Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

No I'm not a lesbian.. but I have thought that maybe you are gay??

"Chris" wrote in message
news:0GCrb.14283$0K6.12687@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths
Authors: Sanford L. Braver, Diane O'Connell

Deadbeat dads: Divorced fathers pay 90 percent of the child support
they
have been ordered to pay. Fully employed divorced fathers pay all that
is
due. In addition, they pay visitation expenses. [Depending on the
extent
of
the research providing the result, fathers (all fathers including
never
married) pay 70-80 percent of what they have been ordered to pay. The
low
end  70 percent  relies on recipient surveys that do not account for
money
that is paid but withheld as repayment for welfare, and possible bias.
In
all cases, the primary cause of non-payment is that the person ordered
to
pay is unable to pay.]

Ha ha.. this is a joke right? Thats why there is SOOOO much owed in
back
child support and the amounts continue to rise. Non-payment is that
the
person ordered to pay is unable to pay? ha ha.. thats the best joke ive
heard yet. Jumping from job to job avoiding payments, tracking across
state
lines to avoid payment, not sending ANYTHING at all instead of what they
can, yeah thats really a good reason!!!


The No-Show Dad: The rate of contact between fathers and their
children
following divorce shows "paternal devotion and tenacity [that] is
entirely
at odds with the more popular image of the runaways, absentee, or
disappearing dad."

Ha.. funny joke again. Im laughing at these good job finding the best
jokes on the internet today.

Standards of Living: Women with children are, as a group, better off
financially following divorce than men. That's right, it's not the
other
way
around.

Ha.. now thats funny. Especially when after the divorce most women end
up
in a poverty situation and on top of that we add the non-support from
daddy
....hmm


Terms of Divorce: Far from being docile, easily manipulated victims of
a
male dominated divorce system, women have always fared well in
negotiations
and settlements. Men are far more likely to be the biggest losers in
the
process.

Ha again. Hardly.. Men are just sore because they have to give up their
material things when they "think" they should get everything.

"Everything"?


Emotional Issues of Divorce: Women are happier after divorce than men.
Given
the results related to the other myths, this is likely to cause the
least
surprise. They have the children, they are better off financially,
they
drive better cars, their situation is less likely to interfere with
new
relationships and remarriage ....

Women are happier after divorce becasue they finally got smart and got
rid
of a pos. They dont have to put up with the mans **** anymore. Drive
nicer cars?? ha ha.. thats funny. Most Single MOthers I know do NOT
drive
nice cars and if they do its usually because their parents help them
out.
better off financially? Majority live in poverty.. I guess if thats
being
better off financially then whoppee!!! Their situation is LESS LIKELY
to
interfere?? yeah thats why most single mothers are seen by other men as
having baggage.. lol. Man this stuff you post is so funny.


Who leaves the marriage ... and why it matters: " ... women initiate
the
preponderance (63 - 75%) of modern divorces ..." It matters because it
vindicates the finding that men do less well then women after divorce,
because the blame heaped on men for divorce should be addressed, and
because
the myth serves to further unlevel the playing field of domestic
relations
law and politics on which fathers are already disadvantaged.

It matters because women are finally standing up for themselves and not
putting up with mens ****. Thats why it matters!!! Poor victims
Fathers..
give me a break.

With all due respect, are you a lesbian?


"Chris" wrote in message
news:HEprb.11960$0K6.11380@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the
group.
You
all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men
trying
their
hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise.

You believe everything you see in print?


"Chris" wrote in message
news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

By Gary S. Becker
July 18, 1994
BusinessWeek

More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is
mainly
because
of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by
unmarried
mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support
payments
by
noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as
the
mothers,
it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who
meet
their
obligations.

It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well
as
the
emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men
will
hesitate
to
father children if they know they'll have a tougher time
evading
the
duty
to
support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as
materially
when
their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to
pay
up,
they
might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since
they
would
no
longer be avoiding detection.

A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many
one-parent
families would rise above the poverty level if all
child-support
obligations
were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of
child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by
mothers'
failure
to
report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes
fathers
sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are
excessive.

This group makes some valid points, but it is still important
to
improve
compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed
legislation
in
1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection
efforts,
with
the
Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier
to
garnishee
wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to
jail
those
who
refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better
track
of
where
fathers live and how much they owe.

PATERNITY WARDS
As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton
recently
proposed
stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses
to
track
interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's
licenses
to
fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such
rules),
and
by
requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is
for
every
baby
born.

Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the
numbers
of
fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human
Services
Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state
agencies
are
collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support
cases.
Many
fathers
continue to successfully avoid detection by state
governments --
in
some
cases by fleeing to another state.

One reason for the low figure is that state collection
agencies
concentrate
on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish
the
identity
of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public
spending
is
reduced when families receive enough child support to go off
welfare.

But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the
support
due
them.
Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have
turned
to
private collectors to track down the fathers of their
children.
These
collectors have often been quite successful: They may
garnishee
the
wages
of
fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they
pay
up.

BOUNTY HUNTERS?
Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee,
but
their
main
source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges
from
one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem
like
a
big
cut,
but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by
companies
collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy
groups
oppose
the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because
they
hate
to
see
large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the
children.
But
mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail
to
get
what
is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of
what
is
collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing.

Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail,
because
government officials lack financial incentives to track down
fathers
who
are
in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from
what
some
mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and
collect
from
recalcitrant fathers.

Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state
governments
may
evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but
it
would
be
an
effective response to the failure of state agencies.
Privatization
of
state
collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt:
States
have
hired
private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for
example.

Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations
to
strengthen
the government's hand in collecting child support. But the
laws
already
on
the books would be much more effective in reducing the number
of
children
raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired
private
collectors to track down deadbeat fathers.

What's with these old stories?

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths
Authors: Sanford L. Braver, Diane O'Connell

Deadbeat dads: Divorced fathers pay 90 percent of the child support they
have been ordered to pay. Fully employed divorced fathers pay all that is
due.

This is not true across the board. There's actually a very high likelihood
of payment if the agreement is voluntary but there is significant drop if
the court imposes a judgement.

It's entirely likely that the bulk of the so-called deadbeats are unable to
pay because they are truely broke.

Cameron

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
news
First of all the income of the father is reported by the father NOT what
the
NCP "women" wants to report. In fact most states require three years of
tax
returns as well as recent pay stubs from each party to determine the
amount
of CS that should be paid.

FFK you are lost again. The state uses the Employment Department's records
to determine past earnings for the NCP. The state on the mothers behalf
tell the father what they are going to show the court the CS award should
be. It's up to the father to show the state is incorrect or other factors
should be considered. The mother can claim his earnings are not enough
because there are other income sources not reported to the state and get the
father's income imputed to what she says it should be. she can claim things
like stock options, annual bonuses, deferred compensation, retirement
contributions, etc. that the state employment records do not include.

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
ANCPR's reporting aside...

No one said having a child is cheap, when you look at the "average"
American
one would find that they are living beyond their means, essentially buying
their needs through credit not based on what they can afford.

This is not a surprise. This is the state of the nation not a revelation on
CS.

I have no sympathy for someone who is 50,000 behind on support, or makes
no
payments at all for months at a time or even years. It isn't about moving
from job to job, its about evading child support. Its about making
sacrifices for your children which apparently the NCP isn't willing to
make.

Nor do I. Many people here are fed up with those people who make it a goal
to evade the responsibility. These true deadbeats make it easy to persecute
the NCPs that are doing their best to stay afloat with CS and visitation.

The system should be focused on the fair collection of CS. Judgements and
systems that collect or place enforcement on people that cannot pay are
pointless and a waste of money, tax dollars.

Cameron

Well Done Dusty...

Captures a reality many have faced very accurately.

Cameron

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Ive seen this on some sites, one in particular called ANCPR which tries
to
use tables that show how the CP makes out in the end. It basically
takes
the support for the child out of the NCP's income and then adds this
amount
to the CP's income coming out with the ending income of the CP's income
higher. IT fails however to take the expenses of raising a child out of
the
CP's income, probably because it would show the CP worse off financially
in
the long run.

OK, I'm going to use some basic, simple math and show you where this is
wrong.

Bill and Mary both work and make about the same amount of money. For the
sake of convenience, lets say that they each make $40,000 a year, pre-tax.
Or $26,940 take home (post-tax of 32.65% includes state (5.5%) and federal
taxes (19.5%), plus social security and Medicaid deductions (7.65%)).
They
have a combined income of $53,880

Or.. $40,000 - 32.65% = $26,940

Bill and Mary have two (2) kids, she hears that she can make out like a
bandit from her girlfriend Anna. Mary divorces Bill on grounds of
irreconcilable differences, gets the kids, the car, the house, the tax
break
from having custody of the kids, but she does have to pay half of the
combined marital debt ($5200), gets $600 a month in CS from Bill's job as
an
arm-chair tester.

Bill is ordered by the court to pay 50% of the mortgage on the house
($600),
50% of the marital debt ($5200), must keep up with the car payments ($150)
and the insurance ($100), must pay CS of $600 (pre-tax, so he must pay the
taxes on this money). On top of all this, he is expected to keep a place
of
his own, do all the transportation of the kids to and from his place (he
gets them every Wednesday and every other weekend), get a car for himself,
food and clothing for himself and the children (including paying for toys,
pots and pans, etc..).

So, let's see what we have now, OK?

Bill brings home $518.08 per week, after taxes. Or $2245 per month. For
clarity, I'm going to use with the monthly amount to see what Bill will
have
each month to spend on himself.

$2245.00
- $600.00 CS
-$150.00 Car
-$100.00 Insurance
-$600.00 Mortgage
-$100.00 Marital Debt
-----------
$695.00

So after all that, we see that Bill has $695.00 a month to work with.
What
I haven't deducted is the cost of a 3 bedroom apartment, cost of upkeep
for
his car, car payments, insurance for said car, food, clothing and other
basic things.

Now, let's look at Mary...

$2245.00
+ $600.00 CS
-$600.00 Mortgage
-$100.00 Marital Debt
-----------
$2145.00

Looks to me like Mary's makin' out very well.

OK, now let's say the market in Arm-chair Testers falters in the stock
market. He finds himself facing the prospect of being out of work for
several months. As soon as Bill is out of work he goes to court and
requests a decrease of the CS (because he has no idea how long he'll be
out
of work and doesn't want to get behind and find himself one of those
dreaded
"Dead Beat Dads"). The judge says no and INCREASES his CS. The judge
calls
it "incentive". On top of that Mary's attorney convinces the court that
Bill is behind in his CS (he isn't, Mary's attorney did the math wrong) by
$5200.00 (this is the marital debt - it is NOT CS and cannot become CS by
the wave of a hand).

The judge says "OK, he's behind in CS payments of $5200.00 So, to make
him
pay I'm increasing the CS to $1000.00 per month to pay this off."

SO, let's do the math again...

Bill has $695.00 per month to live on and now has an additional $400
arrears
to cover.

$695.00
-$400.00
-----------
$295.00

So tell me FFK, can you live on less then $300 a month? Muchless care for
your kids when they are with you. I can't.

Oh, let's not forget Mary's change in monthly available cash flow...

$2145 + $400 = $2545.00

Hummmm.... I see that Mary is now making more then she ever had before...

And so, 24 months later, Bill is still not employed, he's threatened with
jail time, has been back to court several times, with no luck at getting
his
CS lowered and is considering suicide to end the constant emotional pain
of
not being able to see his kids.

The total debt is now a whopping $29,300.00 Bill has been living in
shelters, working menial jobs (most, if not all, of the money taken by the
local Child Support Agency), has no car, phone, or home. His credit is
ruined because of the way the laws are written. He can get work, but the
job is in India and because of the way the laws (if you owe $5000 or more
in
CS, you don't get a passport) are written, he can't go.

This is what is known as a "Catch-22". And divorced fathers face this
every
day. This isn't "evading child support", it's a father that can't make
payments because he's been ruined by the bias of the courts, a vengeful
ex-wife, a greedy attorney and illegal laws.

Is what happened to Bill all his fault. No. Could he have done something
about it? Perhaps, but with the bias in the courts, that option was
deigned
him. Now, he is financially in ruins and may never make it out of the
hole
he's in. For that matter, he cannot see his children because they are in
another state (mother moved to be closer to her family).

Is this what's in the best interest of the children? No.
Is Bill's treatment by the court unusual? NO, it is typical.

So, tell me how this is a good thing?


I have no sympathy for someone who is 50,000 behind on support, or makes
no
payments at all for months at a time or even years. It isn't about
moving
from job to job, its about evading child support. Its about making
sacrifices for your children which apparently the NCP isn't willing to
make.

Where the hell do you get this crap from??

The states use what is known as the "Income Shares Model" to figure out how
much in CS is to be paid. But this amount is also open to interpitation by
the judge, who can, on a whim, increase or decrese this amount (i.e.; they
increase the amount) based on imputed income.

This practice is very questionalbe and most certainly illegal because it's
base on what the judge -thinks- you "should" be able to make. It's
not based on factual information, just what the judge believes you should be
able to make.

In my brother's case, no tax returns or pay stubs where ever asked for -
from either of them.

Sorry, FFK, you are wrong once again.

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
news
First of all the income of the father is reported by the father NOT what
the
NCP "women" wants to report. In fact most states require three years of
tax
returns as well as recent pay stubs from each party to determine the
amount
of CS that should be paid.

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...
"cigon" wrote in message
...
t. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers'

This is a reasonable claim. Often the CP claims support based on what
she
THINKS the NCP should be making, not on any realistic amounts.

Cameron

Oh, right, 84 messages sent out on 11/2/03 between 1:08 PM and 7:17 PM does
not constitute a flood?

What drugs are you on????

Or, as you're so fond of saying - What planet are you on???

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
I'm not "flooding" any more than you cronies here that insist that you are
right. Much of what you say is simply cut and pasted from other "men's
rights" sights.

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

By Gary S. Becker
July 18, 1994
BusinessWeek

More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly
because
of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried
mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by
noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the
mothers,
it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet
their
obligations.

.... anyway

FFK,

Rather than spewing all these stories can you form your own arguements?
Aside from certain issues with copyright your attempts to flood the
group
with these stories do not really add to any particular cause. Inflaming
a
situation does not contribute to resolution. We might just value your
opinions if you stated a significant argument Links to relevant facts
are
helpful, use the links to support arguments, but don't flood.

Cameron

Cameron, you are partly right on several counts. Allow me to explain..

It -is- true that 90% or better of divorced fathers do pay *some if not
most* of their CS obligation.

When the courts get involved there is a proven correlation between CS
payments and visitation enforcement. Fathers that can see their children
are much more likely to pay most or all of their CS in "exchange" for being
able to be involved with their children.

In cases where the X interferes with visitation, then it's good bye CS. And
the courts know of this, but just see them enforce a visitation order...
won't happen. Or, it will rarely happen. I know of in my brothers case, he
was told by the local cop shop that they don't enforce custody orders. That
was in MA. In NH they surely do enforce it!

Your last point, dead-beats being truly broke... is right on the money! As
a matter of fact, just a few short years ago, the state of FL sent out
500,000 letters to supposed "dead-beats". They later found out that (to
their complete embarrassment) something on the order of 200,000 - 300,000 of
the letters that the state was coming to get them actually went to DEAD
PEOPLE. Some of them long gone, too.

They (the state of FL) don't like to talk about it much... Neither do
wing-nuts like FFK and her friends at NOW.

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths
Authors: Sanford L. Braver, Diane O'Connell

Deadbeat dads: Divorced fathers pay 90 percent of the child support they
have been ordered to pay. Fully employed divorced fathers pay all that
is
due.

This is not true across the board. There's actually a very high likelihood
of payment if the agreement is voluntary but there is significant drop if
the court imposes a judgement.

It's entirely likely that the bulk of the so-called deadbeats are unable
to
pay because they are truely broke.

Cameron

Thanks, it wasn't very hard to do. I based it on what I know of my
brother's case. It's a lot more involved, but the general points are there.

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
news
Well Done Dusty...

Captures a reality many have faced very accurately.

Cameron

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Ive seen this on some sites, one in particular called ANCPR which
tries
to
use tables that show how the CP makes out in the end. It basically
takes
the support for the child out of the NCP's income and then adds this
amount
to the CP's income coming out with the ending income of the CP's
income
higher. IT fails however to take the expenses of raising a child out
of
the
CP's income, probably because it would show the CP worse off
financially
in
the long run.

OK, I'm going to use some basic, simple math and show you where this is
wrong.

Bill and Mary both work and make about the same amount of money. For
the
sake of convenience, lets say that they each make $40,000 a year,
pre-tax.
Or $26,940 take home (post-tax of 32.65% includes state (5.5%) and
federal
taxes (19.5%), plus social security and Medicaid deductions (7.65%)).
They
have a combined income of $53,880

Or.. $40,000 - 32.65% = $26,940

Bill and Mary have two (2) kids, she hears that she can make out like a
bandit from her girlfriend Anna. Mary divorces Bill on grounds of
irreconcilable differences, gets the kids, the car, the house, the tax
break
from having custody of the kids, but she does have to pay half of the
combined marital debt ($5200), gets $600 a month in CS from Bill's job
as
an
arm-chair tester.

Bill is ordered by the court to pay 50% of the mortgage on the house
($600),
50% of the marital debt ($5200), must keep up with the car payments
($150)
and the insurance ($100), must pay CS of $600 (pre-tax, so he must pay
the
taxes on this money). On top of all this, he is expected to keep a
place
of
his own, do all the transportation of the kids to and from his place (he
gets them every Wednesday and every other weekend), get a car for
himself,
food and clothing for himself and the children (including paying for
toys,
pots and pans, etc..).

So, let's see what we have now, OK?

Bill brings home $518.08 per week, after taxes. Or $2245 per month. For
clarity, I'm going to use with the monthly amount to see what Bill will
have
each month to spend on himself.

$2245.00
- $600.00 CS
-$150.00 Car
-$100.00 Insurance
-$600.00 Mortgage
-$100.00 Marital Debt
-----------
$695.00

So after all that, we see that Bill has $695.00 a month to work with.
What
I haven't deducted is the cost of a 3 bedroom apartment, cost of upkeep
for
his car, car payments, insurance for said car, food, clothing and other
basic things.

Now, let's look at Mary...

$2245.00
+ $600.00 CS
-$600.00 Mortgage
-$100.00 Marital Debt
-----------
$2145.00

Looks to me like Mary's makin' out very well.

OK, now let's say the market in Arm-chair Testers falters in the stock
market. He finds himself facing the prospect of being out of work for
several months. As soon as Bill is out of work he goes to court and
requests a decrease of the CS (because he has no idea how long he'll be
out
of work and doesn't want to get behind and find himself one of those
dreaded
"Dead Beat Dads"). The judge says no and INCREASES his CS. The judge
calls
it "incentive". On top of that Mary's attorney convinces the court that
Bill is behind in his CS (he isn't, Mary's attorney did the math wrong)
by
$5200.00 (this is the marital debt - it is NOT CS and cannot become CS
by
the wave of a hand).

The judge says "OK, he's behind in CS payments of $5200.00 So, to make
him
pay I'm increasing the CS to $1000.00 per month to pay this off."

SO, let's do the math again...

Bill has $695.00 per month to live on and now has an additional $400
arrears
to cover.

$695.00
-$400.00
-----------
$295.00

So tell me FFK, can you live on less then $300 a month? Muchless care
for
your kids when they are with you. I can't.

Oh, let's not forget Mary's change in monthly available cash flow...

$2145 + $400 = $2545.00

Hummmm.... I see that Mary is now making more then she ever had
before...

And so, 24 months later, Bill is still not employed, he's threatened
with
jail time, has been back to court several times, with no luck at getting
his
CS lowered and is considering suicide to end the constant emotional pain
of
not being able to see his kids.

The total debt is now a whopping $29,300.00 Bill has been living in
shelters, working menial jobs (most, if not all, of the money taken by
the
local Child Support Agency), has no car, phone, or home. His credit is
ruined because of the way the laws are written. He can get work, but
the
job is in India and because of the way the laws (if you owe $5000 or
more
in
CS, you don't get a passport) are written, he can't go.

This is what is known as a "Catch-22". And divorced fathers face this
every
day. This isn't "evading child support", it's a father that can't make
payments because he's been ruined by the bias of the courts, a vengeful
ex-wife, a greedy attorney and illegal laws.

Is what happened to Bill all his fault. No. Could he have done
something
about it? Perhaps, but with the bias in the courts, that option was
deigned
him. Now, he is financially in ruins and may never make it out of the
hole
he's in. For that matter, he cannot see his children because they are
in
another state (mother moved to be closer to her family).

Is this what's in the best interest of the children? No.
Is Bill's treatment by the court unusual? NO, it is typical.

So, tell me how this is a good thing?


I have no sympathy for someone who is 50,000 behind on support, or
makes
no
payments at all for months at a time or even years. It isn't about
moving
from job to job, its about evading child support. Its about making
sacrifices for your children which apparently the NCP isn't willing to
make.

FFK strikes me as a very angry woman who ate up all the anti-male rhetoric
that NOW spews out to anyone that will listen.

She reminds me of my brother's X, she's so ****ed that he was even born!
And he -never- hit her, spoke ill of her, yelled at her, or was abusive to
her in any way, shape or form. Yet, X wants his head on a platter and his
balls in a vice. Hell the three attorneys that I helped him get all asked
the same question: "What did you do to **** this woman off?" He always
replied, "Nothing, save for being born and marring her."

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
I'm not "flooding" any more than you cronies here that insist that you
are
right. Much of what you say is simply cut and pasted from other "men's
rights" sights.

Firstly, it's a SITE not a SIGHT.

Secondly, I rarely post more than a link. I paste opinion and suggestions.

Thirdly, You seem to feel that NCPs are a problem. Do you feel they all
are?
Are all NCPs Deadbeats?

Cameron