Online "underground railroad" helps deadbeat dads to flee country.

[TheMightyFavog]

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/International/2006/12/10/2719693-sun.html

Thousands of men who don't have access to their children are choosing to start a new life in another country.

(snip)

The Planetary Alliance for Fathers in Exile (PAFE) believes men are persecuted and offers them a way out.

An underground organization based in Nice, France, PAFE claims to have assisted 250,000 North American men start new lives in Europe.

(snip)

Alliance founder Roger Debois, who also goes by the name Jean Kelly, said he was a New York City emergency-room physician before starting PAFE. He assists North American men, including 4,000 Canadians, who want to start over. Many are the victims of "unethical lawyers,'' Debois said.

[sweetheart]

1. brilliant idea

More power to them in freeing enslaved sperm doners.

[wakeme2008]

2. I like it

:)

If you pay support you should have access to your kids. No IF ANDS OR BUTS.....

[Skittles]

3. correct me if I am wrong

but aren't these guys abandoning their kids to start new families? They don't fight, they flee....sorry, they sound like f***ing cowards to me.

[wakeme2008]

4. Read the article it is about Courts telling Fathers they had to pay

child support but could not see their children. Sorry if you pay you see IMHO...

[Violet_Crumble]

6. And if they can't see, they run like fucking cowards...

Just curious, but do you believe that fathers who have abused their children should see their children?

[sweetheart]

9. indentured servitude and slavery are banished

You seem to agree with slavery when someone has children.

The slaves have every right to escape; there is no fair deal paying
a lifetime for somebody else's life.

Don't have kids in america, most relationships break up and then they
fuck you, men and women, screwed in to legal poverty, where even
progressives will chant for you to return and be burned at the stake
for reproducing without paying your economic tithe to the military
complex.

You make a rude assumption about people who are enslaved,
and maybe they are not cowards, but people who want freedom.

[CTyankee]

27. and they should get a vasectomy, right?

[sweetheart]

35. europe has a falling population, it needs fertile men

Importing the shagboys is perhaps less dim witted than first glance,
clearly such persons are motivated and will work well for their new
masters having been so generously given refuge.

The new world order is transatlantic, but the european welfare state
does not penalize men for proliferation, as the guardians of children
tax credit and entitlement payments that take away the dependency on
a ex-spouse income to get by. Funnily, 'dead beat dad' is not a term
in britain, because of this... there is no persecution of men for
social breakdown in families. What the US is dumping in to military,
could be paid to parents with children in stay-at home child care
credits and investing in loving our next generation and our
collective future.

The war on men has to stop; i recognize that there has long been
a misogyny and a war on women; and part of that is a war on men,
divide and conquor to get women and men to fight it out and drain
all their power blaming each other, when the media programmers and
the social programmers of the new world order are the real cooks
stirring the pot... they're laughing how their introduced narrative
works with people like lab-rats, that they turn on people, visciously.

[CTyankee]

55. I agree with part of what you have said but I also believe in

personal responsibility. I don't believe men should be persecuted and unfairly kept from their children; that's wrong. I don't know any women who do that but I do know women who thought they had a loving father for their children and then got left out in the cold. Adults should be adults. The state does not have that responsibility.

I believe in more state support for families, yes, absolutely. More paid leave, family leave, vacation and sick time. Universal health insurance, higher minimum wage. All of that. Things would vastly improve for both men and women under that system.

Here is the problem I have with this: If a man truly feels he should not be a father, he cannot fulfill the financial obligations of being a father, then he should be honest with himself. Fatherhood is not for him. Why create a life if you simply want to walk away from it (this is assuming he is not unfairly treated for visitation rights)?

AT some point people have to grow up and act responsibly. If you don't want or can't deal with a child you have no business having one, male or female. When I had my 3 children, I raised them and cared for them. Is there a better way than that?

[sweetheart]

57. In the perfect circumstances

Yet as life works out, the period of greatest economic power, one one's 30's-40's,
does not coincide with the fertility zone teens 20's.. where people shag like bunnies
and pop them out if they're not careful.

I guess i'm seeing 2 types of fathers, 1 is a sperm doner, and the other is someone the
kids know. Penalizing a sperm doner for being there is vindictive and wrong.

Relationships break up, largely due to economic stresses, spouses getting jobs in different
cities, and people gotta go where they can find work. Increasingly, in our world, the
flexibility to do this, does not coincide with the normalcy of the norman rockwell childhood.

The planners tweaked the economy 40 years back to end the single earner household to double
the number of taxpayers and its worked very well. Net incomes are diminished so that full
time parenting is only a luxury for the elites. And trusting that by immersing the public
in a rich diet of sexual propaganda, they will get pregnant when they're young and become
trapped consumers.

I've known women and men who've found ways to ditch their children in order to survive. What is
a kid anyways besides some DNA twisted with your bank account for 20 years and goodbye. When
families are that broken, that fallen apart, where a child is not part of your family, but an
extra suitcase in a frustrated race to escape poverty, cynically priced by economists to cost
20 years on the hamster wheel leaving both parents and kids indebted for school loans a the end of it.

For all the talk of family, our new society is about nothing but, not individuality and character of
a long term family unit, but a legislated incubation contract; then when this matrix-like pod breaks
open and husband/wife or child makes a break for freedom, need they be hunted down and shredded for cash.

[CTyankee]

64. Are you an American?

I am interested in knowing this because of your English language sentences. It is fine if you are not, I was just wondering.

"What is
a kid anyways besides some DNA twisted with your bank account for 20 years and goodbye."

This is not a sentence that an American English speaker would write. As a person who works with LIteracy Volunteers of America, I can tell you that I find that whole sentence structure strange.

[sweetheart]

67. Yes, i am

:-) This american english speaker is writing how the synapses fire, not how i talk.

I don't talk about stuff like this with people around me. We talk about other things
like fishing, dogs, the unseasonably warm weather, and gosh, the last time i had a
discussion with someone about family breakdown was probably on DU or PI, but never
offline... Maybe, that in some subjects, i *never* discuss them offline,
preferring the density of abstraction in english grammar.

some people on DU don't like the style. I find its hit or miss. Some of my posts,
when i read them later, i shake my head... and others, i wonder who wrote them, the prose
is lucid enough to be anyones, and then i just feel like a ghost writer for someone
who's well spoken, or verbally inept, whichever the case may be.

[CTyankee]

73. I get it now!

It is like "stream of consciousness." Interesting. It never ceases to amaze me about the diversity of the English language by native English speakers. And I mean that as a compliment!

[wakeme2008]

12. No but they should not have to pay either

:shrug:

Claiming abuse is the biggest con used to try to not allow a father to see his kids.

[Katherine Brengle]

18. I think you might have a chip on your shoulder in this discussion...

I find it highly unlikely that this happens as often as you think it does.

No doubt it happens *sometimes* and that is a damn shame.

[WinkyDink]

22. Because child sexual abuse is SO unheard of in this country, right?

Because women just LOVE to use their children as pawns to "get back at" their husbands for....what, exactly?
Because women just LOVE to break up their families and statistically suffer financially because...why, exactly?

Where is the evidence of this "con" game?

[dysfunctional press]

30. and women NEVER lie in divorce proceedings...

:eyes:

for a lot of them, false charges of sexual abuse are the first order of business. i personally know two totally innocent and ultimately vindicated guys that this happened to.

[Occulus]

41. I live with one whose ex wife made him a sex offender

He was asleep on his couch and the little shithead 12-year-old demonchild who had threatened to kill him and was angry his stepdad was considering sending him to a military academy of some sort crawled up on the couch with him. The guy's hand flopped over on the kid's crotch while he, the stepdad, was asleep (the kid actually testified to this part in a court hearing), and the ex-wife saw it. That was that; she called it sexual abuse, the prosecutor agreed, the judge didn't throw the case out, and he ended up pleading guilty to the charges... because they agreed to let him continue to see his daughter and "just get probation" for it.

Nobody told him about the newly-passed (at the time) sex offender registry. Now he's a sex offender, and he didn't actually do jack shit. In fact, he wasn't responsible for what he did plead guilty to, since even the "victim" testified he was actually sleeping at the time. Yes, the judge should have thrown the case out at this point. I don't know why she didn't.

[Mythsaje]

51. It happens all the time...

Custody is nearly always a case of whoever has the most money and throws the most mud wins. They're not jury trials...all someone has to do is convince a judge, one person, that there was abuse, even if there wasn't. There's no penalty for perjury, and even if there was, you have to PROVE perjury. Believe me, if you're living on eight hundred dollars a month, there's NO way you can get a lawyer. There's no right to counsel in custody cases.

What's bad is that there IS abuse sometimes, but some people (scumbag family law attorneys) are so willing to muddy the water that it's nearly impossible to tell when it has occurred and when it hasn't.

The judge in my case yelled at me for not trying to see my kids (I saw no point in traveling 400 miles to have a brawl on my ex's doorstep--that would have been GREAT for the kids--landing in jail, and screwing my life up even MORE than it already was) then slapped a 5 year restraining order on me so I couldn't even if I wanted to. And, yeah, I wanted to.

Custody battles are NASTY. There's every reason in the world to paint the other parent as a scumbag, and no real reason not to. She called me abusive and I called her a bigot. (She is, but it wasn't a nice thing for me to say). And in a provincial place like Spokane, bigot goes down a lot easier than (alleged) abuser.

Thankfully my EX came to her senses and none of that court stuff actually applies anymore. We're actually friends again because we were willing to forgive each other for it all for the sake of the kids. It was a lot easier when she left the guy she cheated on me with and ended up marrying. God, he is such an asshole.

One of the first things, ever, my youngest son ever said to me (he was about 16 months the last time I'd been allowed to see him) was that John--that's the bastard's name--never let him have seconds. Basically, he wouldn't allow my kids to eat until they'd had enough. He treated my kids and my ex like crap. She put herself in that situation...the kids didn't get a choice.

So, yeah. I've got some problems with the system.

[Le Taz Hot]

65. Actually, they do.

I've seen it time and again. All they have to do is scream "child molester" or "abuse" and that's it. No other evidence is needed. Again, I've actually seen this go down so many times it makes me sick.

[elehhhhna]

31. Yeah. Abuse your kids = get out of paying support. Makes sense

when you put it that way.

CHIP, meet shoulder.

[wakeme2008]

34. I you really abused your kid you should be in Jail not paying support

Sorry I do not buy the pay support but not see your kids.

PS I am single and never married or had kids.

[LeftyMom]

76. Meanwhile, back here in reality that's not going to happen.

Child abusers rarely get prosecuted due to poor reporting and lack of police and CPS resources needed to collect evidence, and when they are they almost never get sent away for the rest of the child's dependent years.

[uppityperson]

56. No they don't. They don't have custody of their kids.

Not having custody is different than not having access. If the custodial parent and child live somewhere noncustodial parent doesn't, the nc parent can move to be nearer their child and be able to see them more often. Big difference between not having custody and not having access.

Even for those fathers who are denied access to their child/ren, they still should have to pay child support as this is an obligation by fact of being a father.

Cross said fleeing shows fathers were never really interested in their children.

"I do find it interesting . . . how often when men fight for custody and don't get exactly what they want . . . those men just vanish from the child's life. And then you've kind of got proof that this was never about the father wanting to be involved with the child."

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Sounds like that to me...

Money is more important to them than staying and fighting for access that they claim (and who knows if they're being honest about that or not) they don't have...

[Skittles]

10. that's the thing

I'm wondering how much effort goes into finding out the real story or if these are just guys who hate their exes more than they love their children

[Porcupine]

7. It's a fight that many cannot win. Have no hope of winning.

If the ex accuses you of domestic violence, sexual abuse, drug addiction, alcohol addiction, gambling addiction or abusing or neglecting the child(ren) in any way the man is considered guilty until proven otherwise. Family court does not have the rules of evidence that criminal court does.

I have had this convestation with my lawyer and it sucks but it's true. Absent any other evidence and disregarding any testimony by the children a man is guilty of whatever his ex accuses him of in family court.

If I did not have a relative with deep pockets paying my lawyer I would not be allowed to see my kids today. I would be required to pay child support regardless of my actual ability to pay and still support myself in poverty. Men go to jail and stay in jail for inablility to pay child support even if they are homeless when they are thrown in jail.

America is a prison for many. Believe it.

[Skittles]

8. problem with abandoning your kids though

is you forfeit any real relationship with them EVER.....when the kids are old enough they'll figure out who was the f***ed up one

[seabeyond]

26. a consideration brother thought about for 7 yrs that tore him up.

the other side of that is every time he fought the woman he knew he was making life more difficult for his daughter, and she was having to endure with an unstable mother without him around to help her thru.

he would often play back and forth, what if... in his mind which is doing more damage to her.

not all men are heartless, mean, cruel and uncaring. sometimes it is the woman

[rainbow4321]

60. Exactly...

Even if they pay the CS, there is no emotional bond. The fleeing parent will pay for it in the end when their adult kids no longer want anything to do with them.

They do more damage to their relationship than the custodial parent could ever do through parent bashing, etc..
My kid's father (who does pay $$) went 6 months without talking to our youngest, then called her on her birthday (she missed his call and never called him back), then went another 6 months without calling her. He's even gone as far as to cancel any offer of visitation with his kids if any of them are going thru hormonal teenage years---not that HE tells them that they cannot go see him, he leaves that up to me. Kind of hard to explain why only **one** plane ticket arrives in the mail when there are **two kids**.
She no longer takes his phone calls when he does take time to call (Thanksgiving Day).. refuses to get on the phone. He instead talks to the oldest kid who is past the more difficult teenage years and invites her up to see him. No invite for the younger one.
He may be paying the court ordered CS, but, in my eyes, he is still a deadbeat for only wanting to interact w/ his kids when the restless, emotional teenage years are going on..just wants to fast forward to their adulthood. That's no kind of "Dad".

[yasmina27]

14. I don't want to sound aggressive

but is alcohol addiction really a cause for a parent not being allowed access to his children in a divorce? Doesn't seem right since it is classified an illness.

I have a reason for asking.

[sandnsea]

39. It can be

Depends on whether the parent has done things like drive drunk, be abusive, neglect the kids, etc. They would likely be ordered to treatment and have supervised visitation. It takes an awful lot for a parent to be denied all visitation, but it does happen and sometimes completely unfairly.

[seabeyond]

24. my brother 180k down and 7 years of hell fighting for his daughter

i cannot tell you all the things he had to endure in fighting for his daughter. we all told him to quit. he couldnt. it wasnt until the woman kidnapped daughter from the a visitation and dumped her in a mental hospital that brother got her. the mother had free, FREE counsilling all the way thru. false criminal charges were put out on him (mom knew the police and connected people). who knew what was going to happen. state of corrupt louisanna.

after two years of NO visitation and the mother giving NO money for support my brother got a call from a man saying he was with the feds and brother had a warrant for taking daughter aross state line. brother checked out the call and found out he was froma bounty hunter. this was after he slept with his gun and i am reading about no knock entries.
this happened jsut a couple weeks ago

it isnt so black and white skittle. life isnt so black and white

[guruoo]

28. Good point....

Exactly how long should a father be expected to fight before
calling it a day, and starting over?
Cowards? I don't think so.

[zreosumgame]

48. most of them HAVE fought for access and custody

there are even those who have PROVEN they are not the father yet are still ordered to pay. SO who is the coward? the ones choosing not to be drained of every penny for no access or the ones who call others cowards before having a single fucking clue?

[Katherine Brengle]

17. Not necessarily...

there are many many reasons that a parent might not be allowed access to his/her children.

If it is for purely spiteful reasons, then I would agree with you, but there is a big grey area there full of personal problems (alcohol and drug abuse come to mind), abusive behavior history, criminal activity...

[alarimer]

61. Bullshit

What about abusers? Those fuckers deserve to pay through the nose and not be able to see their kids without supervision.

Why does the guy in the story need an assumed name? I bet he's a fucking criminal and THAT's why he can't see his kids anyway.

I say good riddance to these assholes. Their kids are better off without them.

[LeftyMom]

75. What if you are an abuser, or a molestor, or have a history of violence toward Mom?

Does that mean your kids don't deserve support, or that you get more access to your past victims?

Child support and visitation are separate issues. Some "parents" can not be trusted around children. They still have a legal obligation to ensure that they are fed.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Legally, the two are not connected.

Paying child support is mandatory and is completely unrelated to visitation. It is the law. I suspect most of these men are bolting because they just don't want to pay. A father can petition the court for visitation and that can be enforced.

One can easily represent themselves in Family Court without an attorney. There are many Legal Aid groups in cities that assist people in modifying support, visitation, etc.

However, again, child support and visitation are not related and one is not incumbent upon the other in a court of law.

[REP]

19. Children Can Refuse Visitation, Too

Just because visitation is agreed to doesn't mean the children have to go along with it. Children do have the right to refuse visitation with the non-custodial parent if they so choose. They didn't choose, however, to exist - they still need food and shelter, and both their parents are responsible for their upkeep. Too many men seem to feel paying anything for their children is too much.

[AtomicKitten]

43. not in California

[Megahurtz]

52. 13 years of age in California

a kid can refuse to see a parent. That's the last I heard.

[AtomicKitten]

53. Here's the scoop.

Simply put, the minor child is technically subject to parental control until age 18. However, if a teenage child refuses visitation with the noncustodial parent, the noncustodial parent may be left without remedy. However, that can be battled out in court and from my personal experience here in California, a good attorney can effect enforcement of the visitation.

from http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/famlawservices/childvisitation/childvisitation.html

Child's Refusal To Visit

Implementing a visitation order necessarily turns upon the custodial parent's ability to make the child available for visitation. A custodial parent probably has sufficient control over a child of "tender years" to compel the child to visit with the other parent under the terms of the court order; and the custodial parent's failure to comply would thus be punishable by contempt.

But the rule is otherwise as to teenagers. Technically, teenage children remain subject to their parents' control until age 18 or marriage (see Ca Fam § 7505). Nonetheless, if a teenage child refuses to visit with the noncustodial parent per the terms of a court order through no fault of the custodial parent, the noncustodial parent is probably left without a remedy. Simply stated, it is unclear how the custodial parent would have the ability to force the child to visit.

[REP]

70. That Was My Understanding...

That once a child was 13, a child could refuse visitation and the custodial parent couldn't force the child to go. Glad to see I wasn't way off-base ... it's been over 25 years since I was the child refusing visitation!

[AtomicKitten]

71. and seriously

how damaging would that be to force a child to see the parent he/she doesn't want to see? I hardly see how that would benefit anyone involved.

[Blue_Roses]

33. I agree

:thumbsup:

[uppityperson]

58. exactly and thank you

[Mythsaje]

13. Oh, I can see a flame war starting here...

The state doesn't care if the father ends up living in poverty because he can't afford the amount they want. As long as he is allowed to keep $800.00 dollars a month to live on, they can nail him for up to half of his income, AFTER taxes. Plus they can make him pay even more for health insurance.

How is someone supposed to survive on seven to eight hundred dollars a month?

And family law attorneys are lower lifeforms, thriving on the misfortunes of others. They are the WORST sort of scum because they can and will suborn perjury because perjury is not only tolerated in family law cases, it's EXPECTED. The one who has the most money and can sling the most mud wins.

They CAN block visitation or shared custody on nothing more than innuendo. How do I know this? Because it happened to ME.

Thankfully I was eventually able to re-establish a friendly relationship with my ex and get things back on track.

I can understand how some guys just end up saying "fuck it" and leaving. This shit can really fuck up your life and most of the people who you could turn to for help have no real interest in helping you.

[Clark2008]

32. I don't know - ask the woman with the children who is

also surviving on ONLY $800 for the THREE of them.

:eyes:

[Mythsaje]

46. Nice eyeroll...

YOU try to survive on 700 dollars a month and see how far it gets you...even as a single person. And a single person doesn't qualify for housing assistance, food stamps, or medical coverage from the state. At least the one who has kids can get help.

On misstep can cost the father everything. And if he's laid off? They can garnish unemployment too, reducing income to far LESS than that.

Is it really that easy to justify driving someone into poverty and homelessness?

[Mugu]

36. What about men that are ordered to pay support for kids that aren't theirs.

This situation is guaranteed to cause an argument between my lady friend and I every time it is brought up. The case involves a couple that is getting divorced and he does a paternity test. When the test comes back the results prove that he is not the father of his children. The courts have ordered that he stills owes child support, so now he has to pay for another man's kids causing such financial burden that he can't afford to have his own with his new wife.


Regards,

Mugu

[sandnsea]

42. Old family law

Before paternity tests, a legal husband was considered the father of 'children of the marriage'. That has been extended because when a child has been 'fathered' by a particular man for 8-10-14 years - it's not fair to the child to have that relationship and support ripped away because the mother was a liar. In some instances, a father would be glad for that law so that the mother couldn't use that against the father. My ex-f-i-l ended up with the kids that weren't his after his divorce, but he's the only dad they ever knew and they were the only children he'd ever considered his own. They're still a family unit, along with the grandkids and great-grandkids. So that's where that law came from and how the courts intend for it to work. Although I know times are changing, with multiple divorces and all.

[Mugu]

45. You are correct and stories like your ex-f-i-l's are cause for hope.

I understand that for the kids the husband is the only dad that they have ever known, but he's also a victim. It's a bad situation all the way around with the innocent (husband and kids) suffering while the adulterers are not penalized.

I keep hoping that minds wiser than mine can find a solution such that the guilty are held accountable and the innocent spared. But in situations like this I don't know that such a solution exists.


Regards,

Mugu

[PreacherCasey]

54. Good point about perjury being "expected"

I just had my child support hearing last Wednesday and I learned that the hard way. My son's mother sat there and blatantly lied about her job and income (she works under the table, of course, as a bartender and waitress). 2 months after we broke up she moved in with another guy and is now back living in her parents house. I spoke to the ex-boyfriend who told me she paid no share of the rent while in his house, and routinely pulled down $500 cash bartending on the weekends. Well, don't you know, at the hearing she pulled out a letter signed by her mother stating that she pays rent to them and chips in for food. LIE, but nothing I could do about it.

When I asked whether I get any $$$ credit for the 300 mile trip I have made EVERY WEEKEND since we broke up and my child care expenses (diapers, wipes, food, clothing, ect) I basically recieved a big "too bad". So now my wages are garnished and I had to pay a lawyer almost $750 to take her to court to establish my custody rights.

Blah, I'll tell you, I never had a feeling quite like I did upon leaving the Domestic Relations Office after my support hearing. It was if fairness was not a factor to be considered.

[Le Taz Hot]

77. $750.00??

We've now been through 2 lawyers for a total of $10,000. We're paying $900.00 a month for his daughter who is now 21 which she turned in September. That amount was calculated from a salary he hasn't made in 5 years (in case no one's noticed, there ARE on middle class jobs anymore). It takes 6 months to get a hearing and we're still waiting. Then there's the two boys. We pay even MORE for them. They live 350 miles away from us (ONE WAY) and there's nothing like traveling all that way on OUR weekend, to find she's taken off with them. She's put us on call block so my husband can't even TALK to them. Take her back to court you say? With what? Between the lawyers, paying child support for a 21-year-old and my husband being unemployed for 14 months straight (he's now working -- I'm not), we are so broke there is no money for a lawyer. Meanwhile this sick, demented evil bitch from hell cashes the checks weekly and shops only the finest clothing stores while my husband hasn't seen his sons in 3 years.

I have LOTS more stories like this.

[cornermouse]

15. Easy solution.

Get a vasectomy. It will help save the gene pool for those who don't abandon their children.

[AtomicKitten]

16. yahtzee

:)

[alarimer]

63. bingo

Don't want to pay, don't have kids.

[Selatius]

20. My big issue here is that not everybody who is made to pay child support can pay it.

You honestly expect a poor person living in a crack, gang, and crime infested neighborhood with few prospects and few opportunities to fork over several hundred dollars a month in child support if he can't even pay his own bills?

The man may have been stupid and gotten a girl pregnant, but I'm honestly not sure making poor people pay for their mistakes by driving them further into poverty is solving the problem in inner-city America here.

It may actually be unintentionally helping to perpetuate the destructive cycle of poverty. If America ever wants to get a grip on its burning neighborhoods, it's got to lift people out of poverty. It most certainly has the resources to do so, but the political will is lacking.

[WinkyDink]

23. Are these the men going to Europe? I think not.

[Bridget Burke]

29. The founder says he was an emergency room physician....

Of course, if he totally abandoned his real identity, he lost the ability to practice medicine--anywhere. Here's another typical "victim":

Pete, who said he is a pilot, started a new family and has two children, aged four and one. He has a 12-year-old son from a first marriage but said Canadian laws handed the boy to his ex. "Now I consider him a lost son."

Pete believes he made the right decision to leave Canada and give up the fight for his son. "My potential was too precious to waste it on lawyers."

So--the son was "handed" to his ex. Sounds as though she got custody--no mention at all of visitation problems. So he abandoned that kid & started over with a brand new wifie & kiddies. He's more concerned with his "potential" than with the kid who was costing him money.

This is a "service" for well-off deadbeat dads. Boo hoo.

[sandnsea]

37. Men should be helped to be fathers

It's a complaint I've had about child support for a long time. Women lose a job, or sometimes even quit because they legitimately have a child care problem, they still have various assistance programs to fall back on. Men lose a job, the child support continues and they're 'deadbeats'. They don't get job training assistance, etc. I read that Washington state had a program to help fathers, that reduced child support to $25 just to try to keep fathers involved. Good idea, except I've known Washington fathers and it looks like the program is on paper only. Never known anyone to benefit from it.

At the same time, a man who is just a screw-up and who would be detrimental to a child, does have an obligation to support the child even if he's too abusive to see the child. Same for moms.

[azurnoir]

21. Unfortunately, there is need

Sometimes the "system" is abusive. A friend of ours has 2 children, by 2 different moms.They are 13 years apart, he very willingly claimed paternity for the one who's mom he was not married to. The 2 kids lived in 2 different counties, both moms had children by other men and were collecting welfare. The welfare departments treated them 2 as separate cases, each taking 50% of his after taxes income. Thats right 100%, he tried to reason with them and was told to "get a lawyer" but of course he would have to pay for it himself. This happened about 10 years ago, one of kids is now grown in her mid-twenties and married and he is still paying back child support for her, no not to mom, she has passed away, to Hennipen County. It should also be noted that when any public support, medical, food stamps, or other types is involved that is who gets the child support money not the mother; fully 1/3 of all welfare funds paid out are recollected in this manner, something the government hardly advertises

[sandnsea]

44. Reimbursing welfare funds

That's exactly right, because if he didn't owe a government agency, no government agency would help collect it. They'll help collect it while the child is a minor, but beyond that it's only to reimburse welfare. If fathers have to reimburse welfare, then I don't understand why mothers don't have to reimburse too. Both of them are equally 'deadbeat' if they can't support their children, or should be given equal economic considerations if jobless or under-employed.

[seabeyond]

25. this is one of the issues i have watched such abuse and lack of fairness

to the fathers. and seen women abuse and get away with. it isnt a prettt picture out thee in some of the stories and there is an unfairness that is wrong in our system.

[earth mom]

38. These men do not deserve to see their kids!

If they don't care enough to make sure their kids are taken care whether they see them or not, then they are just low down dirty vile bastards! :puke:

[BlueIris]

72. What's this? A post given to us by a sane person?

I am shocked. But thanks for being here, amid an ocean of misogyny and ignorance.

[Pithlet]

78. Bingo.

All these posts about victims of the system is irrelevant blather. The men who are availing themselves of this service care more about their wallet then their kids. Period. I certainly wouldn't give up the fight if my ex used dirty tricks to get custody of the kids. Leave the country? Hell no. I have no sympathy for those men, and hope that someday their asses are rightfully extradited back to the US to face justice. And the man who started this service is absolute scum of the earth.

[SoCalDem]

40. It will be interesting to see what happens if they ever want to return.

or how they feel when, years later, their children "find" them.

It takes two to create a child, and even though divorce can be terrible, the kids are not to blame.

Child support, freely given, is one way to send a mesage to that child, that even though they do not have constatnt contact...they still care.

and the cancelled checks, saved, will always be proof that "Dad did not forget them". I knwo that sometimes the custodial parent (usually Mom) does not tell the kids that their Dad is supporting them, but those endorsed checks would help to bridge the gap when those kids grow up..

Running away to France does not help the children.

[CanonRay]

47. Good riddance

[Marie26]

49. Proving how much they care about those kids. nt

[Bucky]

50. "PAFE claims to have assisted 250,000 men start new lives". Uh-huh. Now tell me another one.

Bull shit on just so many different levels

[rainbow4321]

59. UK: Website to 'shame' absent parents

Revoking passports (or not issuing them) to the deadbeats would prevent a lot of them from fleeing.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6166045.stm

Ministers are planning to publish on the internet the names of absent parents who refuse to pay maintenance for their children.

Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton said he aimed to "come down like a ton of bricks" on absent parents. New enforcement powers to be outlined in a White Paper this week include the removal of passports, curfews and electronic tagging.

Labour MP, Frank Field, former minister for welfare reform, said he supported the plans but measures would need to be in place to ensure the information posted on the internet was accurate.

On Saturday it emerged that the CSA had been increasingly using private companies to collect unpaid money, which had so far enabled it to recover about £320,000 which it would not otherwise have recovered.

[sweetheart]

79. The criminalizing fathers thing looks like the future

New powers to target child support debtors

Hélène Mulholland
Wednesday December 13, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

John Hutton, the work and pensions secretary, speaking in the House of Commons on December 13 2006. Photograph: PA wire.
John Hutton, the work and pensions secretary, speaking in the House of Commons on December 13 2006. Photograph: PA wire.

Parents who fail to pay child maintenance will face curfews and confiscation of their passports, in a radical shake-up of child support services.

John Hutton, the work and pensions secretary, today confirmed that the Child Support Agency will be replaced by a Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in 2010, backed by extra enforcement powers.

The powerful new body will mark a "clean break" with the beleaguered Child Support Agency.

Mr Hutton said the government had been advised that the delay in setting up the commission was necessary to create a whole new system to replace the CSA after its troubled 13-year history.
. .
.<snip>


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1971235,00.html

[alarimer]

62. Good riddance to bad rubbish

Doesn't sound like they deserve their kids anyway. There is probably a damn good reason why they can't see them anyway.

[Dastard Stepchild]

66. I know VERY LITTLE about custody and visitation...

So my ignorance could be showing here, but, save an obvious issue that would encourage the courts to deny visitation by the father, aren't many (or most?) fathers able to involve the courts in custody disputes that would allow the courts to legally enforce visitation?

What happens when a Mom chooses to withhold these rights from a Dad?

How common is it to be completely cut off from your children following divorce?

[rainbow4321]

69. From what I heard going thru my divorce

is that if a custodial parent tries to deny the non-custodial parent visitation, even IF that noncust. parent refuses to pay child support, the custodial parent will be held in contempt for not following the court ordered visitation schedule.
It's that way because in the eyes of the court, visitation and child support are 2 totally different issues, you cannot stop one if you are upset with the other.
So, technically, you can have a dad/mom who doesn't pay up CS, but they still can take the kid(s) for visitation. The parent who tries to prevent that visit is the one who would get in trouble.
Here in my state, the court usually will get the ordered CS withheld from the nc parent's paycheck. So the $$ never makes it to the nc parent, it goes right from his/her company to the CS office then to the child. If you have a nc parent who doesn't hold down a job or gets paid under the table, the courts have no paycheck to withhold **from**.
My ex got raises and bonuses over a 5 yr period but never told the court. I got TX attorney general involved, he represented my kids for free (well kept secret here in TX..it is a free service), forced the ex to cough up his payroll info, and as a result my kids then got an extra $400/month that their father was refusing to own up to.
The catch: even though he with held their extra $$ for 5 yrs, the state rule says that the correct payment starts the day that the judge rules he has to pay the correct amount (that court date). Didn't matter that he should have been paying the correct amount for 5 years, (totalling like $12,000)..he was not forced to pay the back cs. Yet his visitation schedule never skipped a beat--this was back when he actually followed a visitation schedule.

[Jamastiene]

68. Why is it that men get by with that while women always

have to take care of the little buggers? I mean, honestly, shouldn't men have to pay for the kids they make too? I don't see why anyone would defend such a thing.

Edited again: Sorry, more typos, I cannot type today.

[sendero]

74. Another thread...

... about whether men or women are the sleaziest when it comes to divorce.

It's a fucking tie, but y'all go ahead and convince yourself of the sanctity of motherhood or the righteousness of fatherhood if it makes you feel better.

One thing for sure, when the courts get involved they are always ready and willing to give every benefit of the doubt to the mother and none to the father.

So, as you might guess, more power to the subject of the OP.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

80. Women get punished with child support too

I was married to a guy and got pregnant. He wanted me to have an abortion and I refused. I had a beautiful healthy child and we separated and got a divorce.

He punished me for this by demanding child support which I had to pay until the child finished high school.

He was the one with the steady job and the health insurance.

I was the one with more education, but I was self employed and also had some health problems. And later I couldn't even find a job, in the late 90s. He had primary custody and I had secondary custody on the alternate weekend bit.

Then he wanted me to help send the child to college. Because he sued my parents during my divorce, they had to destroy the trust fund they set up to help their only grandchild go to college. My ex was warned that if he went after my parents, that he was jeopardizing his child's education, was told this by the lawyers, but he didn't listen. So my folks had to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers defending themselves, not on my child's college.

I told our child that he destroyed the child's college trust fund by suing my parents. He was trying to take away my dad's law license for some unknown vindictive reason.

So now he has to pay for college, since he decided he was going to make all the decisions about raising her. People don't believe this story, and how nasty he was to me and my parents, when we were always nice to him, but it is true.

Some people just don't understand "nice".

This is what happens in community property states. Women are presumed equal to men in ability to support the family. We don't have alimony, we call it "separate maintenance" and it is assumed to be temporary.