It's Child Support Guidelines that Need Surgery, Not 'Deadbeat Dads'

It's Child Support Guidelines that Need Surgery, Not 'Deadbeat Dads'

May 17, 2004



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
by Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Kentucky judge D. Michael "Mickey'' Foellger has offered men who are behind
on their child support obligations a choice: have a vasectomy or spend 30
days in jail. However, according to a new study of child support, it is
Kentucky's child support guidelines which need surgery, not so-called
"deadbeat dads."

The study, "Child Support Guidelines and the Equalization of Living
Standards," was conducted by psychology professors Sanford Braver and David
Stockburger and will appear in the soon to be released book The Law and
Economics of Child Support Payments. Braver and Stockburger conclude that
"under current child support guidelines, the majority of custodial parents
currently have higher standards of living than their matched noncustodial
parents." Of the seven states they studied, Kentucky's guidelines are among
the most inequitable.

In addition to unreasonably high support levels, Kentucky noncustodial
fathers also have to contend with a rigid child support system which is
often impervious to the economic realities of modern life. Fathers who are
laid off, suffer wage cuts, or are injured on the job are often unable to
get downward modifications on their child support. In such cases, the
amounts owed mount quickly, as do interest and penalties.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the federal Bradley amendment bars
judges from retroactively forgiving child support arrearages, even when they
determine that the arrearage occurred through no fault of the obligor. As
shared parenting advocates Dianna Thompson and Murray Davis of the National
Family Justice Association note, "Society holds noncustodial parents, mostly
fathers, to an unattainable standard to never become physically or mentally
ill, never get disabled, and to never lose a job or get laid off in a poor
economy."

The pot of child support gold--which hard-line judges and Attorneys General
often insist they're going to find if we'd just get tough on
deadbeats--simply does not exist. Numerous studies, including the largest
federally funded study of divorced fathers ever conducted, have shown that
unemployment, not willful neglect, is the leading cause of child support
noncompliance.

A look at Kentucky's list of top 10 "Most Wanted Parents" illustrates the
point. Far from being a list of well-heeled lawyers, accountants and
bankers, only one of the 10 "deadbeats" listed appears to have any education
at all, and the most common designation for occupation is "laborer." These
men do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which
most could never hope to pay off.

Judge Foellger says his "vasectomy or jail" edict is only given to men have
fallen $10,000 behind on their child support and who have had four or more
children with three or more women. While Foellger is correct in condemning
these men's irresponsible conduct, one might wonder why the mothers of their
children receive neither sanction nor condemnation. They too had kids whom
they evidently cannot afford to support.

Foellger insists he's not forcing sterilization on anybody, since the
offenders in his court can choose 30 days in jail instead. However, most men
who fall behind on child support have led law-abiding lives and legitimately
fear for their safety and mental stability if they are incarcerated.

For example, in McCracken County earlier this year a man slit his throat in
the courtroom after being sentenced to two years in jail for being $7,000
behind on child support. According to newspaper accounts, the man pleaded to
the judge "Don't put me in jail, I'm going to kill myself" before taking out
a razor blade.

By threatening to jail the men, Foellger is in effect impelling them to get
sterilized. In fact, Foellger says that all but one of the men offered his
"deal" have chosen vasectomy over jail.

This represents a serious human rights violation. Kentucky's child support
guidelines need to be overhauled to ensure that support obligations are in
line with obligors' ability to pay. In addition, the system needs to be more
flexible and responsive, so men who are down on their luck don't become
criminalized. And while the public may be legitimately annoyed with these
"deadbeats," nobody should be jailed or sterilized for the "crime" of being
poor.

Jeffrey Leving & Glenn Sacks

This column first appeared in the Cincinnati Post and the Kentucky Post
(5/12/04).


--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

I understand your concerns but it seems that every one forgets about
the children. When a ncp is out of work or sick is the child just
suppose to starve or go with out clothing or shelter. I am a parent
who has recieved no support in over a year the reason father says he
can't keep a job in this economy, but I am still expected to provide I
can't just say to my daughter I am sick to day so you cannot eat. The
expectation gets left on me because I am there. She looks to me
because I am there what are we suppose to do just give our kids to the
state or do we fight for their voice in the mist of every one being
concerned about themselves. There are men who drop babies like flies
yes the mother bears some of the responsibility but she faces and
deals with that responsibility every day when she loves and provides
for her babies while he runs all over the state dropping babies and
you feel he should not be treated more harshly please! I live with my
decision every day and have to face those challenges every day and
these dads have to also.


"Dusty" wrote in message ...
It's Child Support Guidelines that Need Surgery, Not 'Deadbeat Dads'

May 17, 2004



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
by Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Kentucky judge D. Michael "Mickey'' Foellger has offered men who are behind
on their child support obligations a choice: have a vasectomy or spend 30
days in jail. However, according to a new study of child support, it is
Kentucky's child support guidelines which need surgery, not so-called
"deadbeat dads."

The study, "Child Support Guidelines and the Equalization of Living
Standards," was conducted by psychology professors Sanford Braver and David
Stockburger and will appear in the soon to be released book The Law and
Economics of Child Support Payments. Braver and Stockburger conclude that
"under current child support guidelines, the majority of custodial parents
currently have higher standards of living than their matched noncustodial
parents." Of the seven states they studied, Kentucky's guidelines are among
the most inequitable.

In addition to unreasonably high support levels, Kentucky noncustodial
fathers also have to contend with a rigid child support system which is
often impervious to the economic realities of modern life. Fathers who are
laid off, suffer wage cuts, or are injured on the job are often unable to
get downward modifications on their child support. In such cases, the
amounts owed mount quickly, as do interest and penalties.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the federal Bradley amendment bars
judges from retroactively forgiving child support arrearages, even when they
determine that the arrearage occurred through no fault of the obligor. As
shared parenting advocates Dianna Thompson and Murray Davis of the National
Family Justice Association note, "Society holds noncustodial parents, mostly
fathers, to an unattainable standard to never become physically or mentally
ill, never get disabled, and to never lose a job or get laid off in a poor
economy."

The pot of child support gold--which hard-line judges and Attorneys General
often insist they're going to find if we'd just get tough on
deadbeats--simply does not exist. Numerous studies, including the largest
federally funded study of divorced fathers ever conducted, have shown that
unemployment, not willful neglect, is the leading cause of child support
noncompliance.

A look at Kentucky's list of top 10 "Most Wanted Parents" illustrates the
point. Far from being a list of well-heeled lawyers, accountants and
bankers, only one of the 10 "deadbeats" listed appears to have any education
at all, and the most common designation for occupation is "laborer." These
men do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which
most could never hope to pay off.

Judge Foellger says his "vasectomy or jail" edict is only given to men have
fallen $10,000 behind on their child support and who have had four or more
children with three or more women. While Foellger is correct in condemning
these men's irresponsible conduct, one might wonder why the mothers of their
children receive neither sanction nor condemnation. They too had kids whom
they evidently cannot afford to support.

Foellger insists he's not forcing sterilization on anybody, since the
offenders in his court can choose 30 days in jail instead. However, most men
who fall behind on child support have led law-abiding lives and legitimately
fear for their safety and mental stability if they are incarcerated.

For example, in McCracken County earlier this year a man slit his throat in
the courtroom after being sentenced to two years in jail for being $7,000
behind on child support. According to newspaper accounts, the man pleaded to
the judge "Don't put me in jail, I'm going to kill myself" before taking out
a razor blade.

By threatening to jail the men, Foellger is in effect impelling them to get
sterilized. In fact, Foellger says that all but one of the men offered his
"deal" have chosen vasectomy over jail.

This represents a serious human rights violation. Kentucky's child support
guidelines need to be overhauled to ensure that support obligations are in
line with obligors' ability to pay. In addition, the system needs to be more
flexible and responsive, so men who are down on their luck don't become
criminalized. And while the public may be legitimately annoyed with these
"deadbeats," nobody should be jailed or sterilized for the "crime" of being
poor.

Jeffrey Leving & Glenn Sacks

This column first appeared in the Cincinnati Post and the Kentucky Post
(5/12/04).

I understand your concerns but it seems that every one forgets about
the children. When a ncp is out of work or sick is the child just
suppose to starve or go with out clothing or shelter. I am a parent
who has recieved no support in over a year the reason father says he
can't keep a job in this economy, but I am still expected to provide I
can't just say to my daughter I am sick to day so you cannot eat. The
expectation gets left on me because I am there. She looks to me
because I am there what are we suppose to do just give our kids to the
state or do we fight for their voice in the mist of every one being
concerned about themselves. There are men who drop babies like flies
yes the mother bears some of the responsibility but she faces and
deals with that responsibility every day when she loves and provides
for her babies while he runs all over the state dropping babies and
you feel he should not be treated more harshly please! I live with my
decision every day and have to face those challenges every day and
these dads have to also.


"Dusty" wrote in message ...
It's Child Support Guidelines that Need Surgery, Not 'Deadbeat Dads'

May 17, 2004



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
by Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Kentucky judge D. Michael "Mickey'' Foellger has offered men who are behind
on their child support obligations a choice: have a vasectomy or spend 30
days in jail. However, according to a new study of child support, it is
Kentucky's child support guidelines which need surgery, not so-called
"deadbeat dads."

The study, "Child Support Guidelines and the Equalization of Living
Standards," was conducted by psychology professors Sanford Braver and David
Stockburger and will appear in the soon to be released book The Law and
Economics of Child Support Payments. Braver and Stockburger conclude that
"under current child support guidelines, the majority of custodial parents
currently have higher standards of living than their matched noncustodial
parents." Of the seven states they studied, Kentucky's guidelines are among
the most inequitable.

In addition to unreasonably high support levels, Kentucky noncustodial
fathers also have to contend with a rigid child support system which is
often impervious to the economic realities of modern life. Fathers who are
laid off, suffer wage cuts, or are injured on the job are often unable to
get downward modifications on their child support. In such cases, the
amounts owed mount quickly, as do interest and penalties.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the federal Bradley amendment bars
judges from retroactively forgiving child support arrearages, even when they
determine that the arrearage occurred through no fault of the obligor. As
shared parenting advocates Dianna Thompson and Murray Davis of the National
Family Justice Association note, "Society holds noncustodial parents, mostly
fathers, to an unattainable standard to never become physically or mentally
ill, never get disabled, and to never lose a job or get laid off in a poor
economy."

The pot of child support gold--which hard-line judges and Attorneys General
often insist they're going to find if we'd just get tough on
deadbeats--simply does not exist. Numerous studies, including the largest
federally funded study of divorced fathers ever conducted, have shown that
unemployment, not willful neglect, is the leading cause of child support
noncompliance.

A look at Kentucky's list of top 10 "Most Wanted Parents" illustrates the
point. Far from being a list of well-heeled lawyers, accountants and
bankers, only one of the 10 "deadbeats" listed appears to have any education
at all, and the most common designation for occupation is "laborer." These
men do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which
most could never hope to pay off.

Judge Foellger says his "vasectomy or jail" edict is only given to men have
fallen $10,000 behind on their child support and who have had four or more
children with three or more women. While Foellger is correct in condemning
these men's irresponsible conduct, one might wonder why the mothers of their
children receive neither sanction nor condemnation. They too had kids whom
they evidently cannot afford to support.

Foellger insists he's not forcing sterilization on anybody, since the
offenders in his court can choose 30 days in jail instead. However, most men
who fall behind on child support have led law-abiding lives and legitimately
fear for their safety and mental stability if they are incarcerated.

For example, in McCracken County earlier this year a man slit his throat in
the courtroom after being sentenced to two years in jail for being $7,000
behind on child support. According to newspaper accounts, the man pleaded to
the judge "Don't put me in jail, I'm going to kill myself" before taking out
a razor blade.

By threatening to jail the men, Foellger is in effect impelling them to get
sterilized. In fact, Foellger says that all but one of the men offered his
"deal" have chosen vasectomy over jail.

This represents a serious human rights violation. Kentucky's child support
guidelines need to be overhauled to ensure that support obligations are in
line with obligors' ability to pay. In addition, the system needs to be more
flexible and responsive, so men who are down on their luck don't become
criminalized. And while the public may be legitimately annoyed with these
"deadbeats," nobody should be jailed or sterilized for the "crime" of being
poor.

Jeffrey Leving & Glenn Sacks

This column first appeared in the Cincinnati Post and the Kentucky Post
(5/12/04).

I understand your concerns but it seems that every one forgets about
the children. When a ncp is out of work or sick is the child just
suppose to starve or go with out clothing or shelter. I am a parent
who has recieved no support in over a year the reason father says he
can't keep a job in this economy, but I am still expected to provide I
can't just say to my daughter I am sick to day so you cannot eat. The
expectation gets left on me because I am there. She looks to me
because I am there what are we suppose to do just give our kids to the
state or do we fight for their voice in the mist of every one being
concerned about themselves. There are men who drop babies like flies
yes the mother bears some of the responsibility but she faces and
deals with that responsibility every day when she loves and provides
for her babies while he runs all over the state dropping babies and
you feel he should not be treated more harshly please! I live with my
decision every day and have to face those challenges every day and
these dads have to also.


"Dusty" wrote in message ...
It's Child Support Guidelines that Need Surgery, Not 'Deadbeat Dads'

May 17, 2004



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
by Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Kentucky judge D. Michael "Mickey'' Foellger has offered men who are behind
on their child support obligations a choice: have a vasectomy or spend 30
days in jail. However, according to a new study of child support, it is
Kentucky's child support guidelines which need surgery, not so-called
"deadbeat dads."

The study, "Child Support Guidelines and the Equalization of Living
Standards," was conducted by psychology professors Sanford Braver and David
Stockburger and will appear in the soon to be released book The Law and
Economics of Child Support Payments. Braver and Stockburger conclude that
"under current child support guidelines, the majority of custodial parents
currently have higher standards of living than their matched noncustodial
parents." Of the seven states they studied, Kentucky's guidelines are among
the most inequitable.

In addition to unreasonably high support levels, Kentucky noncustodial
fathers also have to contend with a rigid child support system which is
often impervious to the economic realities of modern life. Fathers who are
laid off, suffer wage cuts, or are injured on the job are often unable to
get downward modifications on their child support. In such cases, the
amounts owed mount quickly, as do interest and penalties.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the federal Bradley amendment bars
judges from retroactively forgiving child support arrearages, even when they
determine that the arrearage occurred through no fault of the obligor. As
shared parenting advocates Dianna Thompson and Murray Davis of the National
Family Justice Association note, "Society holds noncustodial parents, mostly
fathers, to an unattainable standard to never become physically or mentally
ill, never get disabled, and to never lose a job or get laid off in a poor
economy."

The pot of child support gold--which hard-line judges and Attorneys General
often insist they're going to find if we'd just get tough on
deadbeats--simply does not exist. Numerous studies, including the largest
federally funded study of divorced fathers ever conducted, have shown that
unemployment, not willful neglect, is the leading cause of child support
noncompliance.

A look at Kentucky's list of top 10 "Most Wanted Parents" illustrates the
point. Far from being a list of well-heeled lawyers, accountants and
bankers, only one of the 10 "deadbeats" listed appears to have any education
at all, and the most common designation for occupation is "laborer." These
men do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which
most could never hope to pay off.

Judge Foellger says his "vasectomy or jail" edict is only given to men have
fallen $10,000 behind on their child support and who have had four or more
children with three or more women. While Foellger is correct in condemning
these men's irresponsible conduct, one might wonder why the mothers of their
children receive neither sanction nor condemnation. They too had kids whom
they evidently cannot afford to support.

Foellger insists he's not forcing sterilization on anybody, since the
offenders in his court can choose 30 days in jail instead. However, most men
who fall behind on child support have led law-abiding lives and legitimately
fear for their safety and mental stability if they are incarcerated.

For example, in McCracken County earlier this year a man slit his throat in
the courtroom after being sentenced to two years in jail for being $7,000
behind on child support. According to newspaper accounts, the man pleaded to
the judge "Don't put me in jail, I'm going to kill myself" before taking out
a razor blade.

By threatening to jail the men, Foellger is in effect impelling them to get
sterilized. In fact, Foellger says that all but one of the men offered his
"deal" have chosen vasectomy over jail.

This represents a serious human rights violation. Kentucky's child support
guidelines need to be overhauled to ensure that support obligations are in
line with obligors' ability to pay. In addition, the system needs to be more
flexible and responsive, so men who are down on their luck don't become
criminalized. And while the public may be legitimately annoyed with these
"deadbeats," nobody should be jailed or sterilized for the "crime" of being
poor.

Jeffrey Leving & Glenn Sacks

This column first appeared in the Cincinnati Post and the Kentucky Post
(5/12/04).

I understand your concerns but it seems that every one forgets about
the children. When a ncp is out of work or sick is the child just
suppose to starve or go with out clothing or shelter. I am a parent
who has recieved no support in over a year the reason father says he
can't keep a job in this economy, but I am still expected to provide I
can't just say to my daughter I am sick to day so you cannot eat. The
expectation gets left on me because I am there. She looks to me
because I am there what are we suppose to do just give our kids to the
state or do we fight for their voice in the mist of every one being
concerned about themselves. There are men who drop babies like flies
yes the mother bears some of the responsibility but she faces and
deals with that responsibility every day when she loves and provides
for her babies while he runs all over the state dropping babies and
you feel he should not be treated more harshly please! I live with my
decision every day and have to face those challenges every day and
these dads have to also.


"Dusty" wrote in message ...
It's Child Support Guidelines that Need Surgery, Not 'Deadbeat Dads'

May 17, 2004



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
by Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Kentucky judge D. Michael "Mickey'' Foellger has offered men who are behind
on their child support obligations a choice: have a vasectomy or spend 30
days in jail. However, according to a new study of child support, it is
Kentucky's child support guidelines which need surgery, not so-called
"deadbeat dads."

The study, "Child Support Guidelines and the Equalization of Living
Standards," was conducted by psychology professors Sanford Braver and David
Stockburger and will appear in the soon to be released book The Law and
Economics of Child Support Payments. Braver and Stockburger conclude that
"under current child support guidelines, the majority of custodial parents
currently have higher standards of living than their matched noncustodial
parents." Of the seven states they studied, Kentucky's guidelines are among
the most inequitable.

In addition to unreasonably high support levels, Kentucky noncustodial
fathers also have to contend with a rigid child support system which is
often impervious to the economic realities of modern life. Fathers who are
laid off, suffer wage cuts, or are injured on the job are often unable to
get downward modifications on their child support. In such cases, the
amounts owed mount quickly, as do interest and penalties.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the federal Bradley amendment bars
judges from retroactively forgiving child support arrearages, even when they
determine that the arrearage occurred through no fault of the obligor. As
shared parenting advocates Dianna Thompson and Murray Davis of the National
Family Justice Association note, "Society holds noncustodial parents, mostly
fathers, to an unattainable standard to never become physically or mentally
ill, never get disabled, and to never lose a job or get laid off in a poor
economy."

The pot of child support gold--which hard-line judges and Attorneys General
often insist they're going to find if we'd just get tough on
deadbeats--simply does not exist. Numerous studies, including the largest
federally funded study of divorced fathers ever conducted, have shown that
unemployment, not willful neglect, is the leading cause of child support
noncompliance.

A look at Kentucky's list of top 10 "Most Wanted Parents" illustrates the
point. Far from being a list of well-heeled lawyers, accountants and
bankers, only one of the 10 "deadbeats" listed appears to have any education
at all, and the most common designation for occupation is "laborer." These
men do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which
most could never hope to pay off.

Judge Foellger says his "vasectomy or jail" edict is only given to men have
fallen $10,000 behind on their child support and who have had four or more
children with three or more women. While Foellger is correct in condemning
these men's irresponsible conduct, one might wonder why the mothers of their
children receive neither sanction nor condemnation. They too had kids whom
they evidently cannot afford to support.

Foellger insists he's not forcing sterilization on anybody, since the
offenders in his court can choose 30 days in jail instead. However, most men
who fall behind on child support have led law-abiding lives and legitimately
fear for their safety and mental stability if they are incarcerated.

For example, in McCracken County earlier this year a man slit his throat in
the courtroom after being sentenced to two years in jail for being $7,000
behind on child support. According to newspaper accounts, the man pleaded to
the judge "Don't put me in jail, I'm going to kill myself" before taking out
a razor blade.

By threatening to jail the men, Foellger is in effect impelling them to get
sterilized. In fact, Foellger says that all but one of the men offered his
"deal" have chosen vasectomy over jail.

This represents a serious human rights violation. Kentucky's child support
guidelines need to be overhauled to ensure that support obligations are in
line with obligors' ability to pay. In addition, the system needs to be more
flexible and responsive, so men who are down on their luck don't become
criminalized. And while the public may be legitimately annoyed with these
"deadbeats," nobody should be jailed or sterilized for the "crime" of being
poor.

Jeffrey Leving & Glenn Sacks

This column first appeared in the Cincinnati Post and the Kentucky Post
(5/12/04).

free wrote:
I understand your concerns but it seems that every one forgets about
the children.

On the contrary. The current radical feminist social experiment has
been the biggest disaster for children ever invented. For the sake of
the children the whole failed feminazi social experiment has to be
dismantled as soon as possible


When a ncp

If you gave a rat's ass about the children, you wouldn't be whining
about "ncp." That's a feminazi term from their failed social
experiment. It HURTS millions of children.


is out of work or sick is the child just
suppose to starve or go with out clothing or shelter.

For millions of years women brought children to their fathers for
support. It works. Today's radical feminazi hate program does not. It
only HURTS the children.


I am a parent
who has recieved no support

IOW: You are a greedy bitch who expects some man to support you. YOU
are 100% responsible for YOUR children. Deal with it babe.


in over a year the reason father says he
can't keep a job in this economy, but I am still expected to provide I
can't just say to my daughter I am sick to day so you cannot eat.

Not his problem. It's YOUR problem and YOUR 100% obligation and
responsibility to support YOUR children. YOU choose to bear children.
Women have sole and exclusive rights to decide whether or not to bear a
child. YOU are responsible. Crying and whining about men's money does
not relieve YOU of YOUR responsibility to support your children.


The
expectation gets left on me because I am there. She looks to me
because I am there what are we suppose to do just give our kids to the
state or do we fight for their voice in the mist of every one being
concerned about themselves.

YOU made the exclusive choice to bear the child. YOU are 100%
responsible to support your child regardless of the father's co-equal
responsibility. Whining about men-pay, women-get-paid is NOT about the
children. It's YOUR greed and lack of responsibility.


There are men who drop babies like flies

Nope. No men drops a baby. Only women. Go take biology again.


yes the mother bears some of the responsibility but she faces and
deals with that responsibility every day when she loves and provides
for her babies while he runs all over the state dropping babies and
you feel he should not be treated more harshly please!

The mother has the ONLY legal "choice" whether or not to bear a child.
The mother has full responsibility for her choice, regardless of
whatever responsibility the father also has.

If you want the father to support the children, bring the children to
the father. Don't whine about some failed feminazi experiment designed
to put men into slavery to pay women.


I live with my
decision every day and have to face those challenges every day and
these dads have to also.

Have you taken the child to his/her father?

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

free wrote:
I understand your concerns but it seems that every one forgets about
the children.

On the contrary. The current radical feminist social experiment has
been the biggest disaster for children ever invented. For the sake of
the children the whole failed feminazi social experiment has to be
dismantled as soon as possible


When a ncp

If you gave a rat's ass about the children, you wouldn't be whining
about "ncp." That's a feminazi term from their failed social
experiment. It HURTS millions of children.


is out of work or sick is the child just
suppose to starve or go with out clothing or shelter.

For millions of years women brought children to their fathers for
support. It works. Today's radical feminazi hate program does not. It
only HURTS the children.


I am a parent
who has recieved no support

IOW: You are a greedy bitch who expects some man to support you. YOU
are 100% responsible for YOUR children. Deal with it babe.


in over a year the reason father says he
can't keep a job in this economy, but I am still expected to provide I
can't just say to my daughter I am sick to day so you cannot eat.

Not his problem. It's YOUR problem and YOUR 100% obligation and
responsibility to support YOUR children. YOU choose to bear children.
Women have sole and exclusive rights to decide whether or not to bear a
child. YOU are responsible. Crying and whining about men's money does
not relieve YOU of YOUR responsibility to support your children.


The
expectation gets left on me because I am there. She looks to me
because I am there what are we suppose to do just give our kids to the
state or do we fight for their voice in the mist of every one being
concerned about themselves.

YOU made the exclusive choice to bear the child. YOU are 100%
responsible to support your child regardless of the father's co-equal
responsibility. Whining about men-pay, women-get-paid is NOT about the
children. It's YOUR greed and lack of responsibility.


There are men who drop babies like flies

Nope. No men drops a baby. Only women. Go take biology again.


yes the mother bears some of the responsibility but she faces and
deals with that responsibility every day when she loves and provides
for her babies while he runs all over the state dropping babies and
you feel he should not be treated more harshly please!

The mother has the ONLY legal "choice" whether or not to bear a child.
The mother has full responsibility for her choice, regardless of
whatever responsibility the father also has.

If you want the father to support the children, bring the children to
the father. Don't whine about some failed feminazi experiment designed
to put men into slavery to pay women.


I live with my
decision every day and have to face those challenges every day and
these dads have to also.

Have you taken the child to his/her father?

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

free wrote:
I understand your concerns but it seems that every one forgets about
the children.

On the contrary. The current radical feminist social experiment has
been the biggest disaster for children ever invented. For the sake of
the children the whole failed feminazi social experiment has to be
dismantled as soon as possible


When a ncp

If you gave a rat's ass about the children, you wouldn't be whining
about "ncp." That's a feminazi term from their failed social
experiment. It HURTS millions of children.


is out of work or sick is the child just
suppose to starve or go with out clothing or shelter.

For millions of years women brought children to their fathers for
support. It works. Today's radical feminazi hate program does not. It
only HURTS the children.


I am a parent
who has recieved no support

IOW: You are a greedy bitch who expects some man to support you. YOU
are 100% responsible for YOUR children. Deal with it babe.


in over a year the reason father says he
can't keep a job in this economy, but I am still expected to provide I
can't just say to my daughter I am sick to day so you cannot eat.

Not his problem. It's YOUR problem and YOUR 100% obligation and
responsibility to support YOUR children. YOU choose to bear children.
Women have sole and exclusive rights to decide whether or not to bear a
child. YOU are responsible. Crying and whining about men's money does
not relieve YOU of YOUR responsibility to support your children.


The
expectation gets left on me because I am there. She looks to me
because I am there what are we suppose to do just give our kids to the
state or do we fight for their voice in the mist of every one being
concerned about themselves.

YOU made the exclusive choice to bear the child. YOU are 100%
responsible to support your child regardless of the father's co-equal
responsibility. Whining about men-pay, women-get-paid is NOT about the
children. It's YOUR greed and lack of responsibility.


There are men who drop babies like flies

Nope. No men drops a baby. Only women. Go take biology again.


yes the mother bears some of the responsibility but she faces and
deals with that responsibility every day when she loves and provides
for her babies while he runs all over the state dropping babies and
you feel he should not be treated more harshly please!

The mother has the ONLY legal "choice" whether or not to bear a child.
The mother has full responsibility for her choice, regardless of
whatever responsibility the father also has.

If you want the father to support the children, bring the children to
the father. Don't whine about some failed feminazi experiment designed
to put men into slavery to pay women.


I live with my
decision every day and have to face those challenges every day and
these dads have to also.

Have you taken the child to his/her father?

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

free wrote:
I understand your concerns but it seems that every one forgets about
the children.

On the contrary. The current radical feminist social experiment has
been the biggest disaster for children ever invented. For the sake of
the children the whole failed feminazi social experiment has to be
dismantled as soon as possible


When a ncp

If you gave a rat's ass about the children, you wouldn't be whining
about "ncp." That's a feminazi term from their failed social
experiment. It HURTS millions of children.


is out of work or sick is the child just
suppose to starve or go with out clothing or shelter.

For millions of years women brought children to their fathers for
support. It works. Today's radical feminazi hate program does not. It
only HURTS the children.


I am a parent
who has recieved no support

IOW: You are a greedy bitch who expects some man to support you. YOU
are 100% responsible for YOUR children. Deal with it babe.


in over a year the reason father says he
can't keep a job in this economy, but I am still expected to provide I
can't just say to my daughter I am sick to day so you cannot eat.

Not his problem. It's YOUR problem and YOUR 100% obligation and
responsibility to support YOUR children. YOU choose to bear children.
Women have sole and exclusive rights to decide whether or not to bear a
child. YOU are responsible. Crying and whining about men's money does
not relieve YOU of YOUR responsibility to support your children.


The
expectation gets left on me because I am there. She looks to me
because I am there what are we suppose to do just give our kids to the
state or do we fight for their voice in the mist of every one being
concerned about themselves.

YOU made the exclusive choice to bear the child. YOU are 100%
responsible to support your child regardless of the father's co-equal
responsibility. Whining about men-pay, women-get-paid is NOT about the
children. It's YOUR greed and lack of responsibility.


There are men who drop babies like flies

Nope. No men drops a baby. Only women. Go take biology again.


yes the mother bears some of the responsibility but she faces and
deals with that responsibility every day when she loves and provides
for her babies while he runs all over the state dropping babies and
you feel he should not be treated more harshly please!

The mother has the ONLY legal "choice" whether or not to bear a child.
The mother has full responsibility for her choice, regardless of
whatever responsibility the father also has.

If you want the father to support the children, bring the children to
the father. Don't whine about some failed feminazi experiment designed
to put men into slavery to pay women.


I live with my
decision every day and have to face those challenges every day and
these dads have to also.

Have you taken the child to his/her father?

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

In message , free
writes
I understand your concerns but it seems that every one forgets about
the children. When a ncp is out of work or sick is the child just
suppose to starve or go with out clothing or shelter.

How is the NCP supposed to pay money he (or she) doesn't have? Rob a
bank perhaps? What if the NCP were dead? Is the child supposed to
starve or go without clothing or shelter?


I am a parent
who has recieved no support in over a year the reason father says he
can't keep a job in this economy, but I am still expected to provide I
can't just say to my daughter I am sick to day so you cannot eat.

Do you go out to work even when you're seriously ill? Can you still
collect you wages/salary when you're unemployed? Amazing!

The
expectation gets left on me because I am there. She looks to me
because I am there what are we suppose to do just give our kids to the
state or do we fight for their voice in the mist of every one being
concerned about themselves.

You (and you alone) chose to have a child. Unlike the father, you had
other options.

There are men who drop babies like flies
yes the mother bears some of the responsibility but she faces and
deals with that responsibility every day when she loves and provides
for her babies while he runs all over the state dropping babies and
you feel he should not be treated more harshly please!

Women "drop babies" (the phrase means "give birth"). It takes two to
conceive a child but the decision to carry to term is the woman's.

I live with my
decision every day and have to face those challenges every day and
these dads have to also.

No. You live with *your* decision and you expect the child's father to
live with *your* decision too.

--
Mike