then be able to get a much better job, the
exhusband would then be able petition the court to have childsupport, etc.
reduced.   This could be seen as a good investment.

In both cases no mention was made of what each partner brought to the marriage
(houses, cash, etc).   And in both cases no mention was made of property
settlement.  It often happens that what passes for alimony is really property
settlement.   Were these two settlements mutually agreed to, or were they
imposed by a court ?

In my personal opinion, if a husband decides to dump a wife, and there is a
drastic difference in their current salaries, the husband does owe some
transition support.   And regardless of who dumped whom, the
noncustodial parent owes the children support.

    re: 168
    If I read between the lines you seem to assume that fairness is
    something that is attained during court hearings. You also assume that
    visitation is something that can be adequately managed from the bench.
    Thus the dilema, how to attain fairness and allow the NCP to foster a
    meaningful relationship with his/her children. 
    The one huge question I continue to ask is "How can a parent be deemed
    a visitor to his own children?". And the secondary question is "what
    realistic limits should be set to allow an NCP the ability to manage
    their affairs without the constant spectre of financial rape looming in
    the next judicial preceedings?

    re:.167 "what the hell does divorce mean anyway?"
    
    Good question.

    In terms of the man's salary in question (the man paying 2000.oo/month)
    I believe he was grossing 3500 a month.  An as meager as you seem
    to think 2000 a month is, I work 40+ hours a week and don't even
    gross that much.

    re: .172
    
    So, what's your point about going back to night school?  I already
    have one degree.  The point I was trying to make was that the monetary
    settlement was unfair to the father.

    Thank you.  No, I feel very badly for my friend and think he's a
    prime example of how men are suffering from inequality in the 
    family court system.
    
    Thanks again,
    Christine