An Exception to the Rule--Reporter Does Fair, Honest Job Reporting on 'Deadbeat Dads'
November 19th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
When it comes to reporting on child support and so-called "deadbeat dads," normally intelligent reporters generally suffer an IQ drop of about 25 points. Whereas they would normally question anything that comes from a government official's mouth, if the first words are "child support," their brains shut off.
Bristol Herald Courier reporter Michael Owens is an exception. In his recent article about child support and "deadbeat" parents, he makes an honest effort to present both sides of the story, quoting both Mike McCormick of the ACFC and myself. He writes:
Virginia Child Support Enforcement Division statistics show that one in every 11 Virginia children has a parent who refuses to consistently pay. In Tennessee, the state Department of Human Services statistics show that number is one in every 12 children.
In Sullivan County, Tenn., roughly $885,000 worth of child support is due each month, notes the Tennessee Department of Human Services. Of that amount, $522,000, or about 59 percent, is paid sporadically or not at all, according to department estimates. (Similar monthly numbers were not available for Virginia counties.)
“It’s very frustrating when those parents don’t pay because you know there’s a kid suffering,” said Michelle Mowery Johnson, spokeswoman for the Tennessee human services department.
In Virginia, Stanley owes $33,805 for support of a girl, and Cannon owes $27,066 to a boy and a girl, according to state child support enforcement records.
Both men landed on Virginia’s updated list of the top nine offenders in October. The list is as part of a program designed to generate tips on their whereabouts so they can be subpoenaed for court. Being among the top nine doesn’t necessarily mean they are wanted for arrest, only that they have outstanding debts that surpass the child-support norm. However, authorities have issued a warrant for Cannon’s arrest because of his failure to appear in court when ordered.
To make the most-wanted list, noncustodial parents must owe at least $8,000, have missed payments for six straight months, and their case must be in the courts.
Johnson said Tennessee stopped producing most-wanted lists several years ago. With few tips generated, she said, such posters became little more than a tool “to shame [evaders] into paying.”
National fathers and men’s rights columnist Glenn Sacks also questions the effectiveness of the lists. In a telephone interview, Sacks said the lists only hound into hiding many noncustodial parents who want to pay, but are down on their financial luck.
“What happens is they fall behind, they can’t get a modification [reduced payment plan] ... and they get an obligation that they can never pay off,” Sacks said.
Michael McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, said that in those cases, divorced dads are at a huge disadvantage.
“If you’re a husband and you lose your job, nothing happens,” McCormick said. “But if you’re a noncustodial father and you lose your job, the next thing you know you have a real likelihood of being put in prison”...
Not every [parent behind on child support is] a deadbeat parent bent on beating the system, noted Sacks, the columnist and spokesman for men’s rights.
Wanted lists “repeatedly” feature noncustodial parents with low-paying jobs. Virginia’s most recent list includes factory workers, a taxi cab driver, a carnival worker and a car salesman, all people who Sacks suggests might never be able earn enough income to pay their familial debts.
“When times are good, you’re working. When times are not, you’re not working,” he said.
Low wages also are a sign of a noncustodial parent who is unable to hire a lawyer savvy enough to convince a judge that dwindling wages should equal lower monthly payments, Sacks said.
“It’s too hard to get downward modification in the child support system,” he said. “With all the hysteria over deadbeat dads, the judges think the guy’s lying or at fault”...
Read the full article here. I suggest readers compliment Owens by emailing him at MOwens@bristolnews.com
"));
19 queries. 0.490 seconds.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Stunning work from Mr. Owens. It's well written, and a good example of what news reporting should be.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:56 am
My contribution to the Story.
Mr Owens,
As a FRA/MRA I wanted to write you a note commending you for a very well balanced and fair article. It is refreshing to see that someone in the media is interested in fair, balanced, and unbiased reporting. Something many of your colleagues forgot a long time ago. If you will bear with me I want to also bring a few other issues to your attention.
The issue with many of the non-payers as Glenn and Mike McCormick stated in your interviews with them is spot on. Here in Texas a mother can get a hearing within a few weeks to raise child support but a father may have to wait months for a hearing to lower and then he has to face what I can assure you from personal experience a plethora of bias from the Child Support Enforcement agencies attorneys.
No State has a law that requires the custodial parent to account for where the child support money is being spent. Child support is abused by the receiving parent and they are consistently harassing the NCP for more money so after awhile the NCP gives up trying to better their situation and just quits. The States will require a non-custodial parent to open their financial history and any income stream is subject to being counted. In addition non-custodial parents are required by law to not only pay support but they also have to maintain health, dental and vision insurance which anyone which may or may not be available at a rate that allows the NCP to afford it and they are responsible for ½ of the unreimbursed expenses as well. When these 2 are coupled together they can have the NCP paying upwards of 50 to 60% of their salary which is well beyond the guidelines of any States.
Many States have separated the Child Support and Visitation into 2 areas so that they are not brought up as a single issue. For a Custodial Parent to refuse the court ordered visitation is a misdemeanor in most States while non-payment of child support, regardless of reason, is a felony in ALL of them. Fathers are refused visitation or their children are subjected to PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) until they give up and stop trying. It not that they don’t love their children but all too often the CP and their family convinces the child that the NCP is no good, doesn’t love them name your cliché.
The Federal matching funds given to the States have taken child support from the hands of justice and put it into the hands of a money making machine. The Federal Government gives the States .66 for every dollar they collect in child support up to $428 Million a year in matching funds. This includes monies that are paid with no effort from the state what so ever but they are given this money free and clear. This has led to an abusive family court system that is doing its utmost to grind the NCP under its heel and led to draconian measures which all to frequently drive the NCP to extreme actions. We have seen judges shot, children abducted, suicides and that’s the tip of the iceberg. The other thing this has raised is a serious conflict of interest in many States which is not addressed by the justice system or the Attorney General because they are the chief perpetrators. Many States have Court Masters or Friends of the Court which are attorneys hired by the Attorney General to hear child support cases…They are not elected or appointed Judges. These people are paid with those same matching funds by the Attorney General. How can it be a fair hearing when the person making the decisions regarding your case is being paid by the entity prosecuting you in the first place?
Congress has passed laws which are heavily weighed against fathers such as the Bradley Amendment and VAWA. The Bradley Amendment makes it impossible for any judge to forgive child support arrears regardless of circumstance. Even if a father proves that a child he is paying support for is not his if there are any arrears he will still be liable for them. There are also no limits on the amount of time a woman has to inform a man he has a child. She can wait for years before coming forth and the courts will completely disregard the fact she sat on the knowledge and award massive arrears. This has the effect of putting the man in question in a debt that in many cases he is unprepared for and affects his ability to support his family. What is really unjust is that many States only give a man up to a year to challenge paternity before he becomes the adjudicated father. Once that happens there is no legal recourse for the fathers to escape having to pay support for a child he established a father/child bond with under false pretenses and in the majority of cases the mother receives no punishment for committing fraud. The VAWA act sponsored by soon to be Vice-President Joe Biden refused to allow fathers rights group or men rights groups to testify before the committee and only radical feminist groups were allowed to present their side to the committee. A recent example is the story from Philadelphia of a man who was jailed 4 times for not paying support on a child that wasn’t his and in which the County Child support office changed the information on the case to match him even though they knew he wasn’t the biological father. Then they had the audacity to try and blame him for their mistake.
http://www.pennlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1226722211104830.xml&coll=1
It was not my intention Mr Owens to waste your time complaining but rather to let you know what some of the issues facing those fathers who the spokesperson in your article was saying she wanted payment from. Much of that $77 Million you referred to is interest not principal tacked on by the States which never gets to the child. There is a great need for a serious revamp of ALL the laws pertaining to Child Support, Child Custody and Family Law in this country but to date it is very difficult to get anyone in Government to champion the rights of fathers because we a society have been indoctrinated into the mother good/father bad dogma.
So I ask you that before you take anything that the county or state child support enforcement has to say at face value ask yourself what is their real motivation.
The Other Mike D
November 19th, 2008 at 11:31 am
It is good to see this Glenn.
Do you know how this reporter came to stand out from the crowd on this issue?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
This part of the article bothers me:
“They’re mobile,” Washington County Sheriff Fred Newman said of child-support evaders in general. “They’ll stay at one place for a little while and when support services get hot on their tails, they’ll relocate.”
Are they mobile because they are indeed actively trying to evade child support or are they mobile because they are so dead-broke that they can't keep enough money together to pay the rent? Sheriff Newman speaks as if every one of these cases involves a payer that is trying to get away with not paying.
I'm sure that many times these low-wage earning people end up getting another dead-end job, at minimum wage if lucky, and then CSE comes along with garnishments for amounts based on a higher wage and arrearages and the guy no long has money to feed himself or pay rent.
My SO suffered a back injury, had surgery, a lumbar fusion with metal clamps, rods and screws holding him together. He was a journeyman carpenter prior to this and earned a decent living. He was up-to-date on all child support and maintenance. Although he was making it paycheck-to-paycheck as he had also inherited all the marital debt through the divorce. Of course he fell behind on CS. When he was able to walk again he tried to go back to work, against medical advice, back to his old job, but there was no job to be had because the housing market took a dive. Needless to say he also lost his place to live.
He tried to get work in his trade but there wasn’t any so he took the only job he could find, messenger work. He was very quickly given a ‘route’ instead of only having to rely on whatever comes in for the day with a promise of at least a $700 a week pay check. Being that these position are sub-contracting positions he was responsible for all his expenses (gas). Yep, you guessed it, the job, even with extra work after his route was finished for the day didn’t even come close to the $700 a week that was promised. He informed the courts of his new employer. He also filed a motion for a modification to his CS. Yes, he should have applied for a modification when he suffered his injury, but he thought he’d heal and get back to work and just play make-up. He didn’t want to slight his children. (Side note: he had always paid his Ex directly. CSE was never involved.)
They immediately started the CS garnishments at the rate from his journeyman pay scale. He was back in court on two occasions trying to get his visitation honored and asking for the modification because the garnishment was going to garnish him right out of a job. No luck. They wouldn’t lower his CS. He HAD to quit the job. His paycheck after the CS garnishment didn’t leave him with enough to put gas in the car for the next weeks work. As you can imagine, this was not the job to have earlier this year when gas prices were so high.
He went back to court and they threatened him with jail because he quit his job. He had all his gas receipts and pay stubs showing he could no longer do the job. He would actually have to pay to go to work. And he was working 12 – 15 hour days. It didn’t matter to the court. Only by good fortune did he just days before that court appearance land a better paying job. He hadn’t even earned his first pay check yet. I was in court with him on that day and I feared the judge was going to send him to jail. A phone call was made to his new employer right there in the court room to verify his claim of having a job and to make sure his very first paycheck was garnished.
I tried to be brief but wanted to give enough information so that people can see that not everyone that falls behind on CS is actively evading. People do get sick, lose jobs become homeless. That is not evasion. That is hard times. I wonder want percentage of the American population lives one pay check away from disaster? And so no one thinks he is crying poor me, he’s not. He very well may get mad at me for sharing his story. He is doing all he can to maintain his child support obligation and arrearages. He lives frugally, like he has a choice. And he sees his children every chance his visitation allows. In over 4 year’s time, before his back injury, he missed only two Wednesday visitations. Since his financial demise he’s missed about 8 Wednesdays but he, we, have always found a way to make sure he has his weekend visitations and are pinching our pennies even tighter in hopes that he doesn’t miss any more Wednesdays.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Low wages also are a sign of a noncustodial parent who is unable to hire a lawyer savvy enough to convince a judge that dwindling wages should equal lower monthly payments, Sacks said.
No matter how expensive or savvy an attorney is once she/he takes on the case of a noncustodial parent they are automatically fighting an uphill battle. And the reason for that as The Other Mike D points out is that the court system actually makes money through draining noncustodial parents for every dime they get. The more they collect in CS the more they get in federal matching. Its almost like a part-time job one would work on the side. An attorney that has a noncustodial parent as a client is th enemy (which would explain why some of the people here in the past have said they've had a hard time finding an attorney).
Two other things I would add:
1. When a NCP changes jobs and ends up taking a pay cut the courts will try to base the monthly pay on the older higher salary.
2. When a NCP goes to jail/prison the payments continue to stack up when the system knows full well that person is not in a position where they can pay. Pausing it and resuming it once they are out and working again would make sense but continuing to stack the payments like that while they are unable to work is unfair.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Danny yes I have noticed that about attorney's too. They want cases they can win, and hopefully straightforward ones without risk or hassle. So when a guy shows up with a tale of woe...they can sympathize and then ask for some immense retainer. Not that they want the job, but to avoid it unless they are prepaid handsomely. Even then many will not take a client that is not easy. Whereas nearly any attorney will take on nearly any woman's case. And eagerly go after the poor sap who is male.
Even straightforward matters are made an issue. For example beyond child support I have to pay for day care for a child that has not had any daycare over the period. Yet I cannot get it removed. I have tried three times in court. My son is now 16 1/2. I have to pay day care on a child that is taller than me...worked as a care provider in camp himself starting years ago...and who is able to get a driver's permit. So he can drive himself to his own daycare? I cannot get a lawyer willing to straighten out this relatively minor matter compared to bigger issues such as all scheduled visitation ending 17 months ago.
Not to mention the years of brainwashing such that the son I was raising as primary parent pre-divorce with no daycare is to alienated to see me. Where does one get help with resolving such issues. Fly in experts from afar at great expense? I've been to court for years and have never found them helpful or to be able to understand that Dad's do matter.
The ONLY thing even close to being enforced post-divorce is child support. Nothing else is enforceable. Not visitation. Not property settlements in some cases.
Personally I feel like I do not live in the America I thought I lived in pre-divorce. I thought I had civil rights, bill of rights, constitutional protections. Folks...men do not have these rights in family court. They mostly do in civil and criminal courts by comparison.
If there were any way to sue the Family Courts for damages to people it should be done. They are absolutely the worst thing for a child to have to experience their aftermath and court orders.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I think this comment pretty well sums it up: “With all the hysteria over deadbeat dads"
Hysteria - excessive, uncontrollable emotion; a state that renders the sufferer incapable of rational thought
November 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
The ONLY thing even close to being enforced post-divorce is child support. Nothing else is enforceable. Not visitation. Not property settlements in some cases.
Simple. Its about money and gender In order for the courts to continue getting the money they have to keep women happy. That is why noncustodial moms are treated better than noncustodial dads when it comes to child support. That is why the courts don't care if the NCP visitation rights are actually carried out. That is why they don't care if the NCP is having unfair portions of their salary taken out in CS. That is why there is NO accountability on how CS is spent.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
What I find funny is when supporters of the system say things like'
"it's such a shame we can't get the money because you know a child is suffering because of it"
Wow. I guess my kids would be suffering now so much compared to some NCP Doctor somewhere. Because without having lots of money, everyone must be suffering directly proportional to the money.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
After my husband's divorce, he was making $60K per year as an auto mechanic. On top of the $300/week that he was paying in basic child support, he also had to pay an additional $100/week for daycare for his son, and another $100/week for health insurance (his job doesn't pay for it). His approximately $800 weekly take home pay was reduced to about $300.00 because he was paying about 60% of his net pay to his ex-wife. Now, being that my husband gets paid on a "per car" basis, it doesn't matter how many hours he actually spends at his job (he's there between 60 & 70 hours a week), he only gets paid for the time that's allowed for each particular repair. He could sit there all day and not make a dime because if there's nothing to work on, he doesn't get paid. The first year we were married, we took his ex to court because his income dropped from $60K to $50K and he was entitled to a modification. I think the only reason why we got it was because our lawyer (who's retainer I paid myself), basically verbally beat her up before they went before the judge and told her that she might as well agree to it because he was going to get it anyway. She agreed to it, but was NOT happy. As a matter of fact, she said on the way out of the courtroom that she would make sure she would do whatever she could to get his payment back up to the $300.00 he was paying. Meanwhile, she was the one who left him, took his kids, and moved in with her boyfriend into the half-million dollar house on the water that they built together. HOW NICE!!!
Fast forward to today. The $800/week that my husband WAS taking home has turned into about $500/week. Why? Because as we all know, the auto industry is basically in the toilet and no one wants to pay for anything to be done on their car. His ex made good on her threat because his payment is now almost back to $300.00 with all the little "extras" she's been able to add on (Braces, Dance, etc.) All the stuff that SHOULD be included in his basic support obligation, but isn't. As a matter of fact, yesterday's check was $335 because his son got glasses and he had to pay for his half of the bill.
So basically, we are pretty much living on my salary only because what's left after his ex gets her paycheck is pretty laughable. Thank God I make decent money because if I didn't we'd be on the street. I feel like I'm working my ass off to pay HER because I'm certainly not reaping the rewards of all my hard work. I told my husband this morning, that if he won't talk to her and let her know that we cannot continue to pay this ridiculous amount, then I will. I will offer her the option of joint physical custody with no CS changing hands. We live close to one another so school and any other activities won't be an issue. If she complains, I'll just let her know that it's either that or we will pay what we can afford after our expenses and if she doesn't like it then that's too bad. He pays her by check directly to her so it's not like his check is garnished. I'm just SO tired of my husband and I being taken advantage of by her and this crappy system. The absurd thing is, if they were still married and had money problems, then everyone would be expected to tighten their belts (including his wife and children). But because he's now just a lowley NCP, he's got to pay no matter what. If we lose our house, who cares. As long as the ex gets her money...that's all that matters.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Burke Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
What I find funny is when supporters of the system say things like'
"it's such a shame we can't get the money because you know a child is suffering because of it"
===========================================
I find it disgusting. Because when a statement is made like this one....then it is a tacit admission that the CP isn't able to provide for the child. And if they are unable to provide for the child, why do they have custody? If that individual is relying on CS for everything, what would happen if the individual paying CS dies? I realize that the child would have a claim on the estate, but if you can't afford to pay your CS, I doubt there is much to the estate. I think that the question - "what will you do if the NCP dies and can't pay CS/alimony?" should be asked during the process....the answer would likely be very insightful and revealing.
Some ideas (and everyone please feel free to jump on this with suggestions/changes):
1. No Fault Divorce should be eliminated.
2. Make 50/50 custody mandatory (unless a parent is proven unfit), and no CS is paid. Each parent pays for all activities when the child is with them. (other costs to be split evenly - School supplies for example)
3. In CS cases, make DNA testing mandatory (if one parent is determined after testing to not be the biological parent - they should be able to opt out of paying CS. Cases where the child is adopted - See #1).
4. Visitation interference should be made a Felony, and if it is proven that interference occurs, a new custody hearing should then be held to modify the 50/50 to 75/25 in favor of the wronged party.
5. Family Court records should be made to be public, with judges periodically reviewed by and independent non-profit organization. Judges should be held financially responsible for any abuses of their power and be removed from the bench.
I'm sure there are other ideas. Please feel free to tear me up. :)
November 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I really did not worry about paying child support, until I could not afford too. Now, my business is operating at a loss each month, and I am working 2 other part-time jobs to try to survive. The Florida Dept. of Revenue has an income deduction order for my prt time jobs. Last week I got my check, (for substitute teaching), and it was for $190. They took out $95, leaving me with $95. Actually, after taxes and everything it is 65% of my gross pay. Maybe with so many people suffering in this economy, they will start to believe some of us that ARE broke. Good article though.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
wolfboy69 Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I'm sure there are other ideas. Please feel free to tear me up. :)
Why would we tear you up?? :-) Here's another one...
Any amount of CS paid should be tax deductible for the NCP and should be taxable for the CP. After all...if she doesn't have to say what she's doing with it, and doesn't have to prove that it's 100% being used for the kids, then it should be treated as it is....taxable INCOME. Basically...no more free money!!!
November 19th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Maybe with so many people suffering in this economy, they will start to believe some of us that ARE broke. Good article though.
No they won't. People will just just down on you harder, expect you to pay more to make up for someone else's suffer, and in general make you th enemy.
I would honestly not be surprised to an ad that shows an impovershed child with some Sarah McClaughlin (sp?) music in the backgroup talking about the "deadbeat" that left her (and you know it will be a her) in such a position.
3. In CS cases, make DNA testing mandatory (if one parent is determined after testing to not be the biological parent - they should be able to opt out of paying CS. Cases where the child is adopted - See #1).
Here is another:
3a. In the event that CS has been paid but it is later proven that the parent who has been paying is not the biological parent the parent in question should be reimbursed for all payments made .
Now I know that if 3. were to initiated then 3a. would be a moot point however...I would make 3a RETROACTIVE.
Now exactly who should have to pay back the deceived parent is a tough one. If you say the custodial parent you'll be told about the poor innocent mother (although I wonder how innocent a custodial who intentionally deceives someone on something as big as CD can be) and poor innocent children who will be left without money (thats right even though you were unfairly forced to pay an ungodly amount of money when you shouldn't have you will NEVER be the victim in this situation). If you say the state then all the money you would received would be literally coming from the pockets of other noncustodial parents that are paying CS, which would in turn lead to state blaming you when they "have to start getting tougher on "deadbeat dads"". So either way after being forced to pay CS for a child thats not yours and being able to prove it and getting it back you will still be the perpetrator and the custodial parent will still be the victim and state gets to continue to rob people blind "for the children".
November 19th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Hey Danny, I can hope can't I?
Bill C
November 19th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
We need to get rid of the welfare reform act of '96. Anyone making under $35,000 a year should be exempt from any form of child support. If you're in that income range you need your entire income for your own bills. If the custodial parent needs help they can apply for state assistance. For those over that income range joint physical custody should be standard, with the unfit exception, and no child support is needed. If that situation is that one parent doesn't want joint phyiscal custody for whatever reason CS should be 10% of bring home pay, so long as it does not exceed $1,500 a month. The $1,500 CS ceiling would prevent a custodial parent from abusing CS and using it as an income.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Well there is one now we need about ten thousand more.
b
November 21st, 2008 at 8:19 am
I am wowed by Mark's comment. Great, great points.
"Mark Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
We need to get rid of the welfare reform act of '96. Anyone making under $35,000 a year should be exempt from any form of child support. If you're in that income range you need your entire income for your own bills. If the custodial parent needs help they can apply for state assistance. For those over that income range joint physical custody should be standard, with the unfit exception, and no child support is needed. If that situation is that one parent doesn't want joint phyiscal custody for whatever reason CS should be 10% of bring home pay, so long as it does not exceed $1,500 a month. The $1,500 CS ceiling would prevent a custodial parent from abusing CS and using it as an income."
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:29 am
Good comment Mark however I'd eliminate the 10% figure since this still would encourage parents, government and children to believe that children are like share holders of a corporation -- the corporation being the NCP. This still teaches entitlement. Its not about the amount of money. You could have said 1% and I'd feel the same way. Furthermore, a child's needs do not increase with income and the added luxuries that a larger payment could provide should be a parents decision (gift, reward etc.) and not a right and not payed to government/parent and credited to the non-paying parent. (What I call playing Santa at the expense of someone else)
I'd also eliminate federal incentives for collecting and receiving money.
This provides motive for collecting ridiculous amounts and in short -- lying. We rightfully focus on the corruption of this system as it affects NCP's, after all it is a hoax. It actually affects everyone. When they take money from the NCP where do they get the money for the matching funds? The tax payer of course, even though the feds shouldn't be involved in state matters. They steal from individuals in-order to steal from the entire country.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I have been dealing with, or attempting to, a deadbeat mother for many years. Yet it seem like she is among the many women who seem to escape the law while many men do not. I can attest to the fact that she is able to work, has an education and a CNA license, and has done harder work than that when she has had to or gets the notion to. Yet she remains free to do anything but pay her child support.
For many reasons she is under supervised visitation yet refuses to take part in it. Even before this she barely if ever saw the children. Way to many times I had my son ready to go visit with her and she would never show up. Then it would be days to even several weeks before we heard from her again. My daughter has always refused to see her because this woman savagely abused her behind my back. But once I got off the rode and was home full time because of a job related injury that left me disabled, I was there to see it all, stop it, confront her that which she then walked out and abandoned these 2 great kids. So now I have had these childre3n 100% of the time for over 5 years.
She then had the nerve to balk at me getting a child support increase because it was so desperately needed. Of course she claims she can't pay it like she couldn't pay it when it was 2/3 lower. Her awful excuse now is that she is not getting child support from a man who didn't want the child she went ahead and had anyways and she should know how it feels not to be paid. Not her. She got pregnant a second time by another guy in order to put a roof over her head while the both drink, drug, and abuse these 2 new children. (She has been investigated by Child Protection in which I got a call about one day.) So I am not the only one who sees what she is.
We have a hearing date for next month and I tend to thi9nk she has worn out her chances. Most men would have already been in and out of jail a couple of times at this point for a sentence, not just a purge as she has been allowed. And since she can chase after 2 little toddlers she can surely work a job, too. It is at this point I do have a say in the recommendation, as I did the last hearing, to whether to have her jailed or not. I'd like to hear anybodies opinion on what I should do just to see what is said. To tell you the truth I have already made up my mind and see if you can guess what it is. I will tell you at a later date or after the court date happens.
Butch
December 17th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
[...] GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » An Exception to the Rule–Reporter … [...]