Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Subscribe to the paper
Subscribe to RSS   Add to My Yahoo!

January 29, 2007 7:37 AM

'Duped Dads' could get off the child-support hook

Dylan Davis was a "duped dad. Friends told him they believed his twin children weren't his and, after divorcing his wife, a paternity test proved he wasn't the father. Still, he is required under Colorado law to pay child support, reports Julie Poppen.

"I felt I had been duped and . . . lied to, and the state didn't care," he said. A bill that would undo that law and allow a man to get out of paying child support if he can prove the child is not his is expected to be voted on today by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Davis, who has become one of the faces for what has become known as "duped dad" syndrome, will be there to try to persuade legislators to come around to his point of view.

Davis, who works for a start-up company and lives in a downtown Denver apartment, still pays $663 a month in child support, but he has no contact with the children, who live out of state.

He was able to reduce the amount of support after he was laid off from his job as a software engineer at Sun Microsystems. However, he owes his ex-wife $32,000 in back payments after having fallen behind schedule.

His ex-wife declined to comment for this story.

Georgia, Florida, Maryland and Ohio have laws that protect men who prove they are not biological fathers, he said.

A similar effort in Colorado two years ago failed to garner the necessary support. But Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, the bill's sponsor this year, said the vote was close. The organization Citizens Against Paternity Fraud estimates that 1 million men nationwide are in Davis' predicament.

Should a man who isn't a child's biological father be required to pay child support? What if the man had raised the child as his own for several years before discovering the deception? Or had willingingly accepted the child as his own knowing he wasn't the father? How should the child's best interest be balanced against the fairness for a "duped dad"?



Discussion

  • January 29, 2007

    8:03 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    $663/ month and $32K in arrears to an ex who willingly lied just to make a buck?!?! Where do I sign up for this hell? Best thing I ever did was have a vasectomy so I know I will never face this crap.

    Yet another reason why:

    www.americanwomensuck.com

  • January 29, 2007

    8:35 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    I think the bill should go farther and make the women repay the money that was extorted from these men.There must be some penalty for the women who extort money from men for child support and the child isn't his.
    This is insane to make a man pay for another man's child.DNA should be mandatory in divorce cases where children and child support are involved. If it is found that the husband is not the father of the child the woman should pay all test result fees,court costs and both sides attorney fees.I think that might deter some woman who use children as a payday.

    I am a woman and am disgusted by this extortion by woman who lie in more ways than one.

  • January 29, 2007

    9:10 AM

    Terry writes:

    Definately pass this bill!!! Good suggestion about making the woman pay back the moneys extorted!!!

  • January 29, 2007

    9:26 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    8:03-
    Have you met a sharp on the topic California woman? Her line is:
    We have 1/2 the assets and all the #ussy.

  • January 29, 2007

    9:50 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    actually this law should be expanded to include women who claim to be pregnant and ask for money for the abortion...

    this actually happened to me, the woman I was seeing told me she was pregnant and wanted to get an abortion but didn’t have the money and wanted me to pay a few thousand $$ for it. I asked her if she had been to the doctor to be sure she was pregnant and was she sure I was the father and she said she had seen the doctor and was absolutely sure I was the father. I asked her if she had been with anyone else…”I’ve only been with you”…that is when I asked her how this was possible since I had a vasectomy years ago…the phone got very silent and suddenly she had to go…never heard from her again…this is extortion and should be punished too!

    To the women out there (and guys too), my procedure was to cut, tie and cauterize each side and about 6 weeks after the procedure I had a sample checked and the results were 0.00 for any “swimmers”, the probability was nil it was (that is if she were really pregnant) and if she were still adamant it was mine, I would have had another “sample” checked for viability and if somehow they became untied and grew back together, well that would have been another story but as it was she disappeared once I told her I was fixed…I wonder how pregnant she really was and I also wonder why that is not a crime…..

  • January 29, 2007

    9:51 AM

    Fred writes:

    I was fortunate enough to be exonerated of culpability by DNA before this unjust law went into place. I strongly agree that this law should be overturned. This law encourages women to cheat and lie. To further burden honest men to pay for children that they didn’t father. Their are women who currently bank on this law. The argument that “it is for the children’s sake” is hollow. The mothers of these children need to know who the father is before they give birth. Because eventually the children will want to know who their father is, medically, historically, and for their own self worth. And if mother doesn’t know, she should be burdened with admitting to her children how much of a cheater she really is. Its only fair.

  • January 29, 2007

    9:53 AM

    bhaney writes:

    Clearly, a blood test at the beginning of this ordeal would have gone a long way in avoiding what is now a legal nightmare. If the husband had doubts, he should have done the smart thing and gotten tested. Be that as it may, I am in favor of the bill passing, and would expect the mother to pay back what she has received and expose the real father so that he can be made financially responsible for these children.

  • January 29, 2007

    9:53 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    9:50

    Bullshit. Abortions do not cost 'a few thousand $'.

    I am calling complete bullshit. Go hate women some where else.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:04 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    I don't think it's fair that a woman can cheat a man out of his earnings when the child or children are not his . She knows who the father is and the true father should pay . If not the the children should be put up for adoption . She is an unfit mother

  • January 29, 2007

    10:17 AM

    Tom writes:

    The woman should pay this guy back all of themoney and he should never pay another cent.

    This is what happend when people let feminsim go out of control with the, "The woman should have the benifit of the doubt." approach all of the time.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:18 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    Bullshit. Abortions do not cost 'a few thousand $'.

    I am calling complete bullshit. Go hate women some where else.
    Posted by on January 29, 2007 09:53 AM


    1) how does my comment constitute "hating women"??, I hate ANYONE who tries to take advantage of a situation by outright lying and gets busted

    2) I really don't care what you think is BS, reality is sometimes stranger than fiction, remove the "I'm always right blinders", just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen

    3) Not sure and I do not mean to insult you but do you have an AKA and is/was it Harry Palm, if so that would explain a lot….

  • January 29, 2007

    10:21 AM

    sac writes:

    It's sad to say and see that our country is headed in this corrupt path.
    If we don't grow a back bone and stop the people who pass all these unjust laws. They will take away ALL our Freedom AND Justice.
    Stop the Injustice now.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:21 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    10:18 -
    9:53 is jay, who will be singing a different tune three years from now when his wife dupes him. He is full of tough talk now, but when that bright little wife of his walks off with the poolboy and half his assets, he'll be lobbying for men's rights.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:26 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    I just read that someone called this "hating on women". Again I am a women and I love it when someone says that simply because it does not agree w/their opinion. This is not about hating on women, this is about being lied to and having to pay for it. I do agree that abortions do not cost a few thousand dollars and if you believe that then you dont have your facts straight but dont label this as women hating. True, this will bring out some men who just love to trash on women but that is going to happen w/this type of topic regardless of sex. Example being the guy who had the site www.americanwomensuck.com on their posting. Nice. Real mature. What are you? 15? Dont get petty. If you disagree w/this proposal then at least write something worthy of your age.
    There are variables in all these types of arguments and a posting does not allow you to voice all your views but I just wish people would keep it civil. I dont even read these things very often simply because they turn into petty arguements, ignorant comments and name calling.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:28 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    you women-haters ever wonder if the problem might be you?

  • January 29, 2007

    10:31 AM

    David (R) writes:

    Well, my two cents worth, and I've been in this guys shoes, and it was before DNA testing was available to determine the truth.

    My first "real" girlfriend (and eventual fiancee and wife) when I was 19, decided to step out with someone else for a frolic, and she became pregnant from that affair.

    She let me believe it was mine, even though I questioned her and the doctor about the timing of things, because conception would be suspiciously close to when I was in Alaska during 1974 for three weeks attempting to get a job on the pipeline.

    Thinking that the child was mine, I talked her into scheduling the wedding sooner, and we were married. I raised the child as my own until she finally told me in 1979 that I wasn't the father. We had no other children, and I felt very betrayed, but also loved her and 'my son'. The marriage detiorated over the next few months and we decided to divorce. She told the judge what had happened (Arizona court system), and he wouldn't order payments to her for support. But I paid her $350 a month for almost 4 years until she married again so that the child, who bore no responsibility for the situation, would have financial support.

    He now knows I wasn't his father, which we have verified (1998) via DNA tests, and who his real father is, and the guy refused to pay anything. So Brian actually considers me his "dad", more than his own father.

    The bottom line is that if a man helps create a child, he should be responsible for the financial support of that child. And if he didn't, then he shouldn't, unless he wants to. This isn't rocket science.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:32 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    What most people seem to be missing is that these women are playing the same game with the kids that illegals do: Use them until you are proven wrong, and then innocently play the "What about the children?" card. Women who do this have earned a nickname that rhymes with how a football gets kicked on fourth down. Sorry if this sounds like "hating" but if the shoe fits, wear it.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:38 AM

    Paul writes:

    Colorado has got to get a better system in place. I was vehemently pursued by a woman for eight years on a claim to instill me as the father for a child. After years of turmoil and angst, it came to a boiling point in which I was publicly humiliated at my place of employment. A man walks in and asks to speak with me. I approach the man-who is a courier attempting to serve me with papers. I have no idea who this man is and he indicates to me after questioning his presence that the papers were to finally instill a sense of responsibility in me for a child I had neglected. Needless to say I was shocked as were all other personnel and customers at my place of employment. He abruptly dropped the papers in front of my feet and stormed out. The ramifications of this incident cost me my job and my career in that industry. It was impossible to clear my name. In the end five years later I have rebounded in a different profession (after schooling) and was subsequently discounted as being the biological father of the child. Colorado should stop giving a free meal ticket to women. If they are trying to instill a sense of responsibility in men, they should have consequences for women who falsely accuse men as well. It's time for these women to gain a sense of responsibility and stop trying to pin kids on men. If the state is going to make the men think about the child support before they engage a woman, they should instill that sense in women as well. I feel there should be a law enacted that would allow for the counter suit for men who have been defamed as I have been and have lost everything they worked for . Fortunately I being a former Marine learned the quality of perseverance and have made a great comeback. What abou the guys who cannot comeback after such trials tribulation and defamation.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:41 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    10:32 - in all fairness, I can believe that this sort of thing really does happen - every once in awhile - but I highly doubt it is a frequent occurance of even a small minority. Yes, I know women who have become pregnant to "trap" a guy into marriage, but this happened when the girl was really very young and not very wise about the ways of the world. I've never seen it in a woman of 22 or 23 and up. As for having a child of another man and marrying someone else, I'd guess less than 2 or 3%, but I'm not sure we'd ever get anything like "reliable" numbers on it. I just don't think it's fair to label the majority of women for the foolish acts of a few.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:43 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    I love this topic, so many of you morons think that making the women pay back the men will be good? Dead beat mothers now our number dead beat fathers and they still cant "make" them pay, its a civil issue, and this would be a civil issue. Good luck ever seeing your money, unless the women is responsible and cares about her job, you will never see a dime. And if said women is responsible and caring, she probably would never put herself into this position in the first place. Let the dads off the hook, but this will just be another thing that ties up the courts and does nothihng, they are not going to start throwing women in jail or work release or to make them back pay, I know this cause my ex owes us 50k in back child support and the court just shrugs it off. Unless the women has some serious assest or cash, they will let them rack up a huge bill cause its a victimless crime and they care not about the children. Get real people, just give men back the right to break their jaws and watch how things start changing, sad it may sound.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:43 AM

    Mark writes:

    I am not sure if this law / loop hole that forces men to pay for children that are not theirs is intentional on the part of our legislature or if it was simply “assumed” that a child born to a marriage was the product of the couple. If it was intentional, it is shocking. If it was an omission or a loop hole IT MUST BE CORRECTED.

    Men already are unfairly required to pay (sometimes) exorbitant child support for their own children. Those of you that have been through a divorce (with kids) know what I’m talking about. The system is unisex but we all know that the overwhelming majority of the payments go from men to women. This is despite the growing trend for the men to have a majority of custody (I happen to be one of those). I have my kids 66% of the time, I pay: Health Insurance, car insurance for 2 teens, three sets of braces (no small $), I pay absolutely everything else you can possibly think of (I’m not kidding - she doesn’t pay for anything for the kids). In spite of all this, I still have to pay her $550.00 per month. In reality, child support is simply the new Alimony (just a new label on an old system that women found demeaning – by calling it “child support” they don’t have to feel like they are taking a “hand out”).

    Just for the record I am divorced as a result of my X having an affair. I would wager that, over the past two or three decades the percentage of women cheating on their husbands has skyrocketed (it’s just that they are smarter than we are – so they usually don’t talk / brag about it).

    It’s time women take responsibility for their actions. If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times… “Women want all of the rights of being a man, just not the responsibility”.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:45 AM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    Certainly a man should not have a legal responsibility for a child that he did not father, but that does not mean that they must abandon the woman or the child. Forgiveness and generosity are far better avenues than changing who holds the legal club and who gets to hurt others with it.

  • January 29, 2007

    10:52 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    you got a link to support your claim that dead beat mothers now out number dead beat fathers 10:43?

    i call bullshit.

  • January 29, 2007

    11:09 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    The recent shooting by a the police officers wife in Greeley last week is just another example of people getting hurt or in this case killed because of infidelity in a marriage.When the whole story comes out it will probably have something to do with child support.
    Of course we won't know all the details of this deadly soap opera for a while because police officers were involved.How sad that a little girl lost her mother because her father had an affair and a child with another police officers wife.How sad that 3 children lost their mother because she had an affair and a child with another man and murdered an innocent woman in cold blood.
    The friends of the shooter describe her as a great mother and a very doting mother.No she was not a great mother and she was not a doting mother,her behavior is contradictory in her actions.
    Now there are 4 children who pay the price for their parents immoral behavior.

  • January 29, 2007

    11:10 AM

    matt writes:

    I’m sorry but this happens a LOT more than 2-3% of the time. It may be hard to understand, but maybe you are a lot more honest than most people. And its not labeling all women, its holding the liars accountable. Think about it, why marry and raise a kid with the occasionally employed drunk that picked you up in a bar or a nice guy that work hard?

    Why are there so many dead beat dads? One reason is because there are so many dead beats, both male and female. We have laws protecting women, but we need some that protect the innocent as well.

  • January 29, 2007

    11:22 AM

    not a jay writes:

    when did jay stop signing his posts?

  • January 29, 2007

    11:40 AM

    jay writes:

    Why is it that every time someone calls you loons on your BS I get the blame.

    Here's a thought...don't post unfounded crap and no one will give you the biz.

    As far as this subject is concerned....if a woman lies about who is the father of a child in order to extort funds from a partner, they should be held accountable for their actions. Simple as that. Keep your parts in your pants and get a DNA test when in doubt.

  • January 29, 2007

    11:59 AM

    JS writes:

    If the children are not his, then he doesn't pay. If he has been paying, then the women should be made to pay him back. If the father is denied visitiation, then he should not have to pay. Mother are horrible of this matter. The fathers are always the looser in these matters! The laws that covers these things should change. Women should not be favoured by the law as they now are!

  • January 29, 2007

    12:00 PM

    Kevin Jones writes:

    Perhaps the cuckold should be able to sue the cuckoo, too.

  • January 29, 2007

    12:19 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    My father used to tell me that if you lay down with a dog, you will wake up with fleas. Especially appropriate here.

    If you every want a good laugh, watch "Maury" when he is doing paternity testing. Women who celebrate the proof that some unemployed loser has fathered their kid, when they know damn well that this idiot will never step up to the plate. Likewise, guys who will deny their kids, because they are too stupid/lazy to keep a job.

    The reason this exists is because too many men don't own up to their responsibility as fathers until they are forced to by the courts. Likewise, too many women willing to lay down and assume the position for some unemployed loser. Then, they play the victim card asking the question "What about the baby?"...Pathetic on both sides.

  • January 29, 2007

    12:26 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    10:52 Do you have a link supporting your claims? Doubtful as we have seen your cowardly postings before. You ask for links yet cannot provide anything but 1 to 2 sentences calling "bullshit". We've seen you before. I call bullshit on you.

  • January 29, 2007

    12:42 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    i did not make any claims. i called bullshit on the claim that dead beat mothers now out number dead beat dads. still waiting for that link.

  • January 29, 2007

    12:44 PM

    Darth Vader writes:

    This is serious business, I once had a son, or what turned out to be twins, stolen and hidden from me for years. If it wasnt for the unimprentable death star we constructed, who knows what sorts of child support they would have gotten from me, especially with my income as a high sith lord. And wouldnt you know, the whore turned them against me, they broke my death star, killed all my storm troopers and forced me into exile, all over a few back payments in child support. If they would have just joined me, we could have ruled the galaxy together. I hate you Luke, you will get yours you son of a bitch, and Leia, you're a whore, just like your mom, a power hungry bitch hell bent on making sure your father doesnt rule the galaxy so you can.

  • January 29, 2007

    12:45 PM

    Ben writes:

    Politicians and lawmakers have found another avenue for revenue generaton, plain and simple. They don't want to give it up. When a man is forced to pay for child support for a child he did not father, this is a form of slavery. The mother is guilty of fraud. The bad part is when this fraud is legislated under the pretext "for the children". Yet another example of irresponsible legislation that was not well thought out.

  • January 29, 2007

    12:52 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Ben you are a retarded monkey, the state does not take a cut of child support at all. How the hell will this help them to any extent you idoit? In fact, if you read anything you would know that our nation spends 37 billion a year trying to collect an unpaid 87 billion a year in unpaid child support. If it was to help the goverment, at all, it would be to tax it and keep it, which they dont. You are to stupid to breathe, get a clue, then kindly off yourself to prevent any more moronic monkeys from walking this planet

  • January 29, 2007

    12:55 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts.

    Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.

    That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.

    Men who are due child support are also getting tired of deadbeat moms' excuse that they can't pony up the money, and some courts have responded.

    California lawyer Eudene Eunique in February was denied a passport because she was $30,000 behind in child-support. Instead of spending money on visiting her family in Mexico and on business contracts, the appeals court ruled Eunique’s money should go to her kids.

    Meanwhile, warrant officers in southwest Florida earlier this summer dubbed an effort to list the area’s top deadbeat moms who owed up to $19,000 in support as "Operation Father’s Day." Included on the list were Trudi Dana, 43, who owes $19,001 and 29-year-old Mary Mahadie Friar, who owes $16,493.

    Of course, the problem of deadbeat dads remains a serious one. Many more men than women have to pay child support, making the overall number of deadbeat dads much greater.

    The statistics show 4.3 million moms out of 6.3 million who are supposed to receive child support actually get it. That leaves the alarming figure of about 2 million deadbeat dads, putting them more in the media spotlight than deadbeat moms.

    But men also still pay much more in child support. The Census Bureau last month also released numbers showing fathers paid an average of $3,000 to custodial moms in 1997. Women paid little over half that. Moms also get about 60 percent of what they are owed, whereas dads only get 48 percent.

    Not only are the dads paying up more when they don’t have custody, but when the court does hand the kids over to dads, they work more than moms who have custody.

    While 7 percent of custodial moms work more than 44 hours a week, 24.5 percent of single custodial dads work more than 44 hours. And only about half as many custodial dads get government help than moms.

    Some dads say it’s not for a lack of laws that moms are getting away with not paying up.

    Bill Henry is head of Dads Against Discrimination of West Virginia and a single dad. In 1983, his first ex was ordered by the court to pay $25 a month in child support – which he did not start actually receiving until 1987 – even though the state minimum then should have been $75 a month.

    Henry said dads are often discouraged from pursuing custody battles by attorneys and often don’t like to make waves in the system, as long as they get to regularly see their child or get complete custody.

    "A lot of men are afraid to ask for child support simply because they think if they’re asking for child support, they won’t get a chance to get custody," Henry said.

    California dad Scott Downing has also experienced child-support snafus and said courts continue to give dads the short end of the custody stick. "The laws are there, but it’s the way the courts interpret those laws," he said.

    Single dad David Wood of North Carolina has similar concerns.

    "My frustration … is not so much there’s any biases in me getting child support … it’s just the whole system needs a lot of work. If you don’t get aggressive with it … you have to really work to get it if someone doesn’t want to play the game" and pay up.

    Wood, whose ex-wife has had trouble in court, said there are four men he knows of just at his workplace who are currently or are going to be single dads, or are grandparents of kids who had deadbeat moms.

    "It’s not the exception anymore," Wood said, adding that before he became a single dad two years ago, "I would have almost bought into that stereotype" the dads are usually the deadbeats. But "that philosophy is just 30-40 years out of date."

    But more moms that don’t have the kids simply can’t afford to pay child support since they are poorer, said Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support. Studies show the average income for non-custodial moms is only $15,000 a year, whereas non-custodial dads average about $40,000 a year.

    And moms who don’t have custody of the kids often remarry and have more kids, and often choose to not work.

    But "that’s certainly no excuse," Jensen said. "It doesn’t matter if you’re a mom or dad, you should meet your child support obligations."

  • January 29, 2007

    12:59 PM

    not a jay writes:

    12:52- 37 BILLION a year to collect child support? I bet I could do it better than the government for 36, as in billion. I would get that guy Dog and a few thousand like him.

  • January 29, 2007

    1:01 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Not Jay, liberal douches like Jay would never allow you to use any type of force to collect child support

  • January 29, 2007

    1:07 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    see there that was not so hard. less than 300,000 dead beat moms and over 2 million dead beat dads. next time do not make shit up and you will not get the hammer

  • January 29, 2007

    1:15 PM

    Ben writes:

    Reply to 12:52
    If judgement is leveled against you by another party and the state, the state will take an administrative percentage off of each monthly support check, or they do in most states. This is a lot of money. The percentage can and often is double digits, better than stocks usually. Does anyone know Colorado's administrative percent? Does it exist here?

  • January 29, 2007

    1:19 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    12:19- Your post mentioning The Maury Show made a good point.The majority of the shows I've seen maybe 5 are mothers who claim and will swear on a stack of bibles that some guy is the father and after the test it turns out he's not the father.The majority of mothers ,if you want to call them that,are on their 3rd,4th,5th,or 6th DNA test to find out who the father is.It is worse than Jerry Springer.

    I can't watch those shows ,they just seem to scrape the bottom of the barrel of humans,if you can even call them that.

  • January 29, 2007

    1:21 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Reply to 12:52
    If judgement is leveled against you by another party and the state, the state will take an administrative percentage off of each monthly support check, or they do in most states. This is a lot of money. The percentage can and often is double digits, better than stocks usually. Does anyone know Colorado's administrative percent? Does it exist here?

    Posted by Ben on January 29, 2007 01:15 PM

    You are a moron, not one state takes any sort of fee when it relates child support you monkey. Nor do they take a fee for a judgement against someone in a suit. They take a fee for tickets or admin costs for a crime you dumbass. Unless you can prove otherwise, STFU cause I know what I am talking when it comes to courts and law.

  • January 29, 2007

    1:28 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Another thing not mentioned here is if a woman applies for any kind of public assistance and she names the father of the child or children that man whether he is the father or not is contacted by public services to repay the state and or taken to court on behalf of the mother to collect child support.The state will come after you for any assistance they have given the mother.Another way women can get child support.

  • January 29, 2007

    1:35 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    1:28 that is very true, sadly when the man collects they only go after the mom for the min. They will suspend their license and give them bad credit, but no job = no garnishments and they pretty much drop it, rather sad if you ask me.

  • January 29, 2007

    1:36 PM

    Ben writes:

    Anonymous 1:21 Prove it. It is my understanding that they do. You know law? Get on it then and let's see if we can figure this out.

  • January 29, 2007

    1:47 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Monkey boy, I dont need to figure jackshit out. The courts do not take a fee for court costs unless it is traffic or criminal. Get a divorce, if you can a find a women to like your dumbass, and see for yourself, the lawyer takes the money, but not the child support. Get sued, or sue someone and see for yourself, THERE ARE NO FEES TO THE COURTS. That is why your tax dollars pay for their services. For someone that appears so anti goverment, you sure seem to have a passion for something you dont know anything about. Ignorance is not a reason to assume something then hate the system for it. There is no profit is child support or civil actions for the court, its a simple fact. Not one state. It is a tax payers burden to fund the courts you monkey.

  • January 29, 2007

    1:49 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    I know this is off topic but something has been bugging me every since I saw that horrible house fire in Commerce City that killed that little 2 year old boy.My heart goes out to the family.

    What seems weird to me is the mother is 21 and the father is 29 and away working in Wyoming.Little has been mentioned about him my suspicious mind says he's probably illegal.

    The mother is 21 and has 4 children already.The oldest is 5.That means she had the child when she was 16 and possibly became pregnant at 15.That would make the father 23 at the time.Does it not seem odd and maybe a little weird that this girl has 4 children all 5 and under and she's only 21?

    Just something that has been bugging me as they ask for donations.

  • January 29, 2007

    1:50 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    They focus on this little BS story when it is coming excessively clear that Cheney and Libby committed treason. I guess real new isn't on the Republican Mountain News.

  • January 29, 2007

    1:51 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Oh my god, how can you condem her for having a baby at 15? Dont you know sex feels good? She should have aborted it, that would have been the liberal thing to do, but look at this way, it was a late term abortion. Vote democrat, and watch MTV

  • January 29, 2007

    1:51 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    They focus on this little BS story when it is coming excessively clear that Cheney and Libby committed treason. I guess real news isn't on the Republican Mountain News.

  • January 29, 2007

    1:53 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Treason is giving info to enemys you stupid fck. Not outing an agent who sits at a desk when her husband was out outing her in the first place. No charges were brought foward, meaning no crime was commited, dumbass. And for Ben, he is right, the only fees associated with civil suits, or divorces, or child support are one time filing fees, no state in the country takes a percentage of someones child support

  • January 29, 2007

    1:56 PM

    Eddie writes:

    How about some accountability from the mom? It is rare that you see someone point the finger at the woman...

  • January 29, 2007

    1:58 PM

    Ben writes:

    1:47 Your posts crack me up. You must not like me very much. Good.
    You sure can pull out a lot of assumptions and extrapolations not related specifically to what I posted. No backup from you, just venom to attempt to discredit. At least have the onions to post your name. Whatever then.

  • January 29, 2007

    2:00 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Just take a stroll down to any court hous and see for yourself Ben. Talking with you is like trying to tell a monkey not to drink his own piss.

  • January 29, 2007

    2:01 PM

    JACK writes:

    If you are a victim of fraud, you shoud have recourse. Clearly Dylan Davis was defrauded. The state should not force him to continue to pay, and he should be able to re-collect what he paid the whore.

  • January 29, 2007

    2:05 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Should have would have, could have, never gonna happen as long as feminists are around. Get over it, as far as the courts are concerned, at least someone was paying. That is the only way they will look at it

  • January 29, 2007

    2:06 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Where in heck is Hakala? I would have thought he would be all over this topic...

  • January 29, 2007

    2:12 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Hakala is busy being "all over" his son, which is why he is home schooled, doesnt want to get busted for his incestial relationship

  • January 29, 2007

    2:16 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    2:12, get a grip, you are a moron and to stupid to even be have an opinion of politics, just keep repeating your liberal talking point of the day, it will be okay loony toons.

  • January 29, 2007

    2:22 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    This is a real story in the real news. This is not a talking point; I don’t need crutches for my intellect or a need to keep any lies straight like right wingers.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/29/cia.leak/index.html

  • January 29, 2007

    2:26 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Whats a matter loony toons, Pelosi take away your meds? Fitzgerald is a crusading liberal who couldnt find a crime, just because you're a nut that cant sort fact from fiction doesnt mean a crime happened. Wheres all your anger about Berger stealing classified documents? Oh, thats right, your a partisian hack sold on the liberal utopia scheme

  • January 29, 2007

    2:30 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Well you may not need a cruth, but you surely cant read either loony toons, your article doesnt back up anything you state jackass. It pretty much has the same theme that has been going, MS WILSON WAS NOT UNDERCOVER AND SHE INTENTIONALLY SENT JOE WILSON ON THE TRIP TO COOK UP A LIBERAL VERSION OF EVENTS. Thanks for playing jackass, now go tune into AM 760 and MTV for your next set of marching orders jackass

  • January 29, 2007

    2:42 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    If you pay your support without question then you pay the amount generated by the states magic formula until age 19 or the child is emancipated, if the state pays for it, you owe the government and they can charge you interest (and probably other fees too)

    http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/44f9e/4668e?f=templates&fn=fs-main-doc.htm&q=child%20support%20collection%20fees&x=Advanced&2.0#LPHit1

    You can elect to have a private collector collect for you and they can charge a fee not to exceed 35%:

    http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/182ab/1830e/196d7?f=templates&fn=fs-main-doc.htm&q=child%20support%20collection%20fees&x=Advanced&2.0#LPHit1

    My advice is to get along with your ex and communicate with them, slinging mud doesn’t help, and will only add to the aggravation and loss of lotsa $$,

    in regards to this blog, he shouldn’t have to continue to pay…maybe the state should go after her for not “tagging” the right guy and if she isn’t sure…well that’s another blog…

  • January 29, 2007

    3:06 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Colorado does not apply interest to arreages from the payee, or deadbeat parent. There are no other fees just what the set amount plus back pay, or arreages. Only a dipshit would hire a private collector for child support when social services does it for free. Unless the person has a job, there is not much the courts will do, suspend your license, intercept tax returns, give you bad credit. Thats it, they wont put them in work release and make them pay it off, they just dont have the time or resources.

  • January 29, 2007

    3:09 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Hey 2:42, do you even read the links you provide? They say NOTHING about interest and it says NOTHING about a private firm doing the collecting for a 35% fee. In fact, the only thing it says about collections is the fair debt collecting act. You must be Jay, only he is this much of a douche, well JW as well, but at least he swears

  • January 29, 2007

    3:10 PM

    David Hakala writes:

    My Child Support Enforcement caseworker tells me that about 17% of parents who are supposed to receive child support are men.

    I'm a single father who paid child support for nearly 10 years. In the later years, I was paying $575/month even though the order was for $225.

    Why? Because I got raises, and nobody has to take me to court to get me to do the best I can for my son.

    Three years ago, my son decided to live with me instead of his mother. This decision became his to make at age 12, per the terms of the divorce settlement signed ten years earlier. None the less, a custody battle ensued - mostly bluff, we settled before trial. My son prevailed. Mom was ordered to pay $278/month, plus arrearages for the months our son lived with me while she fought to compel his return.

    She did, for six months. Then she quit her Denver job - which also provided our son's health insurance - and hit the road, living off relatives & friends and never taking a job for more than six weeks.

    She got nearly $2,000 in arrears before CSE caught up with her. Her payments are current now, but I get pretty anxious during the first 7-10 days of each month.

    We are supposed to submit annual tax records to CSE so that the payment can be adjusted as the law requires. I send mine, she never sends hers. Nothing gets done about that. She still pays $278/month.

    I know she's landed a steady job with the Postal Service, and she inherited some money last year. (I don't know how much.)

    Our son still has no health insurance. I make too much to qualify for CHP+ and not enough to insure both of us. Coverage only for a minor child is not offered by private insurers.

    There are many, many things wrong with child support systems in every state. I don't mean just the systems that deal with parents' payments to each other. I also mean society's support of its children. Here are just two examples:

    Juvenile detainees who have not even been charged yet are sleeping in plastic chairs in the hallways of Chicago's juvenile detention facility. Those who have beds get no clean sheets or underwear for a week or more at a time.

    During Colorado's last budget crisis, I read of one toddler who died of complications that arose from a common EAR INFECTION because the resources to cure this simple ailment were cut to the marrow.

    It's not just Miami that's a Third World Country, when it comes to children.

    In the case of this law, it is unconscionable that a child should suffer for the financial shenanigans of its parent(s). It is equally unconscionable for a father to be held financially responsible for a child that is proven not to be his. That leaves us with two options:

    1. Find the real father and make him support his child, and pay restitution to the man who carried his responsibility.

    2. If he cannot be found or cannot meet his obligations, then we, Society, must make up the difference - or admit that it IS conscionable for a child to suffer for its parents' sins and for a man to be held responsible for a child that isn't his.

    What will your conscience tolerate?

  • January 29, 2007

    3:13 PM

    William Tell writes:

    Ben .... don't worry about that poster, it's just good ol' Harry Palm .... he used to sign his work, but now he goes anonymous so he doesn't actually have to have any kind of accountability and he can post a 10 or 20 different folks. He's an opinionated putz and a moron, and oh yeah, a "tool".

  • January 29, 2007

    3:17 PM

    David Hakala writes:

    "Colorado does not apply interest to arreages from the payee, or deadbeat parent. "

    Twelve percent APR. I've collected it.

  • January 29, 2007

    3:19 PM

    gr8fuldude writes:

    David (R) and David Hakala -
    Thank you for sharing your experiences in this matter. I think that both of your experiences lend much in the way of food for thought here.

  • January 29, 2007

    3:33 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    An alternative, which is likely quicker, and has the additional benefit of collecting not only the arrears, but the statutory 12% interest, is to retain a private Colorado child support attorney. We can assist with some effective mechanisms such as contempt of court proceedings (where the family law judge threatens to throw the obligor in jail unless he/she pays), an income assignment, or even putting a lien on the other party's residence!

    http://www.colorado-family-law.com/child-support.htm

    YOu dont collect it, the state does if they handle the collection for you

  • January 29, 2007

    3:54 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    3:09

    Obviously you didn’t read the links, because if you scroll down, sorry I don’t speak monkey, but if you follow the peanuts…on the 1st link, look for the slid bar on the right side of the screen once you have entered the link (1st peanut) and move it down until you see 26-13-108. Recovery of public assistance paid for child support and maintenance - interest colleted on support obligations. (2nd peanut), click on the link and AGAIN scroll down or read from the top until you get to sub section (4) “Any interest collected on support obligations pursuant to the Colorado Child Support Enforcement Procedures Act” (final peanut on this link), if interested you can follow the rest of the links to the actual interest rate…but that assumes you have an inquisitive nature/mind rather than the loud mouth you are

    On the 2nd link (less complicated because you do not need to scroll down and sorry fewer peanuts), BUT you do have to click on the 12-14.1-105. Fees (1st peanut) and review sub-section (4) The maximum fee that may be charged by a collector as specified in subsection (3) of this section shall not exceed thirty-five percent of any amount collected (ohh my gawd, out of peanuts!!).

    My apologies, I thought you had 2 functional brain cells and/or some common sense…but then Harry, the only reason I posted this was to show the new people here how ignorant you are….

  • January 29, 2007

    3:59 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    3:54 - Try to be nice to Harry. He's in training for the upcoming Special Olympics.

  • January 29, 2007

    5:56 PM

    Sandy Burglar writes:

    I stole all that info. Liberals and Democrats are gullible. They stand for nothing and fall for anything.

  • January 29, 2007

    6:25 PM

    John Meyer writes:

    I think jay's comments are a little out of line. Keep in mind that this man was MARRIED to the woman. How could he have known? I mean that's not something you really blare out. "Hey before I sign this birth certificate and tell all my friends about my new kid, here's a cotton swab for you and the baby, the testing room is that way"
    Personally speaking, I think we should make that amount, as well as what the father has paid out in child support, turn into a debt just as forgivable as child support (that is, only at the NCP's whim). But if we can get innocent people out of this debt, I'd call it even.

  • January 30, 2007

    8:47 AM

    jay writes:

    Sorry to offend you John....it's not something I personally would have to do...but then again, I am not worried that my wife is getting some on the side. If you have some doubt...don't let your Victorian sensibilities stand in your way.

  • January 30, 2007

    11:18 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    Sure 5:56 we will put that in the pile of fissile nuclear material from Iraq. If you think liberals will believe anything you should call yourself a liberal. You believe everything monkey boy sold you. I mean even a Republican from Nebraska is figuring it out so you must be slow. Either that or Chuck is the best and brightest of the Republican Party.

  • January 30, 2007

    11:29 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    wait a damn minute

    you mean to say iraq did not have wmds? why did we invade then?

  • January 30, 2007

    1:08 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Can you say Saudi bodyguard duty? Think I’m fooling? We are far from a bastion of democracy in the Middle East and we need to examine our bad policy. We also need to protect our flank because they could take our assets if we don’t get our assets in gear.

  • January 30, 2007

    1:18 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    I think the big picture the Bushies miss is that during the Iran Iraq War the strategic forces of Iran were so beat that they sent hundreds of thousands of Iranians in human waves to overrun and capture Iraqi assets. This is a tactic they will use against a superior force and we better damn well be ready for this possibility. In just the media reports you can tell that the Shia and Sunni forces are digging in and thousands of tribal groups are migrating to support their forces. This is a bad place for our troops and we need a rational exit strategy.

  • January 30, 2007

    1:39 PM

    jay writes:

    Do you think it even matters that many of our own intelligence and military experts insist that our military options in Iran are long shots at best?

  • January 30, 2007

    1:54 PM

    JW writes:

    Not to Bush. All I see coming out of that administration in regards to Iran is a PR campaign on Americans similar to what was used to attack Iraq, and escalation tactics used on the Iranians themselves.

  • January 30, 2007

    1:57 PM

    jay writes:

    Makes you wonder what the end game will be....with Russian and Chinese support Iran would make a poor military target at best. At what point does America come to terms with a nuclear Iran.

  • January 30, 2007

    2:05 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    We need to get out of Iraq and start kissing some Beijing butt. A strong relationship with China could chill the Middle East out in a rapid fashion. The other thing we need to do is start respecting our allies.

  • January 30, 2007

    2:15 PM

    jay writes:

    Yeah, but what about Taiwan...is it a lost cause?

    Did you guys see Lieberman stone-walling for the Administration on Katrina oversight? Interesting turn of events....wonder what happened.

    Also saw that we're finally going to see some serious coverage on the WH's practice of squashing scientific opinions and facts regarding global warming. Going to be an interesting couple of years.

  • January 30, 2007

    2:38 PM

    jay writes:

    We're on the same page on a nuclear Iran. Too late to stop them now anway even if we wanted to.

    So what about Taiwan? Anything resembling good options there or are we just going to resign ourselves to the fact that it will eventually get absorbed?

  • January 30, 2007

    2:48 PM

    gr8fuldude writes:

    I don't see anything close to a good option regarding Taiwan. Too far away to fight over with forces that are going to bogged down in the sandbox for the foreseeable future. Also no resources (read: American self-interests) to rally around.

    Pathetic that we create this facade in Iraq about "spreading democracy", while we conveniently ignore tyrrany and genocide when it doesn't serve our national interests.

  • January 30, 2007

    2:51 PM

    JW writes:

    "So what about Taiwan? Anything resembling good options there or are we just going to resign ourselves to the fact that it will eventually get absorbed?"

    Shit. I just read something about this, and I forget the specifics. General summary though;

    Taiwan can't get to crazy with their "we want independence" because China will have no choice but to act.

    China can't get too crazy about "we will keep you with military action" because investors will BOLT from BOTH economies. China really can't deal with that. They currently RELY on outside investment, and their internal assets are tied up in corrupt, or mismanaged institutions. They simply cannot afford to piss off international investors.

    All in all, looks like they will just keep yelling at eachother, without radical change in the actual situation, provided no one does anything stupid.


    Really though, Ive been so intent on other parts of the globe (including China, but with no Taiwan influence) I haven't been paying attention to the situation.

  • January 30, 2007

    2:56 PM

    JW writes:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6269697.stm

    Just one article, but kind of backs what I just said. Lots of talk and bluster, but business as usual all the same.

  • January 30, 2007

    3:31 PM

    jay writes:

    I agree to a point, but I think Taiwan will eventually have to go one way or another and I'm with gr8tful on that one...I just don't think we have the resources, or the leverage to keep that little economic nugget from being an arrow in China's quiver.

  • January 30, 2007

    3:42 PM

    JW writes:

    I read an article on yahoo from today saying that Taiwan is allowing their companies to increase investment in China, provided they invest in Taiwan as well. That doesnt sound like they are going to be fighting any time soon.

    Then, on the flip side, I did find an article saying China has increased the number of missles aimed at Taiwan to 800. Taiwan has deployed our Patriot anti missle system in response, and is trying to buy more.


    We will see. I REALLY hope they don't go to war with eachother. That will suck for everyone. Right now, there is just no way to tell. Ive never seen two countries ratchet up economic cooperation AND war preperations at the same time!

  • January 30, 2007

    3:47 PM

    gr8fuldude writes:

    I agree with you JW - Something totally illogical about preparing for war and trade at the same time, but I think there are some cultural influences that make them believe it is all in a day's work. (they probably thought the same of us during the US-USSR cold war standoff)

    I think it is a travesty if Taiwan does fall to China, but I think we do and will have bigger fish to fry.

    I've been there though...beautiful area and nice people.

  • January 30, 2007

    3:49 PM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    Pathetic that we create this facade in Iraq about "spreading democracy", while we conveniently ignore tyrrany and genocide when it doesn't serve our national interests.
    Posted by gr8fuldude on January 30, 2007 02:48 PM

    gr8,

    I agree with you completely. The sad part is that when we do the right thing for the wrong reasons, people are more upset than they are about things like the genocide that followed our cutting and running in Viet Nam.

    With regard to Taiwan, we are going to witness the international version of the Kitty Genovese murder in NYC in 1964 as her screams were ignored, because no one wanted to get involved.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

  • January 30, 2007

    4:14 PM

    jay writes:

    Why Hogar...I think that is the closest you've ever come to admitting that it was wrong to invade Iraq.

  • January 30, 2007

    9:08 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    "Unless you can prove otherwise, STFU cause I know what I am talking when it comes to courts and law"

    Oh how I love to see JW act like an idiot. When will this cretin get a life?

  • January 31, 2007

    8:19 AM

    JW writes:

    I see. You can't find anything to actually bash me on, so now you are making shit up. Excelent. Jackass.

  • January 31, 2007

    10:19 AM

    Ebonics Speaking Dropout writes:

    Ima need da get back to da topic at hand...now howas I use dis to get outta my babymama payments? dey too much fo me, youknowwhatimsayin?

  • January 31, 2007

    10:48 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    thanks for chiming in david duke

  • January 31, 2007

    12:37 PM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    Jay,

    I was saying we did the right thing in Iraq for the wrong reasons, and because those wrong reasons don't exist in other places, those places continue to suffer under similar or worse regimes. I am not naieve about the gobal political realities, but that does not change the fact that the world is better off without Saddam, but the question is do we have the political will to prevent an even worse situation form taking its place. If we do not prevent Iran from engineering a fundamentalist takeover of Iraq, then all that we have done will not only have been for naught, but we will leave the area far less stable.

  • January 31, 2007

    12:42 PM

    jay writes:

    Well Hogar we're back to the same place we always get to....

    Even with experts shouting their advice from the rooftops...we didn't adequately prepare or plan for the inevitable power vacuum that arose from the ashes of our actions in Iraq.

    Just another in a long line of clear examples of incompetence that have typified our recent operations in the sand box.

    It's a little too late to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

  • January 31, 2007

    2:50 PM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    Please show me the quotes from those who predicted that Iran would be the major problem post war.

  • January 31, 2007

    2:59 PM

    jay writes:

    I never said that Hogar...I said there were experts that were yelling about the inevitable power vacuum resulting in a poorly planned invasion and poorly planned aftermath. Surely you don't deny that?

  • January 31, 2007

    5:22 PM

    Holier Than Thou writes:

    The law should require DNA testing to prove paternity before liability is assigned. If a man is not the father, he should not have to pay any more if he can prove the child is not his.

    If a single woman wants money for her child from a man she must prove by DNA who is the father. If she is not willing to identify the father truthfully then she should ask a railroad to offer voluntary child support because like her, they've been laid all over the country.

  • February 1, 2007

    9:46 PM

    Tommy Thomas writes:

    The only people who could be opposed to this are the deadbeat moms who get pregnant to extort money from guys. And the state, and the federal government.

  • February 1, 2007

    9:47 PM

    Tommy Thomas writes:

    The only people who could be opposed to this are the deadbeat moms who get pregnant to extort money from guys. And the state, and the federal government.

  • February 2, 2007

    11:39 AM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    Jay,

    I don't think they have a power vacuum problem in Iraq, they have a meddling invasion problem from Iran. If not for the meddling from Iran, Iraq would be far more stable today. I don't think anyone clearly understood what was going to happen, so I don't give much credit to those who predicted a power vacuum. Its simply to general a warning.

    If you have a patient who is very sick, and needs an appendectomy, it is easy to say that the operation is going to turn out badly. When you operate and successfully remove the appendix, only to find cancer, the prediction that the operation would turn out badly is simply does not hold much water. If they had said, I think you need to be prepared to operate on the cancer as well as the appendix, I would be impressed.

    Also the fact that you find cancer does not negate the need to remove the appendix. Those who criticise the present state would rather not have found the cancer because it is a bigger problem than the appendix.

  • February 2, 2007

    1:22 PM

    jay writes:

    Hogar
    Our intelligence agencies don't agree with you.


    http://dni.gov/press_releases/20070202_release.pdf


  • February 4, 2008

    11:43 PM

    seekandfind writes:

    Following a divorce costing $15,000, I became a single father of my two children. Although the state replaced my joint custody status with a non-custodial parent title, my children and I enjoy 40% of overnight visits. When both kids started school, my support order dropped from $640 to $482 and we were able to get a home of our own. Eventually I met a woman who wants to have fun, dosen't want kids and has kids of her own. After 1 month I realize why she is divorced and move on down the road. Three months later she calls me at work and says she is pregnant. Six months later I am served a paternity suit. I attend the administrative hearing held by a Child Support Agent who tells me to sign documents admitting paternity. I refused and asked to be tested. As I left the office, the agent told me about a baby boy. I returned to her office a week later to learn of the testing process. I was shocked to find out that I was going to be tested by her, right at her desk. I asked to see the other woman and the baby to be tested and was told no. As I left the office, I was told the baby was a girl. Seven days later I was told by the same CSE agent that I was the father. I was then asked to sign documents admitting paternity. I was told that by not signing admission papers. I would go in front a judge to request a hearing. I was warned that a judge will order me to pay for court costs, attny fees and several thousand dollars of other charges and back ordered support. I told the agent I would need a few days to review the admission papers and was allowed to take them home. I asked questions, called a DNA lab and was told the quickest test results I could get would take three weeks. I called the same lab used by CSE and was told results delivered in 3 weeks. CSE's results were delivered in 7 days. I decided to request a hearing and signed papers stating my request to proceed to a hearing. At the hearing, I thought I would say something like "not guilty" and then procede to build my case with an atty. Surprise, I was now (pro-se)
    infront of a judge and "playing" court against the county attorney. After witnesses were called up by the County Atty, I was called to the stand. I stated that I questioned the process by which a CES agent could subpoena me, test me, issue results and provide one option that I could afford, to admit paternity. After a series of questions by the CA I was asked if I had anything to say. I told the court this ruling of the support order would force my children and I out of our current home. The CA asked for the judge to consider contempt charges be filed against me. The Judge ordered me to pay $1074 per month to a woman I hardly knew, on behalf of a child I have never seen. I was automatically put into the "Dead Beat Dad Club" for arreage of three months plus courts costs. I asked to see the amount I owed and a list of charges and was told no. In addition to the 1074, I also paid 484 to my ex-wife for child support. I am required to pay 495 to maintain health insurance for all three children. I pay 65% of my diposable income to child support ( the max allowed by federal law) My tax returns for three years were intercepted by CSE and I continue to be in arrears. I showed up at the Family Support Registry and demanded to know what I owed for back child support. I was told 44 dollars. I wrote them a check and three days later FSR sent me a check for 44 dollars. Yes, I am still in arrears, Let me summarize the situation, My two children living with me share the remaining 35% of my income. The kids mother nows works out of state and my kids spend half their time with me. The kids lost their own rooms in a house and now share a one bedroom apartment with me. No savings for their college, no summer vacation with dad. Even if I were the dad of a third child, I couldn't afford to drive and see her or him. And the worst of it, at my last child support modification hearing, I watched man in front of the judge who owed $80,000 in back child support. He told the judge he had no job and the judge ordered him to pay $250 per month. So there you have it! I might be a "Dead Beat Dad" but my kids love me despite the fact Child support laws are not in their best interests.

  • July 14, 2008

    12:40 PM

    danny burrow writes:

    I'm considering myself as A duped dad i am paying child support for Achild that is not mine proven by legal DNA testing which Jefferson county would not provide for me.I have lft the state because of there messed up laws now I'm making less money I have two biological children of my own now and am having A hard time supporting my own children even though they know by admission of the mother that the child is not mine.

  • December 13, 2008

    1:13 AM

    danny writes:

    Is anything going to be done about these women abusing the system about child support!

  • December 13, 2008

    1:14 AM

    danny writes:

    Is anything going to be done about these women abusing the system about child support!

Join the discussion

Required
Required (Will not be published or sold)

Talk to me

Featured today

Today's poll

Search this blog

Recent posts

Chat transcripts

Caption this!