No Child support !! If You Have a Penis

Off Topic
101

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
One guy was a truck driver who got laid off for three months and fell behind (he paid what he could, but not everything). So they suspended his license so he couldn’t drive and then when he couldn’t meet the income guidelines (as a truck driver which the CS was based on), they locked him up.

Where’s the justice in that?[/quote]

His own fault. Had he filed with the state and let them know he was laid off, then the support is re-assesed. Otherwise the state does not care, the order says he pays x dollars a month…the baby-momma calls the bureau when there’s no money and he gets locked up. All he has to do was file the paperwork stating he was laid off.

There is no obligation to pay child support if you earn the same or less as the other parent and have 50% custody. I assume this dude never saw his kids and the only tie to them was a check.

102

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
One guy was a truck driver who got laid off for three months and fell behind (he paid what he could, but not everything). So they suspended his license so he couldn’t drive and then when he couldn’t meet the income guidelines (as a truck driver which the CS was based on), they locked him up.

Where’s the justice in that?[/quote]

His own fault. Had he filed with the state and let them know he was laid off, then the support is re-assesed. Otherwise the state does not care, the order says he pays x dollars a month…the baby-momma calls the bureau when there’s no money and he gets locked up. All he has to do was file the paperwork stating he was laid off.

There is no obligation to pay child support if you earn the same or less as the other parent and have 50% custody. I assume this dude never saw his kids and the only tie to them was a check.[/quote]

You’re probably right. The story reminded me of my childhood best-friend’s baby’s Daddy, who got her pregnant the same week his girlfriend delivered his first baby. He then moved on to impregnate several more girls (I checked out his myspace back in the day and there was ANOTHER one on there posting pictures of her baby and telling him that she was going to keep at it until he acknowledged the kid as his. And I have to say, if I was going to pin a baby, I wouldn’t pick the broke ass dude who already had 4 by different mammas, so it probably was indeed his. lol).

He plays a constant child-support dodging game and talks shit about everyone involved excluding himself. You would THINK that after one baby, you’d learn a lesson, but apparently not.

The system screws a lot of dudes, but you can’t forget that there are a ton of dumbasses out there making a bad name for the other guys. There are some EXTREME cases of fathers abusing their children and baby’s mamma (and the physical damage done will always be more shocking in pictures and recounts than ANY psychological damage wives do to the husband). Plus, there’s that whole “women are weak” issue.

However, I doubt the court is going to start being fair any time soon.

103

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
In San Diego if you are behind in child support the receiving spouse gets funds from the state and then the state goes after the owing spouse. So they are still getting paid something. Is that what happens in other states?

[/quote]

No. In PA there is a bureau that deducts the money from the spouses paycheck in cooperation with the employer (if he/she gets one) and disperses it according to the order. No money= no payment, but there is official documentation of the lack of activity, and they keep track of the arrears.

It becomes actionable at some point, but I’m not sure when. I’ve never gotten tangled up in that system, but have observed how it works through my sister.
[/quote]

It basically becomes a Judgment on their credit report. I work in the mortgage industry and have had to deny people loans because of unsatisfied Judgments. I know some people in MD who go in and out of jail because of child support (guys that have multiple kids with different baby-mamas). The state takes basically everything, so it’s actually easier for them to be in jail because they get three hots and a cot. One guy was a truck driver who got laid off for three months and fell behind (he paid what he could, but not everything). So they suspended his license so he couldn’t drive and then when he couldn’t meet the income guidelines (as a truck driver which the CS was based on), they locked him up.

Where’s the justice in that?[/quote]

There isn’t any. Screwing with a persons ability to make the income to be garnished seems like a perfect formula for a needles and abrupt downward spiral.

I know that locally the sheriffs can be there in days (like 3, not more than a week) where as the paperwork and hearings to re-evaluate child support can take months.

104

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]barbarianlifter wrote:
(please note we got pulled over by the cops on the way over to the guys house with an ax handle and a baseball bat and informed bluntly we needed to turn around- the cops were watching his house).
[/quote]

you were obviously not that determined. touch my kid, i’m eating the charge. fuck it.[/quote]

You keep saying that…yeh I don’t know what I’d do either, but the smart play is legally fuck them. Otherwise you get charged with assault and battery, probably sued, time in jail, then you have proven yourself as dangerous as the molester in the eyes of the law.

Remember Ellie Nestler? she walked into court and blew away her son’s molester and spent 15 in jail. She’s out now.
[/quote]

I assure you, that you don’t know me well. Put your hands on any of my sons, you purchased a ticket to the ER. I’ve tuned up people for far less or had them tuned on my behalf. I keep saying it because the very thought of someone abusing a child almost sends me into a fucking frothing maniacal rage just sitting here behind my computer.

105

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I just don’t understand that mindset. I have heard women act like staying at home is the hardest job next to being an on call emergency room resident. No relationship I am in would last long if the wife stayed at home, expected me to work full time and then come straight home and do her job as well.

This can be made worse by having a wife who spends your money like water when she isn’t earning any.

I do question why this isn’t a major topic nationwide in more forums than the obscure.

I know you can’t tell if your wife will end up like that on wedding day, but it sure seems like it is in your best interest to not rush into things.

I don’t work hard so I can give my paycheck away to someone who doesn’t want to work and won’t have to simply because she divorced me.

I can do “bad” all by myself.[/quote]

Marriage used to be based on traditional values and responsibilities. The women do X and the men do Y. Things were defined and people bragged on their kids achievements.

Now, women talk about who’s screwing who over, who has the best house, car etc. Simply put, as a nation, we moved focus from family to materialism.

[/quote]

JOKE OF THE DAY…

Two women were sitting quietly together, minding their own business.

106

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I just don’t understand that mindset. I have heard women act like staying at home is the hardest job next to being an on call emergency room resident. No relationship I am in would last long if the wife stayed at home, expected me to work full time and then come straight home and do her job as well.

This can be made worse by having a wife who spends your money like water when she isn’t earning any.

I do question why this isn’t a major topic nationwide in more forums than the obscure.

I know you can’t tell if your wife will end up like that on wedding day, but it sure seems like it is in your best interest to not rush into things.

I don’t work hard so I can give my paycheck away to someone who doesn’t want to work and won’t have to simply because she divorced me.

I can do “bad” all by myself.[/quote]

Marriage used to be based on traditional values and responsibilities. The women do X and the men do Y. Things were defined and people bragged on their kids achievements.

Now, women talk about who’s screwing who over, who has the best house, car etc. Simply put, as a nation, we moved focus from family to materialism.

[/quote]

You know, I see this attitude in many of the women in this area. I don’t know if it’s just Houston or what, but more focus goes into what kind of car you drive than what you are doing with your life. Women like that I tend to stay away from. Me hooking up with some gold digger who works at Burger King is just setting myself up for failure.

Who hid the decent women with serious life goals?

Is there some rock downtown they are all hiding under?[/quote]

They are out there.

When my woman says she’s going shopping, it usually means the thrift store. She hates luxury cars, big houses and materialism in general. I went totally opposite this time around and just lucked out.
[/quote]

Does she have a good looking sister? Cause bitches be crazy.

107

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
One guy was a truck driver who got laid off for three months and fell behind (he paid what he could, but not everything). So they suspended his license so he couldn’t drive and then when he couldn’t meet the income guidelines (as a truck driver which the CS was based on), they locked him up.

Where’s the justice in that?[/quote]

His own fault. Had he filed with the state and let them know he was laid off, then the support is re-assesed. Otherwise the state does not care, the order says he pays x dollars a month…the baby-momma calls the bureau when there’s no money and he gets locked up. All he has to do was file the paperwork stating he was laid off.

There is no obligation to pay child support if you earn the same or less as the other parent and have 50% custody. I assume this dude never saw his kids and the only tie to them was a check.[/quote]

This is not true, at least in NJ. Unemployment or underemployment is not a basis for a downward adjustment in support. It’s fact specific and generally has to be “changed circumstances” that are not temporary. Unemployment is temporary. You may pay partial, but the arrears keeps tabbing. Underemployment (making less than prior) is looked upon unfavorably unless you can prove it’s involuntary…you better be able to prove you are not employable at your previous wages.

108

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
One guy was a truck driver who got laid off for three months and fell behind (he paid what he could, but not everything). So they suspended his license so he couldn’t drive and then when he couldn’t meet the income guidelines (as a truck driver which the CS was based on), they locked him up.

Where’s the justice in that?[/quote]

His own fault. Had he filed with the state and let them know he was laid off, then the support is re-assesed. Otherwise the state does not care, the order says he pays x dollars a month…the baby-momma calls the bureau when there’s no money and he gets locked up. All he has to do was file the paperwork stating he was laid off.

There is no obligation to pay child support if you earn the same or less as the other parent and have 50% custody. I assume this dude never saw his kids and the only tie to them was a check.[/quote]

You’re probably right. The story reminded me of my childhood best-friend’s baby’s Daddy, who got her pregnant the same week his girlfriend delivered his first baby. He then moved on to impregnate several more girls (I checked out his myspace back in the day and there was ANOTHER one on there posting pictures of her baby and telling him that she was going to keep at it until he acknowledged the kid as his. And I have to say, if I was going to pin a baby, I wouldn’t pick the broke ass dude who already had 4 by different mammas, so it probably was indeed his. lol).

He plays a constant child-support dodging game and talks shit about everyone involved excluding himself. You would THINK that after one baby, you’d learn a lesson, but apparently not.

The system screws a lot of dudes, but you can’t forget that there are a ton of dumbasses out there making a bad name for the other guys. There are some EXTREME cases of fathers abusing their children and baby’s mamma (and the physical damage done will always be more shocking in pictures and recounts than ANY psychological damage wives do to the husband). Plus, there’s that whole “women are weak” issue.

However, I doubt the court is going to start being fair any time soon.[/quote]

FUCK THAT. If you’re a “baby mama” and not a “wife”, you’re a dumb fuck and equally, if not more, responsible than the sperm donor. Women are weak when it suits them. Otherwise, it’s give me equal treatment. As the final arbiter of whether you will bear a child, females can stop blaming the absentee fathers and save that shit for someone that is stupid.

109

THIS FUCKING THREAD IS GETTING ME WORKED UP…

110

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
THIS FUCKING THREAD IS GETTING ME WORKED UP…[/quote]
HUGE HUGS

111

Yeah man. A couple of these threads have really touched on some nerves lately haven’t they?

I’ve stayed out of this one to this point and have not gone into my own experiences growing up in a divorced family on account of having to sort through and deal with some of the emotions and memories that were stirred up with that last one.

112

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Who hid the decent women with serious life goals?
[/quote]

Yes.
What I don’t understand is why a person who is well employed and educated would marry and reproduce with someone who is unmotivated to be anything more than stay at home. OK fine if you have a few kids, I can see it temporarily. I can even see it happening for a decade or so, if the person staying home is motivated, involved in the kid’s activities, school, and keeps a well run house. Then that person is an asset to the employed spouse. Someone who is active will generally stay active and want to have something in their life after the kids are in middle school.

There is no way in hell I would marry someone who doesn’t make at least equal to what I do, or have the capacity to (experience, education and initiative). And if I do ever get married again, I will most definitely protect what I have and what I will have in the future. Yes BG, this thread is getting me riled up too. Not to defend either gender, but because there seems to be such a lack of common sense surrounding both.

113

[quote]dianab wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Who hid the decent women with serious life goals?
[/quote]

Yes.
What I don’t understand is why a person who is well employed and educated would marry and reproduce with someone who is unmotivated to be anything more than stay at home. OK fine if you have a few kids, I can see it temporarily. I can even see it happening for a decade or so, if the person staying home is motivated, involved in the kid’s activities, school, and keeps a well run house. Then that person is an asset to the employed spouse. Someone who is active will generally stay active and want to have something in their life after the kids are in middle school.

There is no way in hell I would marry someone who doesn’t make at least equal to what I do, or have the capacity to (experience, education and initiative). And if I do ever get married again, I will most definitely protect what I have and what I will have in the future. Yes BG, this thread is getting me riled up too. Not to defend either gender, but because there seems to be such a lack of common sense surrounding both. [/quote]

Well, personally, I’m not sure I agree with all this.

You sound like you’re planning a merger, not a marriage. Now, I know many here will liken a marriage to a merger of companies, but in reality, many have followed that thinking and look where we are. What happened to marrying for love? In my opinion, it is difficult enough to find someone you love, and someone who will love you in return, without the baggage of how much someone earns, etc.

If you allow yourself to be concerned with what someone earns, for instance, aren’t you at least indirectly marrying for financial gain?

114

[quote]dianab wrote:

What I don’t understand is why a person who is well employed and educated would marry and reproduce with someone who is unmotivated to be anything more than stay at home. [/quote]

Having children changed EVERYTHING! Many couples get together with very alike goals and skills.

115

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]dianab wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Who hid the decent women with serious life goals?
[/quote]

Yes.
What I don’t understand is why a person who is well employed and educated would marry and reproduce with someone who is unmotivated to be anything more than stay at home. OK fine if you have a few kids, I can see it temporarily. I can even see it happening for a decade or so, if the person staying home is motivated, involved in the kid’s activities, school, and keeps a well run house. Then that person is an asset to the employed spouse. Someone who is active will generally stay active and want to have something in their life after the kids are in middle school.

There is no way in hell I would marry someone who doesn’t make at least equal to what I do, or have the capacity to (experience, education and initiative). And if I do ever get married again, I will most definitely protect what I have and what I will have in the future. Yes BG, this thread is getting me riled up too. Not to defend either gender, but because there seems to be such a lack of common sense surrounding both. [/quote]

Well, personally, I’m not sure I agree with all this.

You sound like you’re planning a merger, not a marriage. Now, I know many here will liken a marriage to a merger of companies, but in reality, many have followed that thinking and look where we are. What happened to marrying for love? In my opinion, it is difficult enough to find someone you love, and someone who will love you in return, without the baggage of how much someone earns, etc.

If you allow yourself to be concerned with what someone earns, for instance, aren’t you at least indirectly marrying for financial gain?[/quote]

I agree with Diana mostly. Not so much on the financial part but about the motivation part. What I see in a lot of guys I know is that they suffer in their marriages and then divorces from their own sexism; they have unbelievably low standards of integrity and character in women and marry the first one that comes along that isn’t ugly. Or they tolerate a lot of shitty personality because she’s cute, and that’s just how women are anyhow.

Come divorce time however, she’s plenty ugly. And because he’s not been thinking of his wife as an equal she resents him for being an asshole. I can think of a couple of guys I know who were completely oblivious to their marital troubles and even more to the real character of their bitchy wives when they were splitting up and rolled over and got completely fucked because they still thought of the soon to be ex as their little doll face.

My advice to all guys is get over your sexist fantasies about women as nurturers and caretakers because it’s only going to fuck you in the end if you are unable to evaluate women as people first, pussy second.

116

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
One guy was a truck driver who got laid off for three months and fell behind (he paid what he could, but not everything). So they suspended his license so he couldn’t drive and then when he couldn’t meet the income guidelines (as a truck driver which the CS was based on), they locked him up.

Where’s the justice in that?[/quote]

His own fault. Had he filed with the state and let them know he was laid off, then the support is re-assesed. Otherwise the state does not care, the order says he pays x dollars a month…the baby-momma calls the bureau when there’s no money and he gets locked up. All he has to do was file the paperwork stating he was laid off.

There is no obligation to pay child support if you earn the same or less as the other parent and have 50% custody. I assume this dude never saw his kids and the only tie to them was a check.[/quote]

In Maryland (or at least the judge HE had in MD) they don’t give a fuck.

117

I also think at the root of a lot of the divorce problems is the (mutual) resentment that the fairy tale soul mate bullshit is exactly that. If people could be more realistic about a relationship and accept very few are forever there doesn’t need to be such a big fucking drama of what a monumental failure THE marriage was, and then play like adults to separate.

118

So much hatred…so much bitterness…so much rage.

119

[quote]debraD wrote:
I also think at the root of a lot of the divorce problems is the (mutual) resentment that the fairy tale soul mate bullshit is exactly that. If people could be more realistic about a relationship and accept very few are forever there doesn’t need to be such a big fucking drama of what a monumental failure THE marriage was, and then play like adults to separate.[/quote]

I’ve always avoided the unrealistic idea that a marriage would be some fairy tale- happily ever after- continuous and eternal bliss.

Avoiding that alone has saved a lot of heart ache and head ache.

Most of the ones I’ve seen fail were due to a postponement of happiness combined with unrealistic expectations.

We will be happy if/when- We get a house. So they buy a house, and are still not happy.

                      We have a baby. So they have a baby, and are even less happy.

                      When the kid goes to school, etc.

But what happens is that the things that were supposed to be a source of happiness, which are not actually able to produce happiness in and of themselves, turn into compounding stressors and disappointments.

That can only happen so many times before a very predictable end begins. He did everything right and isn’t happy, therefore she must have done something wrong.

She isn’t happy, and she did everything right, therefore he must have done something wrong.

Fact of the matter is, neither one was ever truly happy, and neither one realizes that the source of their disturbance is their own unrealistic expectations of of how life is “supposed to be”, and in the pursuit of all the crap that they stuffed their lives with, forgot to be happy with what they have, and instead postponed it for what they want.

120

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
I also think at the root of a lot of the divorce problems is the (mutual) resentment that the fairy tale soul mate bullshit is exactly that. If people could be more realistic about a relationship and accept very few are forever there doesn’t need to be such a big fucking drama of what a monumental failure THE marriage was, and then play like adults to separate.[/quote]

I’ve always avoided the unrealistic idea that a marriage would be some fairy tale- happily ever after- continuous and eternal bliss.

Avoiding that alone has saved a lot of heart ache and head ache.

Most of the ones I’ve seen fail were due to a postponement of happiness combined with unrealistic expectations.

We will be happy if/when- We get a house. So they buy a house, and are still not happy.

                      We have a baby. So they have a baby, and are even less happy.

                      When the kid goes to school, etc.

But what happens is that the things that were supposed to be a source of happiness, which are not actually able to produce happiness in and of themselves, turn into compounding stressors and disappointments.

That can only happen so many times before a very predictable end begins. He did everything right and isn’t happy, therefore she must have done something wrong.

She isn’t happy, and she did everything right, therefore he must have done something wrong.

Fact of the matter is, neither one was ever truly happy, and neither one realizes that the source of their disturbance is their own unrealistic expectations of of how life is “supposed to be”, and in the pursuit of all the crap that they stuffed their lives with, forgot to be happy with what they have, and instead postponed it for what they want.

[/quote]

Amen. Well put. Some others here sound pretty damn bitter. Good luck with that.