Deadbeat Dads (and moms)

[DiAnna]

sounds like he was making poor choices and paying dearly for them....if he believe the mother unfit...he should have taken action to get his kids...i always hear people slamming the ex but not wanting to take custody

I took them. One was 3 years old..the other 9. But I sent them back when they said "you are not our mother. You will never be our mother" and I busted them with drugs in their bedrooms (2 boys). The drugs I could have tried to deal with, with alateen. The words they said to me...sober....was a knife in my heart. Fuck them and the skank who bore them. One is a father and is age 27. The other is a bum and won't work, and he is now 33. They both still live with their skanky mother. Probably all selling drugs.

I seriously feel your pain. I was you. I knew when I married my present husband that he had a slutty, alcoholic ex and three kids who'd been allowed to run wild. He knew I had two kids and an ex who thought CS was a suggestion. We knew the baggage we brought to the marriage and accepted it.

Two months into our marriage, his ex dumped all three kids on our doorstep with paper bags brimming with their clothes. Then she disappeared.

Those kids resented me, resented my children, screamed "I hate you" on a weekly basis, ran away in their teen years and caused us all manner of misery. But you know what? They were children, children who had been abandoned like garbage and given to a woman they'd never seen in their lives to raise. We were the adults. Nobody said it would be easy, and it wasn't.

Bottom line, all five kids now have children of their own. Yes, one has a prison record but is doing well now. My husband's ex finally kicked her alcohol problem, found god, and she and I are actually friends.

Through all the years of heartache, we did it for the children and because it was our job as their parents to do the best we could for them. But trust me when I say that I know what you went through, and how you felt. I give you props for your effort.

 

[Stashman]

Divorce, along with all its custody and money battles, sucks. And it's the children who suffer.

The non-custodial parent needs to contribute to the support of those children. They have to eat, be clothed, sheltered, educated, and both parents are responsible to assure these things are being done.

Yes, yes, I'm sure there are horror stories everywhere... custodial ex uses CS money to buy drugs while dirty urchin children starve. Tell me what kind of a non-custodial parent would know that, and not turn the ex in to child protective services, then haul butt to court to take care of his children? One who would rather watch the kids suffer than go through the trouble of raising them him/herself, that's who.

Ex interferes with court-ordered visitation, so there's no incentive to pay? WTF? No incentive to make certain your kids have food on their table, clothes on their back, just because you can't take them to the park every other weekend without a fight? It's court-ordered visitation for a reason. If the custodial ex is violating that order, you don't need a Johnnie-Cochran powerhouse to head straight to the courthouse and file a complaint.

Lost your job and are broke? Again, you don't need a high-priced lawyer to ask for a hearing on the matter. You can file the papers yourself.

Let's face it. The vast, vast majority of non-paying non-custodials is because they don't want the ex to have the money. They want the ex to scrimp and save, to struggle over every bill because heaven forbid he/she actually use any household income to buy a decent suit/dress for the office. It's vegeance 90% of the time, and it's BS.

Custodial parents have no right to deny court-ordered visitation. Children need both their parents. Non-custodial parents who don't bother to fight for those rights are telling their children volumes about themselves, and its something those poor kids don't need to hear.

I see a lot of posts in here about the poor, struggling custodial parent and the poor, destitude non-custodial parent... but I'm not seeing a lot of posts about the children trapped in the middle, being forced to live in an economically-deprived environment because their parents are using them as a club to wound each other.

Deadbeat parents are frankly the worst kind of parents, because they are telling their kids by their actions that they flat don't care about them. A good mom or dad who loses one job will scrub toilets if necessary to make certain that their children are well cared for, happy, and loved.

To insure the money goes to the kids the custodial parent by law should provide receipts for all food, clothing, etc.. that is bought every month. If all the support is not spent on them in a month, than the non-custodial parent should have the left over amount subtracted from the next months support.

 

[strollingbones]

Wow. So a girl that gets knocked up outside of marriage is on her own? Interesting...

I have to leave for work but I'll explain my reasoning this evening when I get back.

I believe that in a nation where abortion is legal and available upon demand and a woman's choice, that women need to take full responsibility for their own reproduction. Men aren't given a choice in whether or not an unplanned pregnancy is brought to term or whether it's terminated.
I'm sure that many feel that if the guy wants to play, he should be prepared to pay but shouldn't a woman be prepared to pay as well? How does anyone think it fair that two people can participate in the same act and then only one of them is allowed to decide the outcome?
I think that out of wedlock birthrates would plummet if we were to return the responsibility for the children she bore outside of marriage to the woman.
We are beyond the days when it was difficult for a young woman to acquire birth control. I taught my daughters and my son that sex and responsibility go hand in hand. So far, they all seem to have learned.
Of course, while I believe that the law should not be able to compel a man to pay child support outside of wedlock, I also believe that a man that doesn't support a child he knows to be his is a lowlife scumbag. The law is one thing, basic morality and decency is something altogether different.

o hell no....men need to control their sperm...simple as that

 

[Vel]

I have to leave for work but I'll explain my reasoning this evening when I get back.

I believe that in a nation where abortion is legal and available upon demand and a woman's choice, that women need to take full responsibility for their own reproduction. Men aren't given a choice in whether or not an unplanned pregnancy is brought to term or whether it's terminated.
I'm sure that many feel that if the guy wants to play, he should be prepared to pay but shouldn't a woman be prepared to pay as well? How does anyone think it fair that two people can participate in the same act and then only one of them is allowed to decide the outcome?
I think that out of wedlock birthrates would plummet if we were to return the responsibility for the children she bore outside of marriage to the woman.
We are beyond the days when it was difficult for a young woman to acquire birth control. I taught my daughters and my son that sex and responsibility go hand in hand. So far, they all seem to have learned.
Of course, while I believe that the law should not be able to compel a man to pay child support outside of wedlock, I also believe that a man that doesn't support a child he knows to be his is a lowlife scumbag. The law is one thing, basic morality and decency is something altogether different.

o hell no....men need to control their sperm...simple as that

Well until something convinces me different, I think that the person that owns the outcome decision is the one that needs to maintain the control. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

say what? why do you think this?

I think he's got a point. That's how things used to work: a woman who had sex and got pregnant outside of wedlock had no legal claim on the man's wallet, and a man who had sex and made a baby outside of wedlock had no legal right whatsoever to the child, so you didn't have any of these tragic legal spectacles of children being torn away from the only families they've ever known to be given to some stranger whose only claim to "parenthood" is a barely-remembered, tequila-fueled one-night stand.

Is it harsh? Yes, but life is harsh, and it at least had the effect of motivating people not to fuck like bunnies at the drop of a hat (or some other piece of clothing).

It is a sad thing that the so-called "sexual revolution" and its alleged "sexual freedom" have turned children into so much collateral damage.

The sexual revolution ended in the 70's, sexual freedom was curtailed by AIDS, you are way out of touch with society.

The AER study reports, "Our findings suggest that house prices have a significant effect on divorce shares." Divorce rates have declined over the past few years. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 1996 that 50 percent of all marriages ended in divorce. Figures from 2009 showed a 46 percent divorce rate.

Realty Times - Divorce Rate Declines Alongside Home Prices

Right, honey. The sexual revolution is over, and sexual "freedom" was ended by AIDS.

• Childbearing by unmarried women has resumed a steep climb since 2002.

• Births to unmarried women totaled 1,714,643 in 2007, 26% more than in 2002. Nearly 4 in 10 U.S. births were to unmarried women in 2007.

• Birth rates have risen considerably for unmarried women in their twenties and over, while declining or changing little for unmarried teenagers.

• Nonmarital birth rates are highest for Hispanic women followed by black women. Rates for non-Hispanic white and Asian or Pacific Islander women are much lower.

• Most births to teenagers (86% in 2007) are nonmarital, but 60% of births to women 20–24 and nearly one-third of births to women 25–29 were nonmarital in 2007.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf

And YOU call ME "out of touch with society"?

 

[strollingbones]

I believe that in a nation where abortion is legal and available upon demand and a woman's choice, that women need to take full responsibility for their own reproduction. Men aren't given a choice in whether or not an unplanned pregnancy is brought to term or whether it's terminated.
I'm sure that many feel that if the guy wants to play, he should be prepared to pay but shouldn't a woman be prepared to pay as well? How does anyone think it fair that two people can participate in the same act and then only one of them is allowed to decide the outcome?
I think that out of wedlock birthrates would plummet if we were to return the responsibility for the children she bore outside of marriage to the woman.
We are beyond the days when it was difficult for a young woman to acquire birth control. I taught my daughters and my son that sex and responsibility go hand in hand. So far, they all seem to have learned.
Of course, while I believe that the law should not be able to compel a man to pay child support outside of wedlock, I also believe that a man that doesn't support a child he knows to be his is a lowlife scumbag. The law is one thing, basic morality and decency is something altogether different.

o hell no....men need to control their sperm...simple as that

Well until something convinces me different, I think that the person that owns the outcome decision is the one that needs to maintain the control. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

as i have said in the past...a man can control his sperm...once he lets go of it ...into a woman ...it becomes her property but that does not relieve a man of his responsiblities for his sperm...now does it?

or are men just too simple to control themselves?

 

[AllieBaba]

You have to look at how the courts award child support. In my state they do it with no regard to the parents ability to pay.

I have a cousin that pays 500 a month for his one child. That was fine when he was making good money but since he got laid off he cant afford it. The courts refuse to lower the amount. Since he is poor he cant afford a good lawyer.

Since he cant get the amount lowered and cant pay it he lost his drivers lic. Now he cant get to work and lost his job. Now they are going to throw him in jail.

Did we not learn that debters prison does not work. The child support system is corrupt and wrong in some states.

PS: He was married to the mom for 5 years she left him for another man.

So what? Why should it be based upon ability to pay, rather than the child's needs?

A specific formula is used to determine child support..it is based on both parents' incomes. If you don't make the money to pay your child support, you can request it be lowered to a certain point...but it will never be lowered to $0.00. It's your kid, you get to pay for it, if you're in the household or not, and if the other parent is a douche or not.

If you don't make enough to pay your child support, I suggest you undertake a life plan to improve your circumstances, and in the meantime, don't make any more babies or take on responsibility for anybody else's babies.

Throw their asses in jail, or better yet, let's bring the workhouse back! We'll throw them into the workhouses, and garnish those wages! That would be great...

 

[strollingbones]

women's lib gave men the idea that they could walk away....women started saying and believing they could do it all and men said fuck it...go for it.

 

[Stashman]

o hell no....men need to control their sperm...simple as that

Well until something convinces me different, I think that the person that owns the outcome decision is the one that needs to maintain the control. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

as i have said in the past...a man can control his sperm...once he lets go of it ...into a woman ...it becomes her property but that does not relieve a man of his responsiblities for his sperm...now does it?

or are men just too simple to control themselves?

So you think it's fair that a man has no say so in the abortion of his child, but if the woman has the child he should pay? Now that's one hell of a double standard right there.

 

[strollingbones]

Well until something convinces me different, I think that the person that owns the outcome decision is the one that needs to maintain the control. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

as i have said in the past...a man can control his sperm...once he lets go of it ...into a woman ...it becomes her property but that does not relieve a man of his responsiblities for his sperm...now does it?

or are men just too simple to control themselves?

So you think it's fair that a man has no say so in the abortion of his child, but if the woman has the child he should pay? Now that's one hell of a double standard right there.

I think a man has all kinds of control....i just dont think men exercise it...
and no, once you allow your property to be transferred over...you have given away your property you have given away control and rights...

it is not a dble standard it is simply expecting men to act like responsible adults and practice birth control that protects themselves...but wait wait most men dont like to use condoms...damn idiots that they are

 

[strollingbones]

why should a child suffer because a man has no self control?

 

[Stashman]

as i have said in the past...a man can control his sperm...once he lets go of it ...into a woman ...it becomes her property but that does not relieve a man of his responsiblities for his sperm...now does it?

or are men just too simple to control themselves?

So you think it's fair that a man has no say so in the abortion of his child, but if the woman has the child he should pay? Now that's one hell of a double standard right there.

I think a man has all kinds of control....i just dont think men exercise it...
and no, once you allow your property to be transferred over...you have given away your property you have given away control and rights...

it is not a dble standard it is simply expecting men to act like responsible adults and practice birth control that protects themselves...but wait wait most men dont like to use condoms...damn idiots that they are

If I were able to become pregnant and thank God I'm not, than it would be up to me to make sure that I don't get pregnant. Couldn't blame anyone else period.

If I threw a hammer up into the sky and stood there as it landed on my head who could I blame but myself?

 

[strollingbones]

talk about a double standard....you dont think you should use birth control?

you dont think you should practice safe sex?

if i were not wanting a child i would sure be using birth control......

 

[strollingbones]

o btw i am not blaming anymore...merely saying it takes two to make a baby.....

 

[AllieBaba]

women's lib gave men the idea that they could walk away....women started saying and believing they could do it all and men said fuck it...go for it.

Yes indeed.

In the old days, women who had out of wedlock children or children with men who wouldn't support them actually DIED from starvation as a result. This is why marriage was such an intense and loaded issue that was tackled by the entire family, and why it was SO important that women didn't have extramarital sex.

We swung too far the other way, and now people think having babies is a walk in the park, that relationships are easily severed, and there are no consequences.

Wrong. Have sex before you're sure of somebody, or marry somebody based on *love* and then find out later that whoops, that person wasn't such a good choice and guess what, you may be saddled for life, yoked to a person you don't like, don't trust, but you have to pay.

What's the lesson here?

BRING BACK ARRANGED MARRIAGES.

Just kidding, I don't know what the lesson is, but I'm teaching my kids college first, then spouses, and no sex or dating in the forseeable future.

 

[AllieBaba]

Though I did have a big hand in *choosing* my two boys' significant others (not overtly, I was very manipulative and unobtrusive about it) and I did a DAMN FINE JOB!

 

[Stashman]

o btw i am not blaming anymore...merely saying it takes two to make a baby.....

Than why should not men have a say in whether there child is aborted?

 

[AllieBaba]

Men should. Well, actually, it should just be illegal. That gets rid of that issue completely.

 

[Stashman]

Men should. Well, actually, it should just be illegal. That gets rid of that issue completely.

Oh I agree with you 100 percent. I am against abortion in all cases. Unmarried mother, rape, incest, or life of mother. Because God just don't make mistakes.

I am saying to the previous poster that is does indeed take two to make a baby. So, I should have just as much say if that baby gets to live or not.

 

[AllieBaba]

Nobody has ever proposed that abortion be illegal when it comes to making a choice between life of baby/life of mom. Because when it happens to that one person once a year, they need to be able to legally save somebody.

That's the imaginary mother killing monster baby theory, btw. That abortion needs to be legal to protect pregnant women from their mutant babies. Not that it was EVER illegal to save moms....but there you have it.