JP Cusick and Child Support

[ConHog]

That's definitely an issue, and one that is taken advantage of. I've seen it all before, and I've seen the couples receiving support that didn't need it. It would be nice if it were set into an account like the state does in NJ for welfare recipients, maybe at least ensure it's not used for alcohol, cigarettes, drugs.... Right now they pretty much do have free reign, so long as there are no issues with the child's well being.

That's irrelevant Jim. Why should my ex not have to help support her son just because I happen to be able to afford it without her? Just as an example.

[Abbey Marie]

That's irrelevant Jim. Why should my ex not have to help support her son just because I happen to be able to afford it without her? Just as an example.

Shouldn't everything above "needs" (as defined by the courts/legislature, I assume) be given voluntarilyy, as it would be in an intact family?

[ConHog]

Shouldn't everything above "needs" (as defined by the courts/legislature, I assume) be given voluntarilyy, as it would be in an intact family?

Sure, if you live in Polyanna where everyone does the right thing. Unfortunately, here on Earth people are assholes and douchebags. Should a fuck like JP be allowed to choose to just walk away from his /her responsibilities?

[Abbey Marie]

Sure, if you live in Polyanna where everyone does the right thing. Unfortunately, here on Earth people are assholes and douchebags. Should a fuck like JP be allowed to choose to just walk away from his /her responsibilities?

No, that's why I specificed "above needs". I don't know what JP's deal is, but in general, should anyone be forced to pay for luxuries? Maybe I am missing something here.

(Btw, I don't know why I cannot post a comment in this thread without people dragging JP straight into it. I am trying to have a broader discussion. Por favor).

[ConHog]

No, that's why I specificed "above needs". I don't know what JP's deal is, but in general, should anyone be forced to pay for luxuries? Maybe I am missing something here.

(Btw, I don't know why I cannot post a comment in this thread without people dragging JP straight into it. I am trying to have a broader discussion. Por favor).

JP get's dragged into it because he is a textbook example of why we MUST have child support laws.

Okay let me tell you this story Abbey.

Back in the early 1990s there was this kid who played basketball for the University of Arkansas. His name is Corliss Williamson. He was a great college basketball player and a pretty good guy. While in college he got a girl pregnant and married her. After college he was drafted into the NBA and got rich, about 4 years into the marriage he and his wife divorced. He had just a signed a contract paying him $12M a year guaranteed for 5 years. He agreed to pay his ex wife $10K a month in child support. She sued him family court demanding $500K a month in child support , claiming that any less and she wouldn't be able to maintain the lifestyle her kid had been accustomed to. The court told her tough shit that the father was in noway obligated to maintain her previous lifestyle and in fact issued an order for child support in the amount of $5K a month.

That's just an illustration of how things SHOULD be done. Are they always done that way? Of course not, but that is the norm.

[Abbey Marie]

JP get's dragged into it because he is a textbook example of why we MUST have child support laws.

Okay let me tell you this story Abbey.

Back in the early 1990s there was this kid who played basketball for the University of Arkansas. His name is Corliss Williamson. He was a great college basketball player and a pretty good guy. While in college he got a girl pregnant and married her. After college he was drafted into the NBA and got rich, about 4 years into the marriage he and his wife divorced. He had just a signed a contract paying him $12M a year guaranteed for 5 years. He agreed to pay his ex wife $10K a month in child support. She sued him family court demanding $500K a month in child support , claiming that any less and she wouldn't be able to maintain the lifestyle her kid had been accustomed to. The court told her tough shit that the father was in noway obligated to maintain her previous lifestyle and in fact issued an order for child support in the amount of $5K a month.

That's just an illustration of how things SHOULD be done. Are they always done that way? Of course not, but that is the norm.

The "maintaing lifestyle" argument is usually for alimony, not child support. But anyway, you feel that very few fathers get ripped off by the system?
I am not disagreeing; I just have heard a lot of people saying otherwise.

[ConHog]

The "maintaing lifestyle" argument is usually for alimony, not child support. But anyway, you feel that very few fathers get ripped off by the system?
I am not disagreeing; I just have heard a lot of people saying otherwise.

No, I don't . In fact that is why I got involved with the Father's rights movement. But in the last 10 years things have changed dramatically. Child support is no longer used as a punitive tool, and it's not so much "the mother is always the best option" as it once was. More and more you are seeing courts recognize that fathers have a role in raising a child beyond just being a wallet.

But your question about how many fathers get screwed by the system? I would say that quite a few do in terms of numbers, but in terms of percentage no most non custodial fathers do not every have any troubles with CSE.

Now are there still some hold out judges who can't move on? You bet there are. But that is NO reason to do away with laws that require a person to help support a baby that THEY helped create.

There is also the fact that most of the people who find themselves in trouble with the child support laws are mostly themselves responsible for being there. Be a decent person and you don't need someone else telling you to help fund your child's very existence.

[Gunny]

The agencies can certainly use a bit of wrangling to fit modern needs and handle outstanding issues much faster.

But the BIGGEST problem with child support? The "fathers" who run out on their family and refuse to support a human being they brought into this world. There's lots of room for improvement on many avenues, but not a single reason for a father not to help at all.

Complain about how much, pay less and get in trouble, and I can sort of see your side. Think the amount is unfair because of custody agreement, talk to her/him and pay less for all I care. Unemployed or have a valid reason why you can't pay an amount or pay at all? Absolutely, no reason why you should be forced into the streets. But to walk away and not pay, or dodge the responsibility, go awol, not pay a dime, become a "dead beat dad" in the eyes of the law. Those people are the biggest problem, IMO.

I agree. There is no excuse for fathers running out on their children. Now I will pose this question; which, crosses many arguments.

If a woman wants an abortion, the man has no say. Her choice. What if the father wants to keep the child? AND she STILL has the abortion? Her choice. He has no say.

Put it in reverse. He's willing to pay for the abortion but she wants the kid. Why shouldn't he be allowed to be absolved of all legal responsibility? After all, it's still HER choice. He has no say. A lot of "deadbeat dads" are victims of circumstance and a law that caters solely to the woman because chicks with dicks have found a home with the left and get their agenda pushed.

I'm not absolving the man of his responsibility. However, I refuse to absolve the woman who spread her legs either. A "deadbeat dad" to me is a father of children he had in good faith during an alleged good relationship and ran out on. They have no excuse.

It STILL all boils down to the unequal application of law, and/or one-sided laws. The whole Femi-Nazi agenda is bullshit and does nothing but victimize and emasculate the man.

[ConHog]

I agree. There is no excuse for fathers running out on their children. Now I will pose this question; which, crosses many arguments.

If a woman wants an abortion, the man has no say. Her choice. What if the father wants to keep the child? AND she STILL has the abortion? Her choice. He has no say.

Put it in reverse. He's willing to pay for the abortion but she wants the kid. Why shouldn't he be allowed to be absolved of all legal responsibility? After all, it's still HER choice. He has no say. A lot of "deadbeat dads" are victims of circumstance and a law that caters solely to the woman because chicks with dicks have found a home with the left and get their agenda pushed.

I'm not absolving the man of his responsibility. However, I refuse to absolve the woman who spread her legs either. A "deadbeat dad" to me is a father of children he had in good faith during an alleged good relationship and ran out on. They have no excuse.

It STILL all boils down to the unequal application of law, and/or one-sided laws. The whole Femi-Nazi agenda is bullshit and does nothing but victimize and emasculate the man.

Honest question, Why were you silent when I made that EXACT same argument I 100% agree with you here. If a mother chooses to make a man a father against his wishes then she should also have to do without his money, that is an entirely different situation. And of course I also agree that a man should have a say in abortion to begin with.

[Gunny]

Honest question, Why were you silent when I made that EXACT same argument I 100% agree with you here. If a mother chooses to make a man a father against his wishes then she should also have to do without his money, that is an entirely different situation. And of course I also agree that a man should have a say in abortion to begin with.

I was probably at work or something. I've made the same argument for years. It usually kills the thread. Too logical and fair.

[ConHog]

I was probably at work or something. I've made the same argument for years. It usually kills the thread. Too logical and fair.

Fair enuff. By the by, I like the new Gunny lots more than the old Gunny, you seem much happier with your life, congrats on that.

Hope that doesn't embarrass you to have said in public.

[ConHog]

I was probably at work or something. I've made the same argument for years. It usually kills the thread. Too logical and fair.

I always wondered because that thread was the beginning of my problems over at USMB, I crossed Queen Syrenn for the first time there and honestly never could see why more guys weren't in there posting the same thing you and I are saying here.

[LuvRPgrl]

JP get's dragged into it because he is a textbook example of why we MUST have child support laws.

.

but it didnt work. He is a textbook example of how it doesnt work.

[LuvRPgrl]

How has this type bullshit posts made it past Jimmy,Abby,Dmp, and Gunny? Seriously online threats? Good grief dude, grow up.


And I don't even know what you're takling about with the thinks it's alright to beat up women bit.

So you have no response about calling me a scumbag with0ut knowing the whole story"
You have no response about the fact that it is the county that does the collection and I have written proof, after you claimed the county has nothing to do with CS ?

the thing about beating up women was that I made a citizens arrest and stopped a guy bigger than me when he was doing that.
ALso, I didnt make a threat, I just told you that if....then....
as it seems like alot of the time you bring up how bad you are, intimidating, how you are going to punch this guy or that guy, your 20 years as an MP, and I was just cutting you off at the pass.

[LuvRPgrl]

see post 106

I agree. There is no excuse for fathers running out on their children. Now I will pose this question; which, crosses many arguments.

If a woman wants an abortion, the man has no say. Her choice. What if the father wants to keep the child? AND she STILL has the abortion? Her choice. He has no say.

Put it in reverse. He's willing to pay for the abortion but she wants the kid. Why shouldn't he be allowed to be absolved of all legal responsibility? After all, it's still HER choice. He has no say. A lot of "deadbeat dads" are victims of circumstance and a law that caters solely to the woman because chicks with dicks have found a home with the left and get their agenda pushed.

I'm not absolving the man of his responsibility. However, I refuse to absolve the woman who spread her legs either. A "deadbeat dad" to me is a father of children he had in good faith during an alleged good relationship and ran out on. They have no excuse.

It STILL all boils down to the unequal application of law, and/or one-sided laws. The whole Femi-Nazi agenda is bullshit and does nothing but victimize and emasculate the man.