[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

Child support or court-ordered robbery?

Wednesday, August 22 at 12:00 AM

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Brian Hodson

It’s that time again; my stress level is rising and my wallet is getting robbed of what little was there to begin with. Must be time to update the info for my child support payment.

Now let’s get a couple of things straight right off the bat.

First, under normal circumstances I think divorce should never be an option for couples experiencing problems, especially when there are children involved (guess which side of the divorce I was on). Just because the kids will “learn to adapt” doesn’t mean they should be forced to do so, they have enough do deal with in our fading quality of society.

Second, and most important, I pay my child support faithfully, on time, every month without question.

Have you every come across an individual who pays child support that has said they feel the amount they pay is fair or within reason? I doubt it. I’m not looking to get out of my paying my child support but I am questioning the validity and accuracy of the amount.

Here is my scenario, and I know there are others who have it worse than I.

I see my son every other weekend for a couple days, the rest of the time he lives with his mom out of state with family (of her own free will). Day care isn’t needed, and there are no other extraordinary expenses. According to the State of Colorado’s worksheet for calculating child support I’m obligated to pay $500 monthly and I’m convinced that it does not take that much a month to raise a child.

From my understanding, the reason couples get divorced is because someone isn’t happy in the relationship and wants to move on with their life. If life truly does go on, people get remarried, have more kids; so why is the child support a snapshot in time instead of adjusting with the rest of your life?

Since my divorce I’ve remarried and have another child. Is there any reason why he will get less, financially speaking, than his older brother? What if I decide to have another 5 children; does it make sense that they will get (for example) $100/month and their big brother gets 5 times that? And when my ex gets remarried, why doesn’t his income count into the calculation? After all, he will be spending more time with my son than I will; he should be financially responsible as well.

How about putting money into savings, put a little away to retire or save some money for the kids education? Good luck — you’re pretty much working to pay your mortgage and child support.

My family hasn’t been reduced to eating nothing but noodles and canned corn, but there is quite a bit I could do with even part of what I’m obliged to pay. So far, when it comes to child support, the consensus answer is “Deal with it,” and that answer just isn’t working for me anymore.

I don’t have the solution; I just know that there are plenty of others out there like me stuck in the same situation.

Food for thought: Keeping the current custody arrangement, if I quit my job and ask my wife to work full time according to the worksheet my ex would need to pay me $300/mo.

Today might be my last day of work.

Brian Hodson is a resident of Centennial.

READER COMMENTS

Women should not recieve one penny from a person who is not the biological father.

Maybe you should try a civil lawsuit.

Women these days know they hold all the cards and the deck is stacked against the men whether they are the father or not.

I find this disgusting behavior.

I am a woman and would never even think about taking money from a man who is not the father of a child of mine.

Men you need to start protecting yourselves from the vultures out there that use their children like a ATM.

I think they have a name for women like that, whores.

Posted by on August 31, 2007 07:30 PM

Ladies and gentlemen lets look at this from a different view. A brief description of what I have experienced. Now ladies do not get all-defensive, as this is a true story and highly documented, listen twice as much as you speak.

STOP PATERNITY FRAUD!

· I married a woman who said she was pregnant with my child. After five years of marriage and the birth of two children we got divorced. I then learned that the eldest child was not biologically mine. The courts at first denied me DNA tests to determine paternity, and when the test was finally done the courts still made me pay child support even though the child was living with the mother and his biological father!

· Despite forcing me to pay child support, the court refused to let me see or have any contact with the child or my biological son!

· The mother then abandoned the children and left them with the biological father. Without giving me any notice, the court redirected my child support payments to the child’s biological father. The court forced me to pay child support directly to the biological father!

· I still had no access to the children, but—having no legal status besides live-in boyfriend—the biological father was given full custody despite having a felony conviction for holding the mother and both children hostage and threatening to kill them!

· The mother was found to have committed welfare fraud and monies have been returned to the State of Michigan, yet Michigan continues to force me to pay for money that was fraudulently gotten and that it has already been reimbursed for!

· The State of Michigan has forced me to pay $150.000 for a child that it knew was not biologically mine who was living with his biological father! Michigan CONTINUES to make me pay for this child!

Help Stop this Perversion of Justice!

Posted by Douglas Richardson on August 31, 2007 09:25 AM

Men,
Oh, boo Hoo... I don't want to be the daddy anymore cause it cost money! Boo Hoo!!!

Posted by on August 29, 2007 06:34 PM

What are you whining about. You are the kinda guy who should seriously think about getting neutered so you won't have any more "burdens" to take care of. This is your kid, if he/she costs $10,000 a month to raise its your responsibility. Grow up.

Posted by on August 29, 2007 06:32 PM

Hey, Brian, first and foremost, thank you for being one of those dads who, despite disagreeing with the situation and the amount, continues to pay support for his kid. You may not believe it, but one day, your son will appreciate the fact that you did what you could with what you had at the time.

Just a few thoughts:

1. The Colorado statute DOES adjust child support figures if you have other children in your care who are not involved in the support issue. If your support figure hasn't been adjusted to reflect your younger child, have it adjusted.

2. I know it's a pain in the butt, but you can have your support issues settled without using an attorney. I'm sure you've come across the forms on the Colorado Judicial Branch website. You can file them by mail if you want and get it taken care of. It may take a couple of months (the courts are log-jammed for the foreseeable future), but the effort may be well worth it.

3. One of the easiest ways to reduce the amount you pay per month is to have parenting time with your son more often. The support amount diminishes as the percentage of time increases with the non-custodial parent. You'd get the best of both worlds: more time with your son and less support to his mom. Then again, your expenses would increase because he'd be with you more often and would demand necessities, such as food, clothing, housing, transportation, etc. It's amazing how quickly it adds up.

The fact is, THIS CAN BE DONE RIGHT. People do get divorced without it becoming a fiasco where the kids feel like they're the rope in a tug of war between mom and dad. Divorce is right in many cases and wrong in many others and I can't pretend to know what it was in yours or any other. Nobody should. But, right or wrong, you're divorced and the only thing you can do is make it as painless as possible for your family - your present wife and both of your children. I'm not saying, "Deal with it," because there are things you can do to make it different.

Best of luck to you and your family.

Posted by TinMan on August 27, 2007 03:04 PM

Brian:

Save yourself the aggravation of trying to make sense out of the court’s policies. It’s like trying to make sense out of a thug threatening to burn down your store if you don’t pay him $500 a month.

Either you stand up to this thug and tell him to go f*** himself, or you live your life in shame and disgrace for not having the courage to confront this type of criminal.

Find a way to work and not pay the extortion. Take Care …

Richard Eichinger:

Hey, Mr. Balls: I hope you’re not paying extortion to these criminals.

Posted by Kevin Merck on August 26, 2007 10:31 AM

Response to Constance

"The issue of child custody should not be mixed up with the issue of support. Two separate issues, keep them that way."

Constance, I love this quote. Not only is it absurd but it demonstrates just how much you have been brain washed by the system. This is exactly what the courts want you and all those facing family court to think. Financial support and emotional support for children are INEXTRICABLY LINKED, period.

In fact it is exactly the selfish nature of custodial parents to actually abuse the rights of their children by exchanging time with the other parent for money. I.e the custodial parent says "accept limited visitation and I'll take less child supprt." Constance, this happens thousands of times every day in family courts all across our nation.

How else are they linked - many ways and sometimes the custodial parent can be the worse offender "He's didn't make a child support payment last week so I guess the kiods wont be around when he comes to pick them up - that'll teach him."

The courts want you to think they are seperate issues so they have more control - but they are not. They are not seperate with intact families nor seperate anywhere else.

There are so many flaws in the child support system that I am full suprised that this country is not in an outrage. It is financial rape in many cases, particularly hi-income cases, where huge 'awards' are ordered that are clearly abused by the custodial parent and reduce the ncp to rubble, making it that much more difficlut for them to present themselves as a whole person, with dignity and respect to their children during 'visitation.' You see, constance, many people forget that what is in the best intrest of a parent is also in the best interest of the child and visa versa. If a Mom is healthy, it's in her child's best interest. If a father is respected and is not financially raped, it is in his child'd best interes, etc. etc.

Constacnce - don't oversimplify this complex problem - it requires close examination of all its facets to truely understand how our government is destroying our familes, parents and childres.

Posted by Tom on August 24, 2007 07:57 PM

Constance,You didn't read the letter. Brian's ex-wife is not in Colorado.She is in another state. I'm assuming it is close since he gets to see his child every other weekend.

The mother lives with family and does not pay daycare.If she works that $500 a month is too much cosidering her living arrangements.

Brian wants to be a father to his child ,but has become an ATM machine for a mother who took the child out of state,which is a burden to even see the child adding travel time and expenses to that.

As far as his new wife and child he has moved on and started a new life.To put him down for wanting a family is absurd.Just because someone gets a divorce and has a child ,that shouldn't stop them from finding happiness with a new family.

It seems to me family is important to him.His ex-wife is lowering his standard of living ,while she raises hers.

I guess I have this attitude because my mom was a single mother of 4 and never asked or recieved a dime of child support or welfare. She worked to support our family. I agree that fathers should pay some support but it should be on a level playing field. If the mother is remarried and has a household income far exceeding the father's and can easily support her family with her new husband without support,than support should be reduced and put into a savings account for the child.

If a mother has no living or daycare expenses and is working,her pay should be taken into account along with all the other factors and child support should be awarded accordingly.Not on some scale that does not take other factors into account.

Thier are alot of women out their using their bodies to pump children out and collect child support.

The father of the child has no rights ,it is her body,her decision.His misfortune.

Something needs to be done to help the men who want to be fathers and custody laws are out of date. The mother should not automatically be the sole custody parent.

Each parent should be equally assessed as who the primary parent should be in divorces.

Child support should be awarded only after all dynamics are evaluated.

The best thing would be for women to stop having babies if they are not mature enough to work at a marriage. Or do what my mother did work for a living and support yourself. My mother was a better person for not relying on someone else to support her.

Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 24, 2007 10:56 AM

It’s not a duty of a future father to devote himself to the eradication of unjust family laws.

The government warns its citizens about the risks of not following rules for driving and it gives us warnings about on consumer products. For example, the government requires warnings on each pack of cigarettes to its risk of use, and that the government posted speed limit sign after each intersection to remind us.

Yet the government does not warn parents about the risks of fatherhood in family court.

If working toward a marriage license was about the same as the efforts to get a drivers license, without changing family laws, let the man decide if it's worth being a father.

Posted by Mark Ruffolo on August 24, 2007 10:29 AM

In response to Constance:

"The only relevant details to determine child support are what it costs to raise a child. Whatever that number is determined to be, Brian owes half. "

But that's not what the law demands. The law says Brian owes whatever the CS tables say he owes--and if doesn't pay, he goes to jail. If she doesn't pay, the government gives her welfare.

"If he cannot afford the first child, DON"T HAVE MORE."

Sounds reasonable, but when the government arbitrarily takes away one child and and makes it impossible for you to have any more, the government has taken away your one chance to be a father.

"The issue of child custody should not be mixed up with the issue of support. Two separate issues, keep them that way."

No. Custody determines who gets child support--and custody almost always goes to mom, who has an incentive to divorce because she expects to receive the kids, support, alimony, and the house.

"Are there problems with how custody is handled in this country - absolutely. Its tragic that custody issues are so divisive. "

It's not "tragic"--it's designed that way. We need a different design, a new way of sorting these things out.

"But bottom line, regardless of your bitterness toward your ex-spouse and the prejudicial mind-set of juries and courts, don't take it out on your child. "

This is not about taking it out on your children. It's about coming up with a system that treats all parties fairly while providing for the kids. And I weary of women who hide their own sins behind the kids--holding a woman accountable for her behavior is not the same as taking it out on the kids.

"You men want to know the secret to a successful marriage - it goes for both parties-STOP BEING SO DAMN SELFISH AND SELF CENTERED."

Wanting to be with my kids and be treated fairly by the law is being neither selfish nor self-centered.

My solutions:

First preference: privatize the marriage contract. Couples define the contract, the courts enforce it as written.

Second preference: A three-tired approach to divorce.

*Unilateral divorce: The person who wants out gets but leaves with whatever the other spouse is willing to give them.

*Bilateral divorce: Both parties agree to the divorce. The divorce is granted when the two parties agree to the division of property and make arrangements for the children.

*At-fault divorce: One party wants out because of the fault of the other party--usually, adultery, abuse, addiction, or abandonment. That party gets a chance to make their case before a jury. The jury determines the out come of any disputed issues between the two.

Child support would be treated like any other debt--no more arbitrary tables, no jail, no suspended licenses, no denied passports, no IRS intercepts, no federal or state enforcement agencies, no "new hires" database, no SS number for getting a fishing license, no Bradley amendment.

And:

No more involuntary child support to single women who choose not to marry the father. That was the law until the 1970s because it encouraged marriage.

No more forcing one man to support another man's child (paternity fraud).

No more using child support to pay back welfare.

Posted by Paul on August 24, 2007 09:56 AM

"You men want to know the secret to a successful marriage - it goes for both parties-
STOP BEING SO DAMN SELFISH AND SELF CENTERED."

Best way to improve marriage is to remove government from it entirely. Restrict marriage to consenting adults writing their own agreement - then enforce it as the parties to the marriage direct. No more family lawyers, no more court "decisions" - just enforce the damn agreement. Period. End of story. No more sham marriage for this cowboy!

Posted by RS on August 23, 2007 08:35 PM

The only relevant details to determine child support are what it costs to raise a child. Whatever that number is determined to be, Brian owes half. Period. End of story. And in Colorado, $500 per month per spouse to raise a child -a bargain.

(Unless of course you think food bank supplements and an section 8 apartment, clothing by goodwill and no enrichment extracurricular activities is the right way to raise a child.)

If he cannot afford the first child, DON"T HAVE MORE.

The issue of child custody should not be mixed up with the issue of support. Two separate issues, keep them that way.

Are there problems with how custody is handled in this country - absolutely. Its tragic that custody issues are so divisive. But bottom line, regardless of your bitterness toward your ex-spouse and the prejudicial mind-set of juries and courts, don't take it out on your child.

The hardest thing two people can do is make a marriage work. I know from personal experience, we're going on 23 years now. The last of the kids is a senior in HS and we are looking forward to re-discovering each other and having time for each other. I cannot imagine life with my husband, he is so precious to me.

You men want to know the secret to a successful marriage - it goes for both parties-
STOP BEING SO DAMN SELFISH AND SELF CENTERED.

Start putting the other person first and you will be amazed at how wonderful your marriage can be.

Posted by Constance on August 23, 2007 08:01 PM

While the topic of Marriage being a sham is tangential it is also clearly implied in Brian's article. The question is why is it a sham?

Wlecome to the government's "family court" machine. It gives one parent extraordinary incentive to leave the other parent. It gives women extraordinary incentive to have children out of wedlock. It gives men no options or assistance at all. It marginalizes fathers both as fathers and men, in some cases to the point that it destroys them.

Take a man's children and econmic livlihood (including decission making rights) from him and you have destryed him.

Are their irresponsible fathers - clearly there are, perhaps as many as there are irresponsible mothers, but the others are all destroyed by governement intrusion on father's and childre's rights.

The government needs to change and men need to recognize that it is their responsibility to change this mess. BTW - the child support system in this country is not doing any better for children then before these laws, in fact it is likley doing more harm.

Posted by Tom on August 23, 2007 12:15 PM

Right On Paul.
Marriage has become a sham.

Posted by David on August 23, 2007 09:40 AM

I have witnessed first hand what divorce does to the children. My children's best friend who lives right across the street came to my house crying one Sunday. I asked her what happened. She told me her mother and father were getting a divorce and her father was moving out . They told her 5 mins. before he left.

The mother said the divorce was her idea. She just wasn't happy.My first thought was,get some prozac,but I kept my mouth shut. Three days later she had some guy spending the night and she forced her children to be nice to him ,even though they just lost their father.

That relationship faded within weeks. Then another guy was in the picture within a week. Within a month he moved in. She never did anything with her children they were always at my house.Her new boyfriend was their for about 2 months then one day she told him she just wanted to be friends and wanted him to move out by the time she got back from her 4 day vacation. She left her children there for him to babysit and he wouldn't let the oldest who is 9 come over to play because he was so upset and needed support.

Then we have the father.After he moved out he hooked up with a mexican woman with 5 kids mostly grown,who has an 18 year old daughter with a 3 year old baby and another on the way.The 9 year old hates going to the father's because her father and girlfriend sit around all weekend drinking beer and smoking cigarettes.He never takes them any where or does anything with them.

The 9 year old is over my house everyday and spends the night most of the week. Her mother is jealous and takes it out on her when she is home.

These children are so screwed up and the parents are only concerned with what makes them happy not the kids. I act as a soft place to fall for the 9 year old.I don't get in the middle of the dynamics going on,but she knows she has a place to vent. I recently had a talk with her about trying to repair the relationship with her mother and it seems to be working. The Father is a whole other dynamic that I can't help with.

Divorce is very harmful to children. My husband and I have been together 28 years and married 24 years. We have 7 and 10 year old daughters.

We have been through some rough times,but always worked things out because both of us think marriage is worth working on and the children should never suffer for our problems.

He came from a traditional home father worked mother stayed home to raise the 6 children,Irish catholics.

I came from a broken home .My mother was married 3 times and my last stepdad was a nightmare.He still alive ,my mother isn't.
I haven't seen my real Father since I was 12 and it doesn't bother me one bit.

I promised myself growing up that I would learn from my mother's mistakes and when I married it would be forever. When I had children I would stay home to raise them.

So far ,so good.

The divorce of my neighbors wasn't messy they must have worked everything out before hand.They sure are making a mess of the children though.

Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 23, 2007 09:14 AM

We wouldn't be having this discussion if we had true equality. On the Lincoln memorial it says, 'all men are created equal'. It's our constitution, what we believe as a free nation of people, capable of governing ourselves. It's time for men to assert their character and stand strong for women, children and our American values. Every child has a right to be raised by both of their own parents.

You have this endless discussion on marriage or child support or private family matters but all of these points are so September 10th. When we have equality in parent-child bonds there will be no child support. When our children are parented equally, when parents have an equal opportunity to parent their own children, then the government will not be interfering in our most precious and private matters anymore.

I say, 'all of us, parents and children, are created equal'. Live it and love it. And by the way, where are the real men? I doubt there's a woman on this planet with the balls to do what needs to be done. Actually, I have not yet heard from a man with balls.

Posted by Richard Eichinger on August 23, 2007 08:27 AM

Constance - your comments are inappropriate and ludicrous. First off Brian is questioning a government system which routinely rapes non-custodial parents (more often fathers) of their children and their money. You mention '$500 is not much to ask for' yet you do so in complete ignorance of the details and this is the exact problem with the whole system. We have 'holier-than-thou' people like you, righteously pontificating about the responsibilities of others while hiding behind the 'best interest of the child.' These folks totally neglect many hidden factors that are at play and make stupid comments like 'come on, support your children' which is, at its core, a valid request but not when taken in isolation. It is clear that Brian has every intent to support his children - however, the questions of how to do this fairly requires a serious evaluation of the details: how much is the other parent contributing, is the other parent using the funds for the children or themselves, what are the actual expenses of the child, what is the equitable distribution considering Brian's other children, what amount of time did Brian want to parent his children (50% perhaps) and if so why wasn't he allowed this time, and if he was then who would pay who child support, etc. etc. etc.

Check this policy statement - it may educate you considerably:

http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullText/E2A78BF98EDE3E33862572FB00696FED

Constance, if you can not see this issue in anymore detail than the foolishly obvious approach you've taken - I think it is you who needs therapy! Please, look at this situation closely and in detail, consider all of the ramifications and live up to the truth, this system gives some parents and the states (they get about 50 cents on the dollar for every dollar they collect in support) great incentive to steal children and money from one parent of a child. Get a grip Constance.

Posted by Tom on August 23, 2007 07:30 AM

Our Federal government provides up to $4.1 billion to States that establish support Orders, collect on amount due, and create arrearages (See 6B, 6C, & 6D).

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm

Posted by Mark Ruffolo, MS, MBA on August 22, 2007 09:38 PM

Welcome to feminized (man bad, woman good) America:

America has one of the highest divorce rate in the approximate 240 countries of the world, where about 80% of women initiate divorce.

I observe that after marriage the man is at risk to lose his children; eighteen years of his income; property (marital and no-marital); and, certain liberties. He risks jail (guess who does keeps track of the accounting for your support - the government's $8 hour clerk with no accounting education or experience).

I observe that divorce is easier than marriage. A divorce is unilateral (one person decides), a marriage is bilateral (two people need to decide). And America's divorce is no-fault - it means she does not need a reason to divorce you, however, to be the heroic victim she will claim abuse (the Violence Against Women Act helps her with this - expect a battery charge for arguing with her) .

If you fo not believe, then visit your county's family courthouse in the morning Monday through Wednesday - it's free and reservations are not required. If you feel up to it ask the divorced dads in the hallway, "How's it going?"

Posted by Mark Ruffolo, MS, MBA on August 22, 2007 09:32 PM

Sorry, Brian, $500 is not too much to to ask of a father to support his child. Consider the cost of his food, lodging, personal expenses, healthcare, clothing.etc, and $500 does not go a long way. The fact that you choose to have other children and no longer are as interested in providing for this particular child is a personal problem of your own making; do not put that on your existing child.

Shame on you for taking your bitterness and anger towards your ex-spouse out on your child. He is an innocent. He didn't ask you to make him. You brought him into this world and now he is your responsibility. Live up to it!

Get a grip on yourself and quit whining. Two people make a marriage and two people break a marriage. See a counselor if you cannot get over the indignity of rejection.

Posted by Constance on August 22, 2007 07:38 PM

I know a guy whose wife dumped him to marry some very wealthy guy, and he got stuck paying child support for their 4 boys. He works 2 jobs and can't affort to even rent a movie. He definitely can't afford a lawyer to try to rework the child support situation. She doesn't work and takes about 60% of his pay and her new husband makes high 6 figures. What is the justification in that? I also know a neighbor who has at least 5 kids in her house from at least 5 different men whom she has never married. I'm sure we are all content to help pay her way while she breeds without control.

Posted by Jay on August 22, 2007 01:51 PM

I feel your pain. I would never avoid supporting any of my children but I have clearly faced just how unjust the system is. In fact the child support 'laws' (most rulings don't even follow the guidelines) are fundamentally financial rape.

I raised 3 children for 15 years without receiving a single cent in child support from their mom. Then I met a woman, we have a son and she hauls me into family court. She earns 200K a year as a corporate exec. I earn less. The courts hit me with $2300 per month plus daycare expenses on top of that. In addition, they ask me to pay her legal fees just because I wouldn't give her the $2300/month voluntarily. This order totally ignored the fact that I was financially responsible for 3 other children. This whole thing is totally out of control and no one understands until they are knee deep in it. When I try to explain this to some of my friends they say "just pay your child support and shut up!" I hope we all wake up about this real soon and take actions - I'm clearly ready.

Posted by Tom on August 22, 2007 01:49 PM

Tom said: "Child support is not an issue for me, being a second class parent is."

Which is part of the unfairness here. A court will take away a man's children simply because mom wants a divorce. That's the definition of second-class parent.

I definitely believe fathers should be expected to support their children--but they should also have the right to be a full, first-class parent (not just a wallet for mom).

One solution is presumptive joint physical and legal custody in the event of divorce, with minimal support changing hands.

Another solution is to favor the parent who does not want the divorce. After all, why should the person breaking the marriage contract be rewarded with most of the benefits of the marriage contract, including the children?

And Can I get an Amen is right--there are women looking for nothing more than a gravy train. Many a young man has learned this the hard way.

Posted by Paul on August 22, 2007 01:09 PM

Fathers are second class parents in the eyes of our culture and courts. The children are not considered in a divorce. (My 14 year old wants to live with me, but the court does not consider a child's desire only the mother's) As a parent, I will continue to support my child financially and emotionally. But as a father, I get a fraction of time with my child and get to support the mother. (her household income exceeds mine by 4 times) Child support is not an issue for me, being a second class parent is.

Posted by Tom on August 22, 2007 12:03 PM

As a woman who has been married for 24 years with 2 children,I actually agree with Brian and Paul.

I know a family that has milked the social security system ,the welfare system and the fathers of their out of wedlock children. They actually get pregnant to dump the dad and file for child support. They have never worked a day in their lives. They just sit back and collect anything they can get from the system and the duped fathers.

Even though Brian's situation is a little different,I do feel sympathy for him and his situation.

For all the single men out there,you better start protecting yourself,even though a woman claims she is protected from getting pregnant.It is up to you. You want to have safe sex or pay child support for 18 years?

You do have a choice.Stop contributing to a woman you may not even know that well,money train. they are out there.

Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 22, 2007 10:18 AM

Child support is designed to provide children in the event of divorce. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Alas, child support is also the way of financing the destruction of the tradtional American family (mom, dad, and kids) and replacing it with the fatherless family (mom and kids).

If we want the number of fatherless families to rise, we should make collecting child support a priority. The percentage of children born to single mothers has risen since the inception of federal support programs. Child support is the key; take away child support and women will choose to have children in a marriage.

The government has created this problem. It expects dads to pay for the privilege of being legally exiled from their own families. If dad doesn't pay, it puts him in jail.

Men are waking up to this problem. Their solution is to avoid marriage and fatherhood.

The government has taken the holy sacrament of marriage and turned it into a den of thieves.

Posted by Paul on August 22, 2007 10:03 AM