Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Men's Group
In reply to the discussion: Charles Bruce and debtors prison [View all]Mammone
(23 posts)17. The courts are the greedy ones
The more they order in CS and spousal support the more money they make and the more the judges personally make. It is a clear and obvious conflict of interest. There is no accountability if they make outrageous and unfair support orders. I do think fathers should support their children. But it has to be FAIR.
How does taking Charles Bruce's ability to earn but still demanding he earn it not demented?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
32 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Kids aren't a consumer good. One doesn't need "to pay for them", one needs to "parent" them.
lumberjack_jeff
Apr 2012
#5
Here's my point. Going by the "traditional", Mitt Romney style family arrangement
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#6
You and I agree on much, but I think we part ways on a couple parts too.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#8
I hear you, Jeff. In my family it was my dad who was the alcoholic. I do suspect that both our
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#14
Fitness based on what though? Whose criteria. There really only is one acceptable one
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#21
I'd start with who has been providing the majority of care, and then see how the kids feel.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#24
And I think that since the marital union is not an issue any longer, any arrangements made are not
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#25
You don't think, for instance, that the fact that one parent has spent 10 yrs in the workforce
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#26
No.Let's turn that around. Since one that one parent has spent 10 years in the workforce should they
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#27
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the narrative of "greedy ex... and !kids!"
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#16
When your kids live with you half of the time, you are supporting them. Period. nt
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#22
The whole non-custodial parent is an invented and discriminatory state that is unnecessary
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#23
Progress is slow when there's a strong financial incentive to keep it the way it is.
lumberjack_jeff
Apr 2012
#29