Archive for the ‘legislation’ Category

The Restraining Order Conclusion

September 22, 2008

After filing the petition for a restraining order on September 2nd, 2004, a hearing was scheduled for the following week on September 8th. PEW was appropriately served her notice and showed up with her legal representation. After lengthy discussion with my attorney, he was confident that I could handle this on my own and effectively told me to stick to the facts as I had presented them in the petition and do not deviate. Explain the story, provide your evidence (police reports and calls) and it should be granted.

Now, many attorneys do their “pro bono” work as may be required by their firms during restraining order issues. I was approached by one and decided to go ahead and take it. With a few hours to go until it was our turn, I filled him in on all of the details and he agreed that it was quite likely that I would get the restraining order.

I requested the following:

  • Restrain Defendant from abusing, threatening, harassing, or stalking Plaintiff and/or minor children in any place where Plaintiff may be found.
  • Evict/exclude Defendant from Plaintiff’s residence and prohibit Defendant from attempting to enter any temporary or permanent residence of Plaintiff.
  • Award Plaintiff temporary custody of the minor children and place the following restrictions on contact between the Defendant and the children: “Any agreed-upon visitation requires an exchange no closer than the driveway of the marital residence with no entry into the home.”
  • Prohibit Defendant from having any contact with Plaintiff and/or minor children either in person, by telephone, or in writing, personally or through third persons, including but not limited to any contact at school, business, or place of employment, except as the court may find necessary with respect to partial custody and/or visitation with the minor children.
  • Prohibit Defendant from having any contact with the Plaintiff’s relatives and Plaintiff’s children listed in this petition, except as the court may find necessary with respect to partial custody and/or visitation with the minor children.
  • Order Defendant to temporarily turn over weapons to the sheriff of this county and prohibit Defendant from transferring, acquiring, or possessing any such weapons for the duration of the order.
  • Order Defendant to pay temporary support for Plaintiff and/or minor children, including medical support and payment of the rent or mortgage on the residence.
  • Direct Defendant to pay Plaintiff for the reasonable financial losses suffered as a result of the abuse, to be determined at hearing.
  • Order Defendant to pay the costs of this action, including filing and service fees.
  • Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees.
  • Grant such relief as the court deems appropriate.
  • Order the police or other law enforcement agency to serve Defendant with a copy of this petition, any order issued and the order for hearing. The petitioner will inform the designated authority of any addresses, other than the Defendant’s residence, where Defendant can be served.

So, my pro bono attorney meets with the other side to try to get the lay of the land and see what he can make happen. When he returns after a lengthy discussion, he informs me that the other side is willing to accept the petition with one exception – that the children be excluded from the restraint.

When I explain to him that the greater portion of my fear is that the children could ultimately be harmed by her increasingly escalating behaviors, the attorney explains that I have a solid case on the firearms issue. She will be found guilty and the court would very likely impose all of that which I have asked for, except the temporary custody of the children. I allow myself to be talked into it. We avoid the hearing by allowing everything relevant to my own protection to proceed, most importantly, her immediate turning-over of the firearms to the Sheriff’s department. And again, I get another lesson in the mother-favoritism in family court.

Another hindsight lesson for anyone in a similar spot is here. While I will always suggest that you default to listening to the attorney’s advice, I will now suggest that you follow your gut… follow your instincts… do a risk/reward analysis. I believe I made a mistake in listening to this attorney’s advice as I had nothing to lose by going to a hearing. In that situation, where there is truly no downside to proceeding – PROCEED and see if you can get all of the relief you’ve asked for. I wasn’t going to jail. I wasn’t going to be sanctioned. I had the complete upper-hand. And I gave away a potentially strong opportunity to gain primary, if not sole, custody of the children because of PEW’s criminal behavior. I let the “expert” talk me into this because of the mantra “always listen to your attorney.” Well, folks… I’m hear to tell you that attorneys can be wrong. Attorneys make mistakes. Attorneys can give bad advice. Assess each situation on its own merits and if your instincts are telling you to follow through with the hearing and there is literally no downside to trying to push through and get what you asked for – JUST DO IT!

I thought that between winning the hearing over the schooling issue followed so closely by these events and subsequent restraining order being accepted by her without a fight/defense, I had a couple of major tools needed to protect myself and gain primary custody of the children. I would be able to protect them from her madness. My confidence level was quite high.

Still, following the advice of the pro bono attorney and not following through on the hearing, even though I still get the PFA, was probably another of several big blunders on my part. My high confidence level would soon be shattered as we go through the custody evaluation and panic begins to take hold.


The restraining order was entered for a duration of 18-months. I received exclusive possession of the marital home (though she wasn’t required to make any contributions to the mortgage or upkeep, which pretty much was the same as when we were married). She was required to turn over the stolen firearms to the Sheriff’s office.

In an early example of PEW’s penchant for willful disregard of court orders, I received a call from her 2-weeks after this hearing. She explained to me that her neighbors told her that a couple of Sheriff’s officers were looking for her at her place earlier in the day and if I had anything to do with it. I told her that I did not.

It turns out, she hadn’t turned over the firearms to the Sheriff’s department and a bench warrant was issued for her arrest. In keeping with her ability to get out of certain trouble – she turned over the firearms shortly thereafter. Still, she had to go before the court and explain the delay in compliance. I wasn’t there for it, but I’m sure she turned on the crying faucet, made some lame excuse, and was not sanctioned for her willful disobedience of the court’s orders. She is contempt of court, she is already in violation of the PFA by continuing to hold the firearms – and NOTHING is done. No sanctions. No arrest. No penalty whatsoever. 4-years later, I’m no longer surprised when these things happen to me or anyone else.

Alec Baldwin Discusses Family & Divorce Court on 20/20

September 21, 2008

“Corrupt, Inefficient, Lazy, and Stupid” is how Alec Baldwin describes the lawyers, judges, and others who are part of the Divorce and Custody Industry. Yes, it’s an industry which generates billions of dollars of revenue and income for the states and all of the players within the system.

And so opened the story featured on ABC’s program 20/20 on September 19th, 2008.

Alec Baldwin is stepping up to the plate and is making a concerted effort to do something about what he calls the “delays and manipulations” that serve to destroy and divide divorcing families more than the circumstances at hand often do. I believe that this is something that we all want to see happen in our lifetimes. Baldwin’s struggles were apparently so bad that he had even contemplated suicide. When one stops to consider that more the 25,000 men in this country commit suicide each year, you have to wonder how many of those men were in the midst of a bitter divorce and custody battle that saw them marginalized as a parent, stripped of their right to be a parent, and relegated to little more than a wallet, from which states strive daily to extract the maximum amount of money “in the best interests of the children.” Men commit suicide at a rate that is 4-times greater than women.

Throughout his lengthy struggles in family court and the years he lost with his daughter, Ireland, he struggled with depression and despair. These types of feelings and experiences are repeated tens-of-thousands of times over in this country and abroad.

Diane Sawyer, even at the very outset of the interview, sought to label Baldwin’s rather low opinion of the divorce & family court system as a “scorched earth” attitude. Baldwin wisely countered that such an attitude defines one who actively seeks the negative in a particular situation. This is not what he did, but in reality, the situation was “thrust” into his face. It is his experience that brought him to these realizations. Again, this is a point with which I agree. My own attitudes, for reasons even unknown to me, led me to believe that things had changed in divorce & family court for the better for fathers since my own parents split up. I would soon learn that nothing could be further from the truth.

He describes his feelings for the love of his love, daughter Ireland – “When I’m with her, I am happy.” Aren’t we all when in the company of our children who we love unconditionally? His marriage to Kim Basinger began to fall apart when Ireland was 5-years old.

When asked about the warning signs that signaled the end of his marriage was near, he refused to divulge details, laughing at one point when telling Sawyer that Basinger would probably be a lot more “chatty” about warning signals about him manifested themselves to her. Then, Baldwin made a statement that I suspect will ring true throughout the overwhelming majority of divorced men in high-conflict situations.

“The harshest thing I could say is I was married to someone for whom all dissent was abuse. If you had your own opinion, you were abusive.”


This describes my psycho ex-wife in a nutshell. It encapsulates her attitude about everything and like many other words that serve as lightning-rods for those with an agenda, the definition of what is “abuse” has been so bastardized today as to make it’s true definition completely meaningless. If you are divorcing someone who takes this attitude – you’re in for a long and difficult divorce and custody process that will be rife with accusations that you probably think are unimaginable to be attributed to you.

While asserting that he and Basinger did not argue all the time and, when they did, it was his belief that nothing he ever argued about was over something that was insignificant, he maintains that nothing occurred in the marriage that was deserving of anything that took place in its aftermath. The dreaded high-profile custody battle lasting 8-years… 365 documents… 91 court proceedings… 8 lawyers… 4 judges… 3-million dollars.

It started, as many do, with the mother removing the child from the marital home and moving some long distance away, in this case, from Los Angeles to New York, with Basinger citing Ireland’s “health” as the reason. Once a “court sponsored mediator” began to analyze a custody arrangement, Alec Baldwin didn’t see Ireland for 2-years (except for very infrequent arrangements during the process) and, Baldwin asserts, he had done absolutely nothing wrong. He did what he could to remain in her life, volunteering at school and being local to her as often as possible. This type of story is played out every day an untold number of times by people with far less financial resources than Alec Baldwin. So, we can see where thousands of fathers fail where Baldwin, thus far, has been able to succeed, assuming you can call his mess a “success” at this point. Of course, the more involved he tried to be, the more Basinger, he alleges, began to turn Ireland against him and he spoke of parental alienation syndrome.

His forthcoming book, A Promise to Ourselves: A Journey Through Fatherhood and Divorce chronicles his experiences and provides details of the horrifying and sad stories of the impact of parental alienation on his daughter and himself. “Mommy says you’re sick” is an exact phrase I’ve heard come from my own children and unlike Baldwin who told Sawyer that he said absolutely nothing to Ireland when she told him this, I would simply tell my children that what mom said simply wasn’t true and that I was sorry that they had to hear that.

Unsurprisingly, Baldwin was ordered into “anger management” classes, like so many fathers are on the simple accusations of the mother, and he followed the order to attend. And while being a public figure, Baldwin’s occasional outburst become tabloid fodder, for many low-profile fathers, that’s not necessarily the case and yet – they’ll be ordered into them just the same. The problem that arises with this situation is that once ordered into one, there is a perception that you have anger problems or are an abuser and that impacts the attitudes of those charged with making the life-affecting decisions regarding your parenthood. The typical anger-management class is predicated on the shameful “Duluth Model” which is a feminist-driven agenda item that blames all of the evils of society on men. (Perhaps a post for another day.)

Just as the court sponsored mediator was preparing to award joint-custody after these first two years of limited contact, the Basinger attorneys exercised their right to FIRE the mediator. They did this the day before she was to make her recommendation. The problem with this? It sets them back to the very beginning. The classic delay tactic of a vindictive, malicious mother. Off to court they go! When describing his feelings about the court experience Baldwin said:

“The lawyers are there to make money. It’s an industry. It’s a racket. Judges are like pit bosses in Vegas casinos. Their job is to make sure everyone stays at the table and keeps gambling.”


Folks, there exists no better description of the family court system at-large.

8-months later, the judge awards joint custody in his case. He would fly across the country every other weekend to spend his “court authorized time” with his daughter. He even went so far as to have phone calls scheduled right into the order. The incessant interference with these calls is what would lead to the now famous voice mail that Baldwin left to his daughter in a moment of frustration. Alec Baldwin even rented a home 9-doors away from Ireland. However, Basinger was allegedly already driving a wedge between he and his daughter.

A montage of father videos is shown with them speaking of the alienation from their children and Baldwin discusses this more in-depth. He calls the situation a “national crisis” and that fathers all over the country are paying a steep price, along with the children. His belief and the belief of many others, is that parental alienation is a form of child abuse. It is largely a woman-on-man “crime” and it’s furthered by the gender bias that exists in America’s family courts.

When normal male behavior is being characterized as abuse, even the slightest action demonstrated during a normal emotion can cost you custody of your children. He uses an example of having an argument with your wife and smashing your cellphone down in the driveway now being characterized as “abuse.” (There are actually worse examples of that and nowadays, just saying something that hurts your spouse’s feelings can be characterized as abuse.) On the flip side, Baldwin again validates the beliefs of most men who are involved in a custody dispute or close to some father involved in one, when he says:

“You gotta catch the mother, as I said in the book, with a crack pipe in one hand, in bed with her pimp, and the child chained to a radiator before they do anything.”


Much to my dismay, Joan Myer, professor of law at George Washington University claims, “Family courts are bending over backwards to bring fathers into their children’s lives.” Of course, she doesn’t substantiate that in the limited time given with any objective evidence of such. Further, my research, my experience, and the experiences of those with whom I interact on a daily basis and via this blog lead me to believe that nothing could be further from the truth. Further, she goes on to outright dismiss parental alienation syndrome and, much like the radical feminist that I imagine she is (and I will look into it) she further propagates the myth that parental alienation is claimed by people who are using it to “defeat abuse claims.” Sawyer cites the National Organization of Women’s cloak of defense with their (accurate, if misleading) claim that PAS is not a “recognized syndrome” and it’s not “legally child abuse” in terms of it being a chargeable offense. You’ll notice how neither denies that poisoning a child’s mind against the other parent is possible and easily achievable, especially when the target parent has been forced to the fringes or out of their children’s lives.

I concur with Baldwin’s statements and I’m certain that many fathers would echo the sentiment that fathers who wish to be fully involved in their children’s lives “loathe and despise” fathers who physically or sexually abuse their children… who have the means but willfully fail to pay reasonable support… who abandon women whom they’ve impregnated. However:

“It doesn’t change the fact that there are women who get divorced and in order to punish, out of this bitter, bitter hatred that some of these women have for their ex-husbands – they turn their children against them. Everybody knows that’s real.”


Still, the interference with Baldwin’s custodial time with Ireland was granted with the full support of the court, on the 2nd-hand claim that Ireland said that she “felt unsafe” around Alec. Another investigation, another extended period of no time with his daughter, charges dismissed, custodial time restored. I’ve experienced these same types of claims repeatedly from my own psycho ex-wife. The children don’t like spending time with me. They are afraid of me. They don’t want to come to be with me. They hate it with me. It’s indescribably disgusting.

When speaking about the phone rant towards his daughter, he described the experiences and frustrations of the reality that less than 25% of his phone calls were getting through or returned or otherwise being facilitated by the other side. It is a moment he regrets. Still, in the face of hard questioning by Sawyer, he stood by his claim that there was an expectation of privacy and, that the bigger picture is that the voice mail was released to the tabloid website TMZ. While Kim Basinger denies being the source of the leaked tape, one can probably safely assume that Ireland wasn’t the one who sent it to TMZ and the larger tragedy is as regretful as his voice mail may have been, what kind of person/mother furthers the embarrassment suffered by her daughter by releasing it to TMZ to be broadcast all over the world?

I gotta say, I have to agree with him here. Why? Not that he was justified with his angry words towards his daughter. It’s because I am of the firm belief that there isn’t a mother or father alive (or dead, for that matter) who hasn’t said something inappropriate, unnecessary, or downright wrong to their children during the course of their lives. Let that person or persons (if they exist) be the ones to sit in righteous judgment of Baldwin’s message to Ireland on that fateful day.

A quote from Basinger along with her denial of releasing the tape to TMZ went something like this… and tell me if you haven’t seen these words in any number of emails I’ve posted from the PEW:

Her sincerest wish “is for him to finally address his unstable and irrational behavior so at some point he can potentially create a relationship with his daughter.”


It’s as if all of these women are operating from the same playbook with the same glossary of terms to use in court, in public, and in this case – on television. I’m certain Alec would read this blog as so many others have and write the same thing to me… “My story is almost exactly the same as yours. In some cases, it’s literally verbatim!” I’m sure when I read his book, I will say the same damned thing.

Alec Baldwin is launching a crusade to change the way the divorce process operates. As an example, he will push to see that if there is no evidence that the father has been abusive to the school-aged kids, he gets equal custody of the child right away. He would also like to see co-parenting coaching in an effort to prevent the types of alienation of children that he’s purported to have experienced with Ireland at the hands of Basinger.

One of his closing quotes during the segment is one that I repeat in some way, shape, or form at least 2- to 3-times per month:

“Everything with my daughter now is fine. Everything with my daughter is great, so long as the mother stays… out… of… the way.”


It’s my feeling exactly. Despite knowing the answer, and that is, I believe my PEW is truly ill, I often ask myself why she does and says the things she does. Why does she treat me the way she does, despite now having her divorce and distance between us? Why does she persist in the chaos and terror when all I want is the minimum contact necessary on matters of importance and relevant to the children? Why does she persist when I couldn’t care less what she does or is doing with her life provided it doesn’t negatively impact the children?

The bottom line is that if the psycho ex’s of the world would simply carry on with their lives and share custody of the children and limit contact to only what is absolutely necessary – life would be so much better for everyone, including them!

The Restraining Order Petition

September 17, 2008

It’s really hard to describe the feelings that overcome one in the midst of a situation like this break-in. I call it a “break-in” because that’s exactly what it was. I had the locks changed since her move-out and made the mistake of leaving downstairs windows “cracked” when I left for work. So, she ripped-out the screen, opened the window and let herself and the children into the house.

Yes – the children.

This was the first shocker for me and I remained extraordinarily calm given the situation. I couldn’t believe she had done this in front of the children, then ages 5 and 3. I had great neighbors on a wonderful block and the most heartbreaking part of this whole ordeal was the big, bright smiles on the faces of both boys and the excitement in their voices when, during that evening when they were out front playing, they were telling our next-door neighbors, excitedly, “Yeah! Mom and Dad are getting back together and we’re so excited! This is really great!” To keep a solid face I had to work very hard to choke back tears and sadness and do the parental side-stepping that was something akin to telling them, “…oh, we’ll see, there are a lot of things that need to be discussed” …and avoid ripping their hearts out of their chest again. The PEW would take care of that the next day. I still get butterflies and sadness when I think about those couple of days when I remember how the kids were.

The details of the events are best described in my petition for protection from abuse for the dates in question (9/1 & 9/2, 2004):


My wife and I had a hearing on the morning of 9/1/2004. The judge ruled in my favor, which my PEW rather upset.

Upon returning home, I changed my clothes and went to a meeting at work. At approximately 1:45PM, my phone activated and caller ID indicated that the call was coming from my home. I removed myself from the meeting and answered the phone.

The PEW identified herself to me and said, “I just wanted to let you know that I’ve broken into the house and I already check with the police. There isn’t a fucking thing you can do about it, either. I’m moving back in and I am going to make your life a living hell until you have no choice but to sell this house!”

I tried to convince The PEW to leave the home with the children. I told her that I understand that she was entitled to be there, but it didn’t have to happen today. She refused to leave and we ended the conversation.

At that time I called police radio and asked [town’s] police to send a patrol car to the home to see what was going on.

Soon thereafter, I arrived home to discover that no police had been dispatched. As PEW had stolen my firearms that I won from the home approximately 6-months ago and their return was again discussed in the morning, I asked if she had them with her and if I could have them back, at which time she replied menacingly, “Your guns? Yeah, you’ll get them back all right – you better be careful what you ask for!”

I understood that to be a threat. I again called the police and urged them to send someone over right away as I was on the premises, as was my wife and my children and that things were escalating. I believe I said that I “strongly advised” them to come to the home.

Within minutes the police arrived and spoke to us separately. They advised me that PEW was adamant about staying and that neither they nor I could force her to leave.

Later in that evening, around 10:00 PM, PEW and I had a relatively civil discussion about what transpired and of our general circumstances. PEW expressed her frustration with the situation, her living arrangements, her mounting legal bills. Of particularly serious concern to me, PEW stated specifically that she is having trouble dealing with all of this and she, “felt like ending it all” which I took as a clear reference to suicide. Furthermore, during our portion of the discussion regarding our custody issues, she said to me, “If I lose my children, I don’t know what I’d do, probably kill myself.”

This erratic behavior has me concerned for my children’s welfare, my own welfare, and even her welfare.

On Thursday, 9/2/2004, I had to run some errands in the morning. One of my stops included the police station, where I filed a report with Officer So-And-So. I informed him of my discussion and PEW’s suicide references. I further expressed to him my fear that PEW may try to hurt herself and then try to accuse me of doing it or attempt to provoke a physical confrontation. After he took my report, I headed home.

I arrived home at approximately 11:00 AM. once there, I sat down with PEW to discuss the drop-off and pick-up of S1 for school. I made a call to the after-care program to adjust my registration from full-week to drop-in.

PEW informed me that she was taking the boys to her apartment to pick-up their hermit-crabs and some other things. She returned approximately 90-minutes later without anything from the apartment. It was approximately 2:00 PM. I awakened from a nap and informed PEW of my intentions to go into work.

PEW asked me to wait, let the boys out into the yard, and she went into the bathroom. Upon exiting the bathroom, she informed me that she was moving back out. I was shocked because the boys were already very confused by the previous days’ events. They were telling our neighbors that, “…mommy and daddy were getting back together.” Now, she was telling them that they were not moving back in.

I expressed extreme displeasure at this revelation and thought this behavior could have extreme negative effects on the children. It was then that PEW charged at me and started yelling at me and she raised her hands as if she was going to strike me. Given my suspicions that she would try to engage me in a physical confrontation, I backed away from her, telling her, “Be careful! This could cost you your kids!”

She continued to yell at me, approaching me again with a raised hand. I moved towards the steps that lead to the front door. I demanded the house key and PEW refused. I told her I was going to take the van keys. I didn’t threaten PEW at any time. However, she called the police.

By this time, I had exited the marital residence and went to my vehicle which was parked across the street. The boys were in the house now, upstairs and looking out the open front window at me. PEW came storming out front and went berzerk in the driveway. In an effort to get the attention of the neighbors, PEW began shouting at the top of her lungs, all within view and hearing of the children, “DO YOU PEOPLE KNOW WHAT KIND OF NEIGHBOR YOU HAVE?!?! HE’S AN ABUSER, A FUCKING-ASSHOLE (repeatedly), A HOMOSEXUAL, AND REAL MAN WOULD HAVE LEFT THE HOUSE AND ALLOWED THE WOMAN TO STAY!!!” The language was filthy, vile, full of expletives – and S1 was clearly unnerved by what he was witnessing. When she had completed her tirade, she threw the house key in the grass. The police then arrived, including Officer So-And-So with whom I filed the report earlier in the day. Soon after a talking to by the police, PEW left with the boys.

In my estimation, this erratic behavior pattern is becoming increasingly more aggressive and is demonstrating that PEW has little regard for the welfare of the children. I am concerned for the safety of the children, my own safety, and even PEW’s safety from herself.

It is also important to note that after telling me the prior evening that she fired her attorney – during the confrontation on 9/2/2004, PEW told me that she did not fire her attorney and that the attorney had advised PEW to re-enter the home, causing all of this upset and strife for the children and me, but for what end I don’t know. I find PEW’s behavior threatening and detrimental to the children most especially.


The entire situation was surreal, there is no other way to explain it. At least I had the sense enough to file a report with the police and accurately predicted what her intentions were.

Worthy of note:

– Despite explaining to the police that she made a gun threat, they didn’t arrest her, because she apparently didn’t have the guns on her actual person. I’m absolutely certain that if the roles were reversed, I would have been arrested.

– Despite explaining that she had attempted to attack me and even despite the police witnessing some of her screaming and foul mouth, she was not arrested. I’m absolutely certain that if the roles were reversed, I would have been arrested.

Frankly, I think I was lucky that I wasn’t arrested.

At least I took the necessary steps, short of moving out, to maximizing self-protection and it appeared to have worked.

To this day, I’m astounded that his major incident was never considered by any custody evaluator as relevant to determining her stability or her ability to parent the children effectively… but this would be one of many harsh lessons I would learn over the course of the coming months and years.

Separately, learn about the abuse of restraining orders: Without Restraint – The Use and Abuse of Restraining Orders. You can also do a simple google search for “restraining order abuse” and find alarming information.

I count myself lucky that I was actually able to get one, for what little good it did me, given the circumstances. What is quite ironic was that reality is, women use them overwhelmingly as a weapon in a divorce and custody situation. Custody Evaluator 1 will dismiss my offering of same as “lawyer posturing to get an upper-hand in the custody situation” despite PEW’s acceptance of guilt to avoid a hearing. Have I mentioned that if the roles were reversed what my expectations would be?

Child Support: The Fallacy, The Fraud, And The Failure

May 25, 2008

Child Support: The Fallacy, The Fraud, And The Failure

The American Legal System At Its Worst

A Historical Perspective

The fundamental changes in American Law that lead to the body of law we now call, “Family Law”, arose in 1960’s, born of the Feminist Rights Movements. Let’s make it clear from the start that the flaws and failures of the “family law” system are not of the making of that movement, and that both their intent and causes were good and just.

A sociological study done thirty some years ago found that only 40% of “fathers” nationwide paid any support for their children. Somebody in government got the bright idea that we could save the taxpayer scads of money, paid out in welfare, if those fathers were “held responsible” for supporting their own children.

The theory wasn’t half bad, just founded on a fallacy. Multiple studies, beginning from that point and continuing yet today, demonstrate this. Today, even the author of that study made more than thirty years ago, admits that the “statistical model” used to analyze that data was fundamentally flawed. In fact, the statistics showed that, back then, 80% of fathers paid child support. Yet even today, that study is widely quoted in numerous articles and legislative hearings regarding issues of child support.

Today, we know a whole lot more. Today, those same statistics show that currently 80% of fathers pay child support. Further, we know that another 13% of fathers simply cannot afford to pay anything. Another 3% acknowledge a “responsibility”, but refuse to pay because they are denied access to their own children, and another 3% claim they are “forced into hiding” by the child support enforcement system and unable to pay for fear of revealing themselves. Total: 99%. Ergo, only 1% of men actually qualify as what could truly be considered “bad dads.”

Please note that the percentage of men paying support for their children more than thirty years ago is identical to the percent of men paying that support today. The system itself has failed by that very fact, because it has not reduced the demands on welfare at all, as was its original intent.

The Fraud

Enter the lawyers. The entire “family law” system is founded on litigation, lots of it, and solely serves to feed the legal community. Much can be said about the scam perpetrated in that area of “family law” called the Child Protection Services racket, but this analysis will leave that to those more experienced and educated in that field. For these purposes, let’s focus on the “divorce industry,” a government-sponsored money-laundering scheme to enrich mostly lawyers.

Legal Fraud

Quite simply, the law, well supported by the US Supreme Court, states that the State must first demonstrate a “compelling interest,” and by which claim it may then, and only then, interfere with the “ownership and custody” of a parent’s children. Further, that such a claim must be demonstrated in all of the protections afforded through “due process.” That is, all the protections of both the State and Federal Constitution: An actual hearing with testimony, witnesses and statements of law, culminated in a “lawful” finding by the court that accounts to those facts presented and those laws stated.

It would appear that “everyone knows” that the State has a “compelling interest” in the welfare of children – i.e., the “children’s best interest.” This is the first fraud, because the State simply “presumes” that authority, without any of the above procedural due process – no hearing, no evidence, nothing. It is called “procedural fraud.”

The second fraud appears immediately thereafter, when they “presume” to assign custody of the children, presumed to be the mother more than 90% of the time. Again, the US Supreme Court says that “absent a finding of unfitness”, a parent cannot be deprived of the custody and ownership of their children, and that, again, all of the procedural rights of due process must be upheld. Ergo, custody may not simply be “assigned” and then just approved by the court. It must be “demonstrated” in the actual procedure of hearing, evidence, law and “finding.”

The third fraud follows post haste. They demand “child support” from the now disenfranchised parent, most notably fathers. This is the key; it’s for the money. Make no doubt about it; it is not the child support money, but the taxpayer’s money. Child support generally does go to the “custodial parent”, but it is the State and Federal funds that abound for the purpose of “enforcing and collecting child support” that are the real goal of those who “act for the government.”

This third fraud is, at law, no better than the first two. In Civil Law, a “contract”, “debt” or “obligation” is set forth in writing, but apparently not in the supposedly Civil “Family Law” system. They won’t show you a contract, and in fact refuse to discuss it. It is “presumed” to exist. They won’t show you the terms, nor discuss the determination of the amount of alleged “debt.” Again, the US Supreme Court clearly states that a “hidden contract is an abhorrent in law.”

The fourth fraud in law is that minor little detail called enforcement. “Failure to pay child support” is stated as a “civil contempt”, ergo refusing to obey a court order. In law, there are two forms of “contempt of court”, first, civil contempt, which is failing to do what the court orders you to do, and, second, criminal contempt, which is doing what the court ordered you not to do. The former is punishable by fiscal sanctions – fines; and the latter by incarceration. Except, of course, in Family Law, where the plain and simple standard is “pay up or go to jail.”

Both the State and Federal courts duly uphold that there must be proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that this alleged contempt was a “willful disobedience” of the court’s order, and further, that the burden of that proof is on the prosecution to show that “an ability to pay” exists, but was willfully disobeyed. Except, of course, in Family Law, where “pay up of go to jail” is enforced almost universally: No hearing, no evidence, and no testimony required.

The Practice of Extortion Fraud

In practice, it is a simple system of collusion and abusing the privilege of authority. The “prosecutor” for the child support enforcement system “just does it”, and the judge “just ignores it.” Lawyers, whether willing or unwilling, are caught between hell and high water, but fundamentally are an integral part of the fraud, and reap enormous financial dividends from it.

A couple gets a divorce, and immediately the “presumed non-custodial parent” gets a notice from the child support enforcement offices demanding that they “appear” and reveal their financial information. Many States have statutes that say this information must be revealed, under penalty of contempt. Federal, constitutional law however says that your civil rights to not answer, under the 5th Amendment, extends to all aspects of law, not just the criminal arena. “Too bad”, says the State court, “Answer or else!”

The “caseworker” determines who gets custody, and how much child support will be paid. Enforcement is immediate. The first three legal frauds discussed above are committed in one basic act, not by a judge, but by a caseworker. The court merely “approves” whatever the caseworker says. Supposedly, that makes it a “legal decision.” Note the lack of any hearing, any evidence or any actual “findings” issued by a court. This is the entire basis of their procedural fraud, to simply ignore any actual “procedure” that might demonstrate that essential “due process.”

Ostensibly, the caseworker is required to use “guidelines,” set by the State but regulated by the federal funding mandates, to set the amount of child support. In theory, that is 17% of your gross income for one child, 25% for two, etc. The trick is that they can “impute” your income. The original idea of “imputing wages” was to “catch” people who are making more than they claim or seek “under-employment to reduce the child support amounts. However, it is commonly and widely used to “up the ante” and increase child support revenues.

Your first instinct is to hire a lawyer and appeal this decision. Lawyers, as “officers of the court” are prevented from arguing for your rights in these supposed Family Courts! Either by “court rules”, a fraudulent misrepresentation by the lawyer in as much as the State’s own published Court Rules make no such mention, or by the retributions of the court and prosecutor aimed at all of that lawyer’s other clients. Basically, their sole function is to “cut a deal” for you, probably better than the original exorbitant imputation, but still more than “the truth”.

Since now you are under a court order to pay child support (or go to jail), the odds are that now you can’t afford a lawyer at all. Forget any deals. Neither the prosecutor nor your Ex will present any evidence to demonstrate this fraudulent imputation, and even though you have competent, clear evidence to the contrary, which neither the prosecutor nor your Ex will contend is false, the judge will “dismiss” your appeal. This is the procedural fraud of “administrative ruling.” No actual “finding” is made by the court, which would then have to include that evidence and testimony. Judges will even “wave away” documentation you have, making you just read it out loud, as a means of keeping it from being entered into your record.

Judges are commonly known to “go home and do some research” and enter that alleged evidence in support of their dismissal. This is a further fraud, this time called “substantive fraud”. The judge is “acting for the prosecution”, and “entering evidence outside of the courtroom.” Both are fundamental violations of every State’s Court Rules, and a fundamental denial of any constitutional rights toward due process.

Needless to say, you appeal that decision again, but of it is within the same court as before, and of course the result will be the same. In fact, you are required to appeal twice before that court before being allowed, and told you can appeal to a higher court, the State Court of Appeals. For 99.9% of the population, this is a daunting task beyond their knowledge and comprehension. Without a lawyer, it seems impossible, and the cost of such an appeal can run $15-20,000. Now, six months of excessive child support payments has made you nearly or completely destitute.

It is called “adjudication by fiscal attrition.” When you go to that Appeals Court, they will not “refund” the excess, nor cease those collections, but merely, and only possibly, reduce those payments to what they should have been all along. “The Law” becomes a matter of whether it is bottom-line cheaper to pay their “buddy lawyer” for “justice”, or to pay their extortive demands. The bottom line is that most people cannot afford either.

The Extortion Fraud

Ultimately you reach a point where you cannot pay. These courts know that, and expect you to reach out to friends and family. They are using you as “bait” to “shakedown” the money any way they can. Again, US Supreme Court rulings state that this is clearly illegal. But ultimately, you will end up getting a Show Court Order, demanding that you appear in court and explain why you haven’t paid.

When you appear, the prosecutor will not show evidence that you can pay this money but refuse to do so. Instead you are required to show why you cannot. There is ample federal case law that says you don’t have to “show what is not” because it is nearly impossible to do! More case law that says the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, and more case law that says “an ability to pay” must be demonstrated before the penalties of incarceration can be applied.

The prosecutor has access to all of your records, such as employment, banks, etc., and is well aware that you can’t pay the money. They will not present that evidence even though, by law they are required to. Arguing your rights to due process or suggesting they have no evidence of an “ability to pay” will end up getting you put in jail for contempt anyway. Many States have limits for contempt proceedings, like a maximum of $500, yet it is common for them to demand far more. The only answer the court has is “pay up or go to jail,” and that answer was decided long before you entered the court.

Of course you can appeal this decision too, and of course it is in the same court. You know the answer to that. In some cases, they are known to enter that appeal or objection into the record of your case, but then simply refuse to answer it, not denying, dismissing or setting it for hearing – just ignore it! This is gross violation of every State’s Court Rules. Of course you can appeal to the Court of Appeals, but you can expect that to be after you have already done time in jail. Nor does “doing the time” relieve you of the financial demand, and in fact more support “debt” will accrue while you are in jail. They can, in most States, keep putting you in jail, up to a total six months in any given year, making it just that much more difficult to even make any payments.

They can, after three “offenses” put you in jail for up to ten years. After accumulating more than six months worth of child support debt, they can take away your driver’s license and any other “professional” licenses you may hold. Both of these would seem contrary to their supposed goal. You can’t find work or maintain a job without a car, and usually those professional licenses are the means you have of making any money. To understand all of this, go back to the statement back at the top, that it not about the child support money, but the Federal and State funding.

Paternity Fraud and the Welfare Mom

Two of the most critical abuses of this “Family Law” system involved how women are abusing it. Can’t really blame them, like in the Federal Tax system that provides “loopholes”, this system has holes you could drive a Mac truck through.

Paternity fraud is all too common. Most laboratories that do DNA paternity testing record that nearly a third of those tests come back as “not a match”. This includes married couples. No doubt there are thousands of cases that never get tested as well. Thousands of married fathers have discovered, only after going through a divorce, that another man fathered some of their children. Yet the courts claim that it would disrupt the children’s lives to discover that and is therefore not in the “children’s best interest”. The husband is ordered to continue to pay support for them, and even prevented from telling them on penalty of contempt.

It is common for an unmarried woman who had multiple partners during “the right time” to simply “pick a likely victim” and start prosecuting for the money. Many victims, because they did have sex with her, will not question the claim. While it would seem with the advent of DNA testing that it would be a “logical place to start”, most courts are resistant to insisting on “evidence,” commonly work to prevent testing at all or even just reject it under the guise of “the children’s best interest.” Also common, where the first “victim” turns out to not be the father, the women will just keep “going down the list”, until they get one who doesn’t “resist” or is actually proven to be the father. That list of “alleged” fathers, individually all get to pay the costs of testing and attorney fees, not to mention the traumatic disruption of their lives.

Recent cases have also shown that some women have “retrieved” used condoms, even from men they never had sex with, and used the contents to impregnate themselves. The issues of a man’s right to choose to be a father go far beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that, without a wink of consent of the father, a woman can choose to have an abortion, put a child up for adoption, abandon a child at the nearest fire station or hospital, or keep it and make the father pay for its support, often never even seeing his own child. Men have none of those choices, and are limited to the one and only choice, “pay up or go to jail.” The courts have long ignored that this is a clear violation of 14th Amendment rights to “equal treatment under the law” by hiding behind that ever present “the children’s best interest.”

Another common trick women use is to have multiple children by multiple fathers. As stated above, child support for once child is 17% of the father’s income, but only 25% if there are two children by the same father. For women, the solution is simple, by not having more than one child per father they can substantially increase the amount of child support they can receive. The Family Law system is actively discouraging marriage and family unity, and financially encouraging the “bastarding” of our society with fatherless children .

The Failure

Remember that the original intent of these laws was to reduce the costs to the taxpayer by reducing the needs for welfare. As a matter of statistical fact, it has not reduced the role of welfare even by 1%. The same percentage of fathers pay child support as did thirty years ago at its inception. Here, however, is where it gets truly ugly, and reveals that these government programs are the most destructive, debilitating and even deadly ever devised by our “public servants.”

The Basic Costs

While government child support advertises that it collected $18 billion in 2003, it also claims that the “administrative costs” were only $4.5 billion, or $1 spent for every $4 collected. This is a hidden lie. True, the administrative costs were as claimed. False, because they are only the beginning for the multiplicity of hidden costs.

One of the big keys to understanding this problem lies in understanding the money, or, as they say, follow the money trail. Caseworkers get a “bonus” for every case they “handle”, as do the agency heads. This commonly leads to, not only overburdening caseloads per caseworker, but also intentional acts to “create animosity and conflict” between couples to get them to “duke it out” so that there is a clear winner and a clear loser who pays child support. Joint custodies and equitable settlements are not in the caseworker or agency’s best interest. Bonuses are tied to some amount of child support being paid through their offices.

The Family Court judges get a “judicial award”. Every State has constitutional law that prevents a judge from being paid in relation to the “performance on his bench.” So it is commonly paid as an “award” to the judge’s retirement fund. Whether now or later, the judge personally profits by his acts. Further, that over-imputation of wages now comes into play, where the alleged amount owed is directly relevant to the amount of State and Federal funding. The higher the amounts owed, the bigger the paychecks.

Much of that State and Federal funding also goes to the courts and offices, which run the Family Law system. Besides these personal incentives, their professional “enterprise” gets more money to employ more people, and get new technology to pursue “the money” more effectively.

Virtually every responsible economist recognizes that the billions of dollars of child support supposed unpaid is not likely to ever be paid. Most experts agree that at least 90% of it is the product of the zealous fantasies of the public servants running these programs; and that the people who supposedly owe this debt simply don’t have the money and never did.

The Primary Hidden Costs

Even with extensive research, it is nearly impossible to discover the “hidden costs”, very likely because they don’t want us to know the real devastation being wrecked on the taxpayer. Hidden costs start where the judge “puts you on probation” for failing to pay child support. Ultimately this leads to a warrant for your arrest. Neither the caseworker and agency head nor the judge care much whether or not you actually pay, because they get even more State and Federal funds for putting people in jail for failing to pay child support.

The number of people in jail for failure to pay child support is a secret; and estimates range from 25% of all those incarcerated to 50% of all county jails. Either way, the numbers are staggering. First, the cost of incarcerating one person for a year is between $30-50,000. America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, at 1 person for every 147. If a quarter of those people are held for child support charges, the taxpayer for imprisoning “bad dads” is approximately $20 billion, or more than all the child support collected.

Those people sitting in jail are not earning money, and therefore not paying taxes, ergo creating “lost money.” Many people have to hire lawyers, not to defend themselves from their Ex, but to defend themselves from their own government. The “divorce industry” is booming for lawyers, and is primarily why both the American Bar Association and Trial Lawyers Association have been instrumental in developing this system, and have a fundamental interest in promoting its continuation. Remember that the judges and prosecutors are lawyers too.

Conservative estimates put these hidden “legal counsel” cost figures in the $100 billion range, and some experts suggest it may be as high as $200 billion. If incarceration costs run another $20 billion – or higher, and supposed “administrative costs” are about $4.5 billion, the American Public is paying a minimum of $125 billion to “collect a debt” of $18 billion. Remember that it still has not reduced welfare by a single iota and while the receivers of the child support do get “most” of their $18 billion, the primary receivers of the other $107 billion are not children, but lawyers and other members of the legal community.

Approximately 25,000 men committed suicide last year. While we do not know the exact reasons why, because they are not here to tell us, we do know that 80% of them were “recently involved” in a Family Court case. That, on average, is almost 400 men for every State. We can’t even begin to estimate that price tag, except, sardonically to say, that none of them are paying taxes anymore either.

Thousands more men languish in jails for crimes committed when the “snapped.” Having your children stolen from you, your house and all your property, often losing your job and then being put in “debtors prison” has a way of driving even a “reasonable man” over the edge. The recent events of the “East Coast Snipers,” whose story began in a Family Court on the West Coast, are only a small sample of the vast extent of this horrific policy.

The Grotesque Hidden Costs

It is our children who are and will pay the truly hidden costs, both in taxes, and in the quality of their lives. These programs are systematically, and intentionally, disenfranchising children from their fathers, because well, because it is good for big-government business.

Those who have an interest in perpetuating this system would have us believe that this is the fault of “bad dads” who don’t care to act as good parents to their children. Of course, now we have more tax money being spent to encourage fathers to act like better dads, but have not yet recognized the true source of these problems never was the dads.

Most dads do care very much about their kids, but these government programs are very much designed to drive them away in droves. Teaching “parenting skills” to a man who cannot afford to eat because of governmental extortions, is a futile scam, aimed solely at political pacification of “the masses” and not a purposeful address of the problems.

Children who are so disenfranchised from a father’s “guidance and counsel” are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to run away.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape: This applies to boys of course.
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
20 times more like to end up in prison.

All of the above are serious societal problems that, of course, require more tax money; but now to deal with all the bad kids they have purposefully created. Incidentally, those “bad boys” are also significantly more likely to become “bad dads” themselves. It is a downward spiraling system that can only ultimately get much worse. We cannot even begin to estimate the future fiscal costs to taxpayers, much less to the “fiber” of our society.

Band-Aids For A Cancer Patient

Recently, many states have announced legislative “studies”, introduced new legislation, or “amended” some of their “family law” system. Virtually all of it is akin to putting band-aids on a cancer patient. These committees consistently are composed of “family court” judges, family law attorneys, and caseworkers; and all are the very people whose greatest interest is in continuation of the status quo. A recent legislative study in Ohio is a prime case in point – the committee members were exactly as that stated above.

Beyond that, one of the most powerful key components is the Federal “guidelines and standards” which dictate formulas and rules to the State. Failing to meet those Federal formulas and rules means the reduction or complete cutting-off of those crucial Federal funds. It is these Federal funds that drive the States, and the incentive/bonus system, paid from those funds, that drives the people working for the legal system. Lawyers are driven by the lucrative hoard of litigation it all creates.

Many students of socio/economic political systems now acknowledge that the current system of Family Law in this country is nearly identical to the system used in the “old USSR.” Many also maintain that that system was, in large part, responsible for the collapse of that government. Our Family Law system is an abject socialism, not just “a little” socialistic, but a disease-ridden, corrupt socialism that will ultimately destroy us.

To suggest “something must be done about it” is woefully inadequate. “Who” is to do this “something”? Would we have more laws, rules and guidelines, and by the very people who are instrumental in designing and perpetrating this existing “plan”? Would we have more and bigger, big-government rule our lives? The answers to this are well beyond this author’s ability to even begin to suggest.

Except that this author will say: Simply eliminating the entire child support system would save the taxpayer at least 100 billion dollars every year. It might also just save our society.

This article was published without an author associated with it and it was on A Matter of Justice Coalition’s website. Reprinted with their permission.

Support the ACFC Shared Parenting Petition Drive

March 18, 2008

Mike McCormick, President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, has initiated a drive in support of shared parenting.


Your participating in this electronic petition will demonstrate support for shared parenting and family law reform for all public officials. The goal for the ACFC is to acquire as many signatures as possible in order to unveil them at the DC Rally 2008. The signatures will be printed, bound, and then presented to Congress during the rally which is to take place August 15th, 16th, and 17th at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.

Please pass this petition along to your friends and family via email, too. Your efforts will help parents, children, and families throughout the country who suffer as a result of the demise of marriage. A rebuttal presumption of shared parenting will go a long way towards reducing the default adversarial nature of divorce by reducing or eliminating the perceived benefit of using the children as tools in an effort to maximize child support or punish the other parent. Most importantly, it will guarantee a maximum amount of parental involvement with their children when it is logistically possible and there exists no supportable evidence to cast doubt on the fitness of one parent or the other.

For regular updates on the progress of this campaign, stop by and visit Glenn Sacks’ blog.

“Children thrive with the active involvement of both parents. Children and parents should be encouraged to spend substantial time with each other regardless of the parents’ present marital status. The undersigned recognize that absent issues of abuse, neglect or abandonment, social and government policy must be structured in such a way as to promote and maximize the opportunity of all parents to contribute to the social, emotional, intellectual, physical, moral and spiritual development of their children.” -ACFC’s new Shared Parenting Petition.

Help to try and ensure that the meaningful relationship between fathers and their children survives even if the marriage doesn’t.

JX writes: "The Most Astounding Thing Happened"

March 2, 2008

Hi LM and DW:

I just spent the past 3 days reading your blog – it was linked at a Yahoo! group for stepmoms I participate in. Holy Mary Mother of God, do you have your hands full! I’m lucky in that SOBF’s (my husband’s) Egg Donor (I saw one of your other reader calls hers that too, so much for my originality) is a lot less involved than yours and doesn’t have email, but boy I can sure relate on a lot of the other issues.

The main reason I wanted to email is your campaign to get people to see the inequities in the family court system, and how they invariably favor the mother in any given circumstance. We have experienced this, too. I firmly believe the only reason SOBF has residential custody of his boys is because ED didn’t want custody at the time they filed and divorced. She didn’t retain her own attorney, agreed to everything that SOBF’s attorney drew up, and in fact didn’t even testify at their divorce hearing. We know now that she had a new boyfriend (she brought him to court with her, in fact), was planning on moving 1,600 miles away, marrying him and starting a new family in another state, and thought that the care of three children would be too hard or cramp her slutty style with the new boy; she appears to be under the assumption that she can just get custody of them at any future time she chooses. The sad fact is that she has every reason to believe this.

The thing I wanted to tell you about our situation (and you can read all about if you’re so inclined at my blog, the link is below) is that when it came time to determine child support, the most astounding thing happened. While SOBF was in the service and ED had taken the children (against his will) back to their home state to dump them off at her parents’ house while she ran around with the boyfriend of the moment, his check was garnished for nearly $1,000/month (on an enlisted man’s salary, you do the math). When he got out of the service and moved back here, he had the children almost half the time, but was still required to pay her support. This he did, in cash (over my strenuous objection and advice to leave a paper trail). When I moved here, the kids moved in with us three days later, and he stopped paying support, after enrolling them in school in our district (which was not the same as her legal residence at the time, her parents’ house – where she was actually not even living). She made not so much as a peep in argument about them living with us, despite that she had never met me (and in fact WOULDN’T meet me for 4 more months). Shortly after our move, SOBF started receiving letters and paperwork from child services, asking for information about health insurance provided for the boys, their residential address, and how much child support was currently being paid by SOBF to ED. After answering the third of these letters, he made a call and was informed that ED had been receiving public assistance for nearly a year, claiming non-payment of child support and lack of health insurance; this despite the fact that they were living with SOBF more than half time for most of that year, full-time for the rest, he had paid support until they moved in, and they were covered at all times under his health insurance with his employer. When SOBF informed the caseworker of these facts, he actually caught a break: she told him to forward to her proof of their enrollment in our school district and she’d close the case. However, there was no talk of prosecuting ED for fraud or making her pay back the money she had obtained from the state under false claims of nonpayment of court-ordered support.

Of course, SOBF should have filed the proper paperwork to modify the temporary orders, but at that time they were merely separated, and he didn’t follow all the changes from transititioning out of the service, etc. He was lucky it all worked out so well.

I only told you all of that as background to what happened at their divorce hearing 6-months later. He was ordered to attend mandatory “Effects of Divorce on Minor Children” classes with the kids, which he did (and we have the certificate to prove). She didn’t show. He came to court solo; she brought her boyfriend. He took the stand and clearly stated that his main focus was to get custody of his children; she declined to take the stand. He made no petition for child support, because as he stated to the judge, he just wanted his children and he knew if he tried to obtain support she would fight him and he’d lose his kids. The judge asked him this on three separate occasions to make sure, and was clear about informing him that if he ever changed his mind, he could come back and file a modification at any time. After all of that, they were awarded joint physical and legal custody, with their primary residence with SOBF. Joint physical and legal, despite that they live with us and had done so for nearly a year at that point. Huh. But the real slap in the face was this: since SOBF did not request support, none was ordered, but it was noted in the separation agreement that if support HAD been ordered, due to the discrepancy in their incomes, ED would have been ordered to pay $36 PER MONTH, IN TOTAL, for all three children.

The thing that bothers me about that is the hypocrisy; let’s say for the sake of argument SOBF was making $15k and ED was making $35k (which is pretty close to the opposite at the time). Is it even remotely possible that a judge would have awarded her custody and completely let SOBF off the hook for support; or, if ordering it, order him to pay only $36 a month? Not bloody likely. More likely is that he would have been ordered to pay even if she didn’t request support, and he would have been ordered to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 a month, and told to go get another job if he couldn’t afford that on his present salary. And THAT makes me sick to my stomach.

I have more and more and MORE stories, but I wanted to chime in and say I support 100% your efforts to point out that family law is a business, the courts and states are in it for themselves and not for the kids, and that fathers get the shaft more often than not. We were only lucky because ED is so stupid that it should be criminal, and she doesn’t realize that by giving up custody, not paying support, moving out of state and remarrying she just gave up most rights to her kids – theoretically. All it would take, though, is for her to move back and present some kind of sob story to a sympathetic judge, and our whole lives would change. For that reason, I’m praying her new husband doesn’t wise up any time soon.

Keep up the good fight, I’ll be reading, as well as putting a link on my (insignificant, barely read, not often updated) little blog.

~JX

—————-

JX,

A couple bits of unsolicited advice that you may have covered already. I preface this by saying that I am not an attorney and the following is not dispensing legal advice, simply my personal opinion on the matter:

– The financial paper-trail is so important and cannot be stressed enough. Cash payments are treated as a “gift” by the court unless your PEW actually writes a letter verifying the payments and the amounts. In an adversarial situation such as yours, that’s highly unlikely and your SO would never get credit for any of those payments. ALWAYS by check and ALWAYS with “child support” in the memo field.

– I’m confused about the apparent fact above that the final order from the judge was joint physical and legal custody. If you’re SO has sole custody, that’s how the order should read and child support can be initiated at anytime, especially if she has moved out of state. Your state has and will keep jurisdiction and if a long-term status quo has established with whom the children are living, the order should read that way (and child support awarded accordingly).

– I’m not sure which state you’re in, but many use the ludicrous “income shares model” which isn’t about covering the basic needs of the children but about a redistribution of wealth from the higher earning parent (usually the father) to the lesser earning parent (usually the mother). The non-custodial parent, in all but the fewest states, always has to pay something based on custodial time and proportion of income. Perhaps your SO wants to leave well-enough alone or you could just clarify for me what the actual custody arrangement is. I’m curious.

Be confident in knowing that the longer the arrangement is in your favor, the harder it will be to get changed. That said, it’s no guarantee, I read about countless mind-bending decisions made in family court every single day. It’s just scary.

Thanks for the feedback and for spreading the word. It’s much appreciated. Best wishes to you!

~LM

Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA) – A Scourge on Society

February 29, 2008

Contrary to the relentless dissemination of anti-male hysteria by well-organized feminist groups, their political action committees, and spineless legislators led by lead feminist Joe Biden (D-De) – the reality is that women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence. They are most likely to neglect and kill their children. If they’re not doing it, someone with whom they’ve shacked-up are involved is doing it with them or because they allow it to occur. In almost every case this is more than likely after the Divorce Machine has unceremoniously kicked the father out of the family and his children’s lives. Biological fathers are the least likely to abuse, neglect, or kill their children. The creation and passage of the Violence Against Women’s Act, a completely unconstitutional piece of legislation, has ensured a disgraceful level of funding and has put in place the tools any woman needs to destroy a man’s life. She has the full support and resources of federal and state governments to accomplish this, while misandrist organizations such as N.O.W. pat themselves on the back for a mission accomplished.

Their motto: “No matter the transgression – it will always be a man’s fault.” As a result, the man must pay.

– Men pay with the loss of involvement with their children in an overwhelming majority of the cases.

– Men pay with inordinately high child support orders in an overwhelming majority of the cases.

– Men pay with higher sentences when convicted of crimes than women who commit the same crimes.

– Men pay unnecessary punitive measures when they fall behind in child support while women rarely are punished in any meaningful capacity for custodial interference.

– Men pay through paternity fraud (many unknowingly) which is an absolute crisis in this country, oftentimes saddled with decades-long financial penalties supporting children that were never theirs. Women are rarely arrested for paternity fraud and penalties are rarer still and weak at best.

– False domestic violence accusations are an epidemic and mandatory arrest policies further the life-affecting damage on men. Women and children are adversely affected as well. Children lose a parent. They may lose their homes. Men may lose their freedom. Worse, people who do truly suffer domestic violence are at greater risk when when people waste the resources when making such fraudulent claims.

VAWA violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution by providing obscene levels of federal funding to protect only one gender – women.

VAWA violates the principle of federalism of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, infringing on state sovereignty.

The Civil Rights violations are numerous and yet this “act” is current law.

This systematic demonization of men has been 30+ years in the making has been shockingly successful. The message has been clear and drummed relentlessly into the public consciousness. There is no excuse for domestic violence against a woman! What has been missing from that equation are children and most especially – men. Men need to wake up and organize to reverse this mythology before it’s too late, assuming it’s not already too late.

Reality Check: WOMEN ARE JUST AS LIKELY AS MEN TO COMMIT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. Many recent, reputable studies have reinforced this reality.

From Martin S. Fiebert out of the Department of Psychology at Cal-State Long Beach comes such incredible information from References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners, including:

  • Women were more likely than men to “use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.”
  • Men suffered serious injuries in 38% of domestic violence cases.
  • Men were 9-times less like to report domestic violence.
  • 30% of men and 49% of women reported using some form of aggression in their dating histories with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.
  • One comprehensive report of findings from international dating violence study which collected data from over 11,000 (70% women) college students from 50 universities in 21 countries. Subjects responded to the revised Conflict Tactics scale, gender hostility scales and injury scales. Findings reveal that women perpetrated greater partner violence than men, that women were more seriously injured than men and that hostility toward the opposite sex was significantly and similarly correlated with partner violence for men and women.

These are just a few samples from in excess of 100 which demonstrate the realities of domestic violence. This is reality, folks. For more reality, I strongly recommend the series of posts at Glenn Sacks’ site: From Ideology to Inclusion – Evidence-Based Policy (Domestic Violence Conference).

My message to men? It’s time to shed the tough-guy, I can deal with it attitude. If your partner or spouse batters you, call the police. Deal with the comments and snide remarks. If you’re not believed, call again next time, too – and keep calling. Don’t drop the charges, even though, for now, she may only get a slap on the wrist. If there is still time, participate in The Men’s Experience with Partner Agression Project. The figures above are very likely low due to the male penchant to avoid getting help. It’s why there is no “Violence Against Men’s Act.” It’s why there is no “Violence Against Person’s Act.” It’s why a “Men’s Domestic Violence Shelter” is as common as pregnant man. It’s why not one penny of the billions appropriated for VAWA is spent on equal protections for men.

I often wonder that if I didn’t see fit to hide my embarrassment and shame for what I was embroiled in and called the cops when the few times things got physical, I *might* have faired better in the early days of the divorce & custody battle. Maybe I wouldn’t have chosen to endure these experiences as long as I did. At least towards the end, I was smart enough to call the police when things started to deteriorate and escalate between us. It’s very likely why I managed to escape the false domestic abuse allegations that countless others have not.

On September 30, the Violence Against Women’s Act is scheduled to expire. This means that radical feminists and their misandry-pushing organizations such as N.O.W. will be engaging in a full-out media assault to dust off the false hysterical claims to vilify the male of the species and mobilize support for a renewal. Frankly, I’m saddened by the fact that so many follow leadership that has been so frequently embarrassed after having some of their scare-tactics and hysteria so effectively debunked by real facts.

Please don’t allow this to happen. What has transpired since its inception is nothing more than criminal and affects men, women, and children alike. It’s not too early to start contacting your state’s representatives and oppose any attempts to renew this unconstitutional travesty. Worse, Biden and his cronies in man-hatred, along with his radical feminist supporters have even considered spreading this scourge worldwide via I-VAWA which would see U.S. Taxpayer dollars spent overseas to spread this anti-male cancer across the globe. The rest of the world doesn’t need this type of poison spread throughout.

ACT NOW. Act against both the renewal of VAWA and the implementation of I-VAWA by contacting your legislators today, tomorrow, and as often as you can make the time between now and September. Click here to find out how to contact your representatives. If you care about men, women, and children in this country, your efforts are needed to defeat this. It’s devastating to families. It’s a burden on every citizen of this country. Help put a stop to it.

Another Example of How States Help Themselves…

January 29, 2008

…while screwing so many others in the process.

I pay child support. I’ve always been current except when matters created fictional arrearages, afterwhich, I would immediately make a lump-sum payment to settle up the matters that were before the court (finalizing any changes in circumstances). I’ve prided myself on staying current whether I agree with the formula for calculating the number or not and whether she wasted the money or not. I’ve never been “put into enforcement” except by error on the part of domestic relations which was immediately corrected.

I hate wage garnishments. For me it would be like having a scarlet letter. “Can’t be responsible enough to pay on your own, you gotta have it taken from you by the state gestapo!”

Unfortunately, given the pure genius that is the folks that find new and interesting ways to: collect more support than necessary, fraudulently puff up those who are “deadbeats” behind in their payments, and make their own jobs easier – the states will find a way to get into your business and, of course, fuck it all up.

The recently enacted law of my terrorland makes wage garnishment mandatory – whether you are behind in child support or not. If you’re in the system – you have your wages garnished. That’s the new rule. So much for the scarlet letter. Now we’re all on garnishment. Not just those struggling to make a life for themselves while paying often incredibly high child support for the alleged “basic needs” of the children.

Additionally, they’ve taken to billing you a full month in advance rather than the old method of billing you according to your pay period. On the surface, that seems like a great idea. They’re streamlining it. Everyone on the same cycle… well, all except for that “in advance” part.

Finally, they’ve enacted automatic support modification orders to your employer when something changes. Herein is where the complete clusterfuck takes flight…

I discover this because when the new order was put in place for my situation, it included an additional $20/month for “arrearages.” Me? ARREARAGES?!?! CAN’T BE!!! I call and say, “Hey, dumb child support enforcement people! I’m current and I hereby demand you remove that $20 extra per month off of my order! That’s a new scarlet letter which I have not yet earned the right to bear!”

Okay, that’s not really a direct quote, but it does convey my disdain for the system. They check. Mister-M is correct! They will get right on it!

Then comes the letter a few days later in the mail. They will not issue a new support order removing the $20/month for arrearages because with the “new and improved” changes to the system, you’re automatically in arrears because they bill you in full at the beginning of the month. I’m told when that is caught up, they will automatically issue a new order to the employer to modify the support order to remove the $20 for my fictional arrears.

So now, let’s look at the genius that is these changes and just how many people this affects.

Facts:

Since they bill at the beginning of the month in full, unless your employer pays you in advance for the full month you’re about to work, you’re now in arrears. I don’t think too many workers fall into that category.

– This means that excepting the people noted above, which is probably no people, everyone in my state is now in arrears at least some portion of every month. My guess that statistic will do wonders for the hysteria surrounding how many “deadbeats” there are. With the new system, that figure would be 100% at some point every month unless you’ve paid 2-months in child-support up front.

– This means that in order to never be in arrears, you have to pay 2-months in advance to keep from showing up in the system as having a balance on your account. It’s not paid to the payee in advance. It does comes out of the pocket of the payor in advance. So, who benefits by having either the payor paying a full month in advance and/or by enforcing a fraudulent arrears add-on to the tune of $20/month times the tens of thousands of people – you guessed it! THE STATE!

– Not only does it overstate their necessary collections for which they get federal matching dollars having collected it; because it isn’t paid out, all that money sitting in their coffers collects interest, too! So much for the “best interests of the children.”

Wait! Here’s the real genius of the “system.” THE AUTOMATIC MODIFICATION ORDERS TO EMPLOYERS. Someone hit me with a real good guestimate of what this is costing the state and the employers to maintain this disaster:

The automatic order goes into effect and is sent to my employer’s headquarters for administration. They do what they need to do to get it done. All nice and neat, right? Wrong.

– I’m billed (hypothetically, for the sake of round figures) $1,000/month in advance for my child support payments.

– I get paid twice per month, say… the 10th and the 25th of the month.

– I get $500 taken out each pay.

– My system account shows a $500 balance after the first check.

– My system account shows a $0 balance after the second check.

What happens?

The system sends out a support modification removing the $20/month arrearage. My HQ now has to jump through hoops and administrate the new support order, change everything in the computer system, update the records, change the payroll – everything that needs to be done.

If they don’t follow the court order, there are stiff fines and penalties, etc.

What happens now?

February 1st rolls around and my system account bills me for $1000 in child support and puts me automatically in arrears. This triggers a new support order to add $20/month back into the order.

– By this time, my next paycheck is issued with new amount garnished.

– My HQ gets the new order, and has to put it through the system.

– I get $500 taken out each pay.

– My system account shows a $500 balance after the first check.

– My system account shows a $0 balance after the second check.

What happens?

This goes on every single day. This happens to me every single month. You have to believe every single employer has someone with a wage garnishment for child-support. They’ve streamlined the system and made it a nightmare for employers all over the state.

They’re getting 2 orders per month to modify back and forth for arrearages that don’t really exist.

Imagine how much it’s costing the state to issue, re-issue, re-re-issue support modifications chasing down the fictional arrears? Imagine how much it’s costing companies to do follow-through on these orders under the threat of fines and penalties, many for multiple employees every month?

In the meantime, they’ve upped their collection money which increases the state bonus from the feds. They’ve increased their interest by collecting all this money in advance without having to disburse it. They’ve padded the hysterical stats that radical feminists will use to support their contention that fathers are all willfully failing to pay child-support while floating around the marina in their yachts and taking their 20-something girlfriend(s) clubbing every night in their Bentley.

Everyone else is running around like maniacs trying to cover the asses of those who made these changes that benefit no one but the state.

When I discussed this with the clearly frustrated CSDU clerk, she said simply, “I know this is a disaster. We have so many companies calling and complaining about it but there is nothing we can do.”

Except keep on collecting the cash.

A Small Sample of Official Idiocy

January 6, 2008

In the past 4 years we have reviewed countless child support guidelines. And sometimes you just have to laugh. Here is a sample, of actual guidelines as written on state websites:

“Self-Support Reserve (‘‘SSR’’). The amended schedule also incorporates an increase in the ‘‘Self-Support Reserve’’ or ‘‘SSR’’ from $550 per month to $748 per month, the 2003 federal poverty level for one person. Formerly designated as the ‘‘Computed Allowance Minimum’’ or ‘‘CAM,’’ the Self-Support Reserve, as it is termed in most other states’ guidelines, is intended to assure that low-income obligors retain sufficient income to meet their own basic needs, as well as to maintain the incentive to continue employment.”

Seriously? Does anyone here believe a Father, because that is who is paying nearly 90% of the time, can live on $748 per month? It’s funny that our government enacts child support to STOP children and mothers from living in poverty, and then writes into guidelines that Fathers can legally be left at poverty levels. Never mind the fact that at that level of income, the father can’t have appropriate housing to actually see his children and be involved at all. But hey, that’s what’s “best for the children.” Also it’s funny that a father’s basic needs are just $748 a month, but a child’s basic needs can go up and over $2,000 a month! Irony, catch it!

“In most cases, however, a party’s living expenses are not relevant in determining his or her support obligation. Rather, as the statute requires, the obligation is based upon the reasonable needs of a dependent spouse or child and the reasonable ability of the obligor to pay.”

Here’s a big ole’ F-U to Fathers everywhere. We don’t care if you can survive, your ex “dependent” spouse, who statistics say probably left you (likely because she knows she will get most of your money, your assets, your children), is more important.

“The guidelines use the net incomes of the parties and are based on the assumption that a child’s reasonable needs increase as the combined net income of the child’s parents increases.”

Yep, here we go, not a chance in the world to improve your own daily living, or perhaps save for your child’s future education. Nope, your child is going to graduate from macaroni and cheese right on up to the top of the food chain, because their “needs” have increased. I believe the government needs a lesson on what “needs” and “wants” are, because they are complete morons. Actually, they’re not – they just know how to collect the almighty dollar from the peons of this country.

“A number of authoritative economic studies provide estimates of the average amount of household expenditures for children in intact households. These studies show that the proportion of household spending devoted to children is directly related to the level of household income and to the number of the children.”

If that’s true, then cite the studies. Now the household income has gone down due to divorce, and yet the kids are still expected to receive exactly what they received before, and the lucky Mother gets to benefit on the sidelines. Further, if that’s the case, then how does the child support system justify the rampant use of “imputed income” to justify maintaining high child-support orders against fathers who are out of work or whose work is impacted by the weather? On one hand, they argue that increases are justified based upon these studies while, on the other hand (involuntary reductions in income) – the loss doesn’t justify reductions. Is it any wonder why women are filing for divorce more and more? Between the ease of no-fault divorce, the near guarantee of custody of the children, the near endless support offered them through the fear campaign of feminist organizations, the guarantee of at least 50% of the marital assets, and a substantial chunk of the future earnings of the ex-spouse – WHY THE HELL NOT?!?!

And my favorite:

“The estimates used to develop the schedule are based upon national data. The specific sources of the data are the periodic Consumer Expenditure Surveys.”

I’m sure most third graders can tell you that most Americans spend more than they make. That’s kind of the whole point of say, credit cards, loans, mortgages, and what’s that other one? Oh yeah, bankruptcy. Child support guidelines are not based on the needs of the child, they are based on the needs of adult Americans to keep up with the Joneses. And that is what we are teaching our children. Fabulous!

I’m going to find the name of the evil genius who put himself in a position to profit from this disaster and post it:

In 1988, Congress passed the Family Support Act, which made the guidelines mandatory – along with criminal enforcement – and gave states less than one year to comply. The majority of states quickly adopted the model guidelines conveniently already written by a Department of Health and Human Services consultant who was president of what was shortly to become one of the nation’s largest private collection companies, which makes its profits on the onerous guidelines that create arrearages.

I’ll bet that bastard was smart enough to stay unmarried and childless.

"Child" Support or State Windfall?

January 3, 2008

DW:
Child Support. These are two of the ugliest words in our language. It wasn’t meant to be that way, but when you say these words they bring up very specific, wide-ranging feelings and thoughts. Most of them, not positive. I can tell you from experience over the last 4-years that child support has only partially to do with actually supporting children. It only partially has to do with the best interests of the children.

In 1995 a full 89% of a primary parents were mothers. The media would like you to believe that’s because fathers have abandoned their children. Not only did they abandon them, they refuse to pay child support. (They would also like you to believe that men are all abusive, but that’s for another post.)

The media likes to pull out statistics like the fact that over 30% of single mothers live in poverty. They never actually answer how those “absent”, really just non-custodial, fathers are living, you are left to believe they are millionaires who ran away with their secretary on their private yacht. We spend millions of dollars a year conducting studies on these single mothers, and yet we spend nothing to find out how the fathers are doing. We conclude over and over that children with absent fathers have higher risks of everything from dropping out of school to ending up in jail, and yet we continue to legally take fathers away from their children through custody agreements hammered out in court, just so they will be forced to pay child support so the state can earn more money.

Keith McLeod told the Ways and Means Committee in a hearing, “One must wonder if child support enforcement is one of those misguided social hysterias that are causing more harm than they are solving exactly because we are, yet again, addressing the wrong thing; the wrong end of the stick. Perhaps government policy should change to ensuring any child’s family remains intact irrespective of what happens between its parents. (Whether its parents are married, divorce, or never married, the child’s family be the same people and allowed normal parental roles unless a clear and present danger from one can be proved. Current policy is to intervene upon divorce to prevent one parent from parenting.)”

What really gets me about child support is the enforcement issues that follow behind custody orders or rather the fact they our legal community refuses to enforce child visitation even when it’s been court ordered. Yet they will spare no expense sending a father to jail because he is behind in child support. If mothers went to jail because they withheld their children from the father, an issue would be solved almost by default because the father would then have his children. However, when a father goes to jail because he is unable to pay his child support, nothing is solved. You have now made it impossible for him to pay because he is racking up more support payments while he is in jail and unable to work. You have now also hindered his ability to get a job with a criminal record once he is released.

Now, I’m not saying some mothers do not have a GREAT reason to withhold their children, such as drug use or sexual abuse or that some fathers just choose not to pay their support obligation. What I am saying is that we need to stop treating fathers as criminals and make the retributions equal if this is really supposed to be about the best interests of the children. Or better yet, keep the families together whether they are divorced or not, sharing costs AND care equally and not just using the horribly flawed “income shares model” which is simply a transfer of wealth from one party to the other in the interests of “providing the children with the same income as if the families were still intact.” Reality is, the family is not still intact. There are now two households to support, each with only one income or, in a worst-case scenario, two households to support with only one income to support them.

LM:
The “best interests of the children” is a term that is now used as a shield to justify moronic, punitive measures against payors who fall behind or fail to pay child support. No reasonably intelligent human being can justify using such tactics which only make it difficult, and in too many cases, impossible for the payor (usually the father in nearly 90% of the cases) to earn income. Arrearages pile up, and the parties with a vested interest in promoting mass hysteria propagate the “deadbeat dad” myth.

Even more interesting is some figures I saw worked up using Indiana child support laws, which uses the income shares model. The law says, given a family with a combined income of $50,000 the cost for a child aged 2, it costs $24,272 – the percent of pre-tax income 49%. For a child aged 9, with a combined income of $30,000 it costs $10,600 or 35% of their pre-tax income. This is using the model to calculate who pays what amount of child support.

Why then, is the national average for what states pay out to foster care families for those same children only $7,044 and $7,244 respectively? Because paying out for foster care doesn’t earn the state money, but divorce and child support does. The midwest alone is much lower with figures of $5,604 and $5,768 respectively. So then, why would so many people choose to foster care a child when the Indiana Supreme Court indicates that it costs, in some case, almost $20,000 more per annum to raise a child?

You can read the article which breaks it out amongst a wide range of incomes here: Child Support Analysis – boonecountyfathers.org

The reality is that the laws are draconian and defeat the alleged purpose of “the best interests of the children.” In my case, during the period where I was a non-custodial parent paying child-support, I paid nearly 43% of my after-tax income to my ex-spouse. At the time, I was bringing home about $3,200/month and paying child-support and childcare “in proportion to the income” of the both of us. $1,250. In each of two consecutive years, I paid to my ex-spouse, tax-free for her: nearly $14,000 in each of those two years. Keep in mind now, that was just my portion of what my state says it “costs for the basic needs of the children” – an amount somewhere North of $21,000. Folks, I can assure you, when we were married, I wasn’t paying that much to raise my two children, I wouldn’t have been able to afford the house we lived in if, in reality, it cost that much money. When you factor in that it is after-tax money for which I get no tax relief, the costs are far higher. At the time, it left me with approximately $1,800 on which to live. That is, find a home reasonable enough to accommodate two youngster, pay rent ($1,000 would get me an efficiency where I was living at the time), buy furniture, food, clothes, gas, pay utilities, car insurance/repairs/maintenance, life insurance, health insurance co-pays and other medical costs… and all of the things that normal people in normal circumstances have to do.

Few people realize that in most states and even surrounding countries – your normal daily expenses are not even considered when factoring child support. The rules are clear… he makes this much money, she makes this much money, combine them – give the money to her and how you live is NONE OF THEIR CONCERN. Then, they use a formula to determine how much it costs to raise a child per year and it’s astounding and based on incorrect data.

Now, factor in that the laws also have determined through some never named or cited research, that when you are divorced, suddenly if you get a raise, make more money, get a second job – the costs for the basic needs of the children go up – and your support figure goes up accordingly! I’m pretty sure that I’m not alone in wondering where and how that rationale came to pass, because I can tell you this, if and when I received my annual raise – my kids didn’t suddenly need more food, more clothes, more shelter, more utilities, etc. etc. etc. However, once you’re in the divorce machine – the laws and computations say that’s what happens. Who suffers? The person who pays the price is usually the non-custodial parent – in the overwhelming majority of the cases – the father. Let’s not just blame custodial mothers though, I mean, who wouldn’t want more money for nothing, right? The system allows it and the only person who loses money is… guess who? The father. Mom can file for a support modification whenever she wants. You have to produce your financials. Who gets paid? Conference officers. Judges. Lawyers. Mother. Court clerks. Transcriptionists. Secretaries. The state fund. Who is paying? The non-custodial parent. It’s state and federal sanctioned theft hidden behind “the best interests of the children.”

More recently, the company I worked for up and left – moved across the country. I was out of a job collecting $1,300 per month in unemployment compensation. I had previously made a fairly nice wage. My portion of the mortgage alone was $1,100. The cost of my health insurance coverage for myself and the children was more than $700. Do the math, folks. I’m bringing home $1,300. Just housing and health insurance expenses were $1,800. Ask me if I had to stop paying child support. No. No. I filed for a modification and the Psycho Ex Wife contested it at conference. She, after all “needed more money or she couldn’t pay her bills” despite having a well-paying job herself. That means an automatic hearing. That means paying an attorney close to $2,000 to prepare for and show up to entertain a judge, who, by the way, said the words that would strike fear in the hearts of the toughest men “imputed income.” When a judge decides he is going to calculate “imputed income” – he looks at your earning capacity and can impose child support based upon that. In theory, the judge presiding over the support matter could absolutely have continued to charge me based on what I could be making if I had a job. That means I could have still been paying the PEW almost my entire unemployment compensation check leaving me $100 to live on. Thanks to the $2,000 invested via a credit card for my attorney, I “only” had to pay $200 per month. So now for just the housing, health insurance, and child support, I had $2,000 worth of bills to pay with $1,300 in income. Never mind any other expense. Never mind the other two kids and my lovely partner.

The job loss was unexpected and obviously, the reserve that was in place didn’t last long after having to pay an attorney. I was out of work for 9-months despite having resume’s in at more than 400 companies nationwide in a matter of a few weeks.

I was fortunate despite the very deep hole we now have to dig ourselves out of. Despite having 50/50 custody, I still am required to pay PEW as much as $600+ per month because I make more money than her. Necessary expenses don’t count in most states. Seriously – not at all. I make good money and due to the logistics necessary to secure this position – we can still barely make ends meet. Yes, there are some things we can still cut, but in the grand scheme of things, we still can’t save any money for our future together, let alone our childrens‘ futures.

I’d love to see someone publicize the stories of thousands of fathers just like me who have to clear hurdle after hurdle after hurdle while spending his life savings (and then some) to all those with their hand out at the divorce machine for them to determine how much it’s going to cost me to have my children with me in some meaningful capacity.

Forget about the massive legal costs – I paid between $30,000 and $40,000 in child support money to PEW in the last 3-years. Do you think she used any of it to set up college funds for the kids? Nope. Savings? Nope. Investments? Nope. She has nothing to show for it. Nothing. Not a pot to piss in and near the brink of bankruptcy herself making nearly $40,000 per year without all that money. What a total frigging tragedy.