He Earns $1,600 a Month, the Child Support Order Is for $2,000 a Month--and the Media Doesn't Notice
April 23rd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesOK, bakery worker Robert Sean Myers was foolish to have six kids with at least two and possibly more women. That being said, it's outrageous that a court obligated him to pay $2,000 a month in child support for one of the kids on an income of only $1,600 a month. Now he's being vilified as a "deadbeat." Gee, any idea why he's behind on his payments?
And the media--which always seems to switch its brain off at the mere mention of the phrase "deadbeat dad"--doesn't even seem to notice.
The story is below--thanks to Cynthia, a reader, for sending it.
Queens mom sues bakeries for failing to garnish wages for child support
BY NANCIE L. KATZ
Daily News, April 21st 2008
A Queens mom is so determined to get child support from her ex-husband that she filed a rare lawsuit against two of the world's best-known bakeries for more than $8 million - alleging they failed to garnish his pay.
Chandra Myers will be in Brooklyn Federal Court today to face off against Sara Lee Bakeries and Bimbo Bakeries USA Inc., which distributes Thomas' English Muffins, Entenmann's and other treats.
Myers contends the bakery giants defied orders to garnish a total of $36,000 from Robert Sean Myers' wages from 2001 to 2004.
"It is unfortunate in today's society that we not only have deadbeat dads, but we have deadbeat companies," declared Myers, who has latched onto a rarely used statute to demand a half-million dollars in penalties and interest along with the millions in damages from the firms.
Bimbo's lawyers and Chandra Myers' ex charge the suit is without merit. Sara Lee had no comment.
Robert Sean Myers, a Los Angeles bakery deliverer, said he has records showing that he's attempted to meet child support demands for his 6-year-old daughter.
He insists he won't settle the suit with his ex-wife because $611 of his $1,600 monthly income now goes to their daughter. He also has five other kids to support, he said.
But Chandra Myers has a standing order requiring him to pay $2,000 per month in support based on her expenses. Now $61,000 behind, Robert Sean Myers says he's tried to negotiate a payment plan, but she's intent on getting him extradited here. Under state law, if his owed child support exceeds $50,000, he loses his right to appear in court to defend himself against her charges.
The Myerses' brief marriage ended in April 2001, when Chandra Myers was barely a month pregnant.
"I have no problem supporting my kids," Robert Sean Myers said. "Just let me work and pay it off. She doesn't want child support from me. She wants me to go to jail. Who benefits? Our daughter? My other five children?"...
Yesterday, Chandra Myers sent out a blast e-mail urging supporters to come to court as she "makes history" against "deadbeat" Sara Lee and Bimbo.
Robert Sean Myers said he has seen his daughter once.
"This is a woman scorned trying to find vindication," he argued. "I welcome anybody to do an investigation. All I am trying to do is get a fair trial."
Read the full article here.
"));
19 queries. 0.415 seconds.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Clearly Chandra's money-slave is not producing enough to satisfy her.
She should whip that slave harder! Sue the slave's employers too! In fact, the employers should be whipping him harder!
Why can't he do 80 hours a week for gosh sake! There are 168 hours in a week, and this guy is only producing $1,600 per month?
He is a crappy, lazy piece of slave meat and needs to be jailed, then whipped, and put back into service.
How dare he not give his slave owner what she clearly deserves?
Shocking, simply shocking.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
When it comes to subject of child support, cries for help will only be met by the whip of harsh task masters...
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Clearly the answer is that he must get a second or third job because the only relationship that matters between a Father and a child is a monetary relationship. Don't worry about the other aspects of human life: the wife through the agency of the State will make sure that all of those issues are taken care of for the sake of the 'community.' What is so hard for everybody to understand? The ex-wife and others like her could not be told what to do by their husbands or compromise so she took a new lover, one that would always listen to her and give her everything she needs: the money, the muscle to enforce her will, the rationale that she is the victim, the child to virtually raise on her own like a raggedy anne or andy doll and when she throws a fit or lies, she will just get a slap on the hand. She has got everything she needs, she wanted all of the honors, rights, prerogatives, social status and maternity of a married woman but with no responsibilities and sugar daddy State provides that life for her----how empowering!!!!!!
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
The Title IV-D child support collection agency has an obligation as a federal contractor to set this gentleman's child support obligation at no more than 50% of his aggregate disposable earnings. Even with arrears, garnishment should be no more than 60% TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 1673 http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001673----000-.html
If they're imputing his income, I wonder how. Was he formerly a brain surgeon, and he's just now taken on a life of poverty to shaft the child in question? Somehow I doubt it.
Sadly, Title IV-D agencies often operate with financial conflicts of interest. http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-Incentives
However, they should not be spending our federal tax dollars manufacturing CS obligations in excess of an parent's actual income, and then spending more of our tax dollars trying to enforce an obligation with which it is impossible for a parent to comply.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:37 am
When he impregnated a female, he stopped being a person. He became a money producing machine. If he breaks down, he will be scrapped. That's ok. The rest of us money making machines will be taxed to make up the difference, until the next poor bastard is stupid enough to impregnate a female.
Wow, fifty years of "equality" and independence, and the ladies are doing a bang-up job. "He had the use of my magic V -- so HE PAYS!"
April 24th, 2008 at 3:11 am
Hang on. "if his owed child support exceeds $50,000, he loses his right to appear in court to defend himself against her charges". I'm not American, I'm in the UK, so when my government passes laws denying due process there's nothing anyone can do but vote them out at the next election and hope the other lot won't be as bad. You guys have a constitution. Surely it guarantees the right to defend yourself?
April 24th, 2008 at 5:01 am
I hope this becomes a huge publicity mess for the company...WHY? Because then the rest of the world will realize how outrageous and ridiculous these CS awards are...They will then be able to think twice when they see "deadbeat" dads on pizza boxes...you see, then they'll wonder if they ALSO make 1600 and have to pay 600USD in CS a month for ONE child...
As far as the guy? Well, he must be a saint...I would've quit and left the country by now...geez...
April 24th, 2008 at 5:10 am
I hope this becomes a huge publicity mess for the company...WHY? Because then the rest of the world will realize how outrageous and ridiculous these CS awards are...They will then be able to think twice when they see "deadbeat" dads on pizza boxes...you see, then they'll wonder if they ALSO make 1600 and have to pay 600USD in CS a month for ONE child...
As far as the guy? Well, he must be a saint...I would've quit and left the country by now...geez...
What's even more sad are some of the comments of the actual news article...many saying, she DESERVES that money and that this woman and child should not SUFFER...WTH? Obviously, people are so brainwashed that they can't possibly read ALL of the article to understand the guy is already paying 601USD of his 1600 a month salary...I can almost assure you that 1600 is gross too...geez...
April 24th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Anyone know who passed the ridiculous law of not being able to defend yourself? Geez, even a KILLER can defend himself...what is this world coming to???
I think we need to find out who passed that law and make sure that they get hit with emails and get put all over the news...I cannot believe someone has not already taken that to the supreme court...TERRORISTS have more rights than fathers in this country...KILLERS have more rights...
April 24th, 2008 at 6:31 am
"When he impregnated a female..."
Can we consider in the future using a phrase more reflective of the motive of the female and the outcome inflicted upon the male, such as:
"When she sperm-trapped him..."
Isn't that what is really going on in America? Women sperm-trapping men into pregnancy.
Women turning children into a cash crop?
Let's call it what it is, and not use the type of phrases the faux-victim-women would love us to use, such as the MAN getting a woman pregnant.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Children should not be used a lever to acquire money. People that use children to acquire money have absolutely no integrity.
Of course if she is successful suing the bakery, more companies are going to do investigations on men before hiring them to make sure they don't have any child support orders in place.
Then any man who has a child support order is in danger of not being hired,thereby not being able to pay child support because no one will hire him.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:25 am
new to this site, i find it interesting that "some" topics just don't interest the feminists!
where are they now to defend this money grubbing shrew?
what possible excuse or bildge can (will) they produce for cover to yet another manipulative agenda driven chic?
i posted on an earlier subject "its always about the money, security and the ability to purchase, with women".
someone convince me i am wrong.
i truly wish i were.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:34 am
david m has the clearest, most accurate take i have ever read on this subject. of course, an employer won't "give" the reason for non hire as child support liability. and the hr departments, already being run at a clip of 75% female will continue to hire less males and more females. the term deadbeat seems like a snowball rolling down a hill. men don't wise up until they hit 40 or so and by then its too late. it sure would be great to have hillery in charge. bet she'd make sure it all comes out fair and balanced uh?
April 24th, 2008 at 7:47 am
David M.
Not hiring women because they might get pregnant = discrimnation
Not hiring men because they might have a child support order = sensible business practice
April 24th, 2008 at 8:02 am
I think I would just opt for the jail time. 3 square meals, work out and lose some weight and free tv! What would he have to lose? Freedom? Already gone. Sex with females? Looks like he had enough of that. I say take the jail time. They can't keep him there forever.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:07 am
I wondered what the heck everyone was talking about. That didn't sink in the first read thru. What the...???????
April 24th, 2008 at 8:09 am
They probably can depending on whether going to jail 'settles' the debt or not. Bankruptcy does not eliminate a CS debt some places.
Anyone have a list of which states that is?
April 24th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Malcolm Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 7:47 am
David M.
Not hiring women because they might get pregnant = discrimnation
Not hiring men because they might have a child support order = sensible business practice
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Malcolm, Interesting to see how this might play out. As the government gets more and more involved in people's lives I would be interested to see how far this would go. The government wanting to be more like parents in our citizens lives. Our states get a 7% kick back from the feds for every dollar in child support they collect. If a guy couldn't get a job would they make a law where guys that owed child support were at the top of the list to get hired so the state could get its kick back? Then feminists would scream about discriminatory hiring practices. Putting men in jail costs roughly $25-$35K per year so the government loses money there. As someone on this blog told me, women want all the choices men have and none of the responsibilities men have. Basically when it benefits women they want it. When it doesn't benefit women they don't want anything to do with it. As one attorney said that has practiced family law for years, You haven't seen someone upset until you see a woman that is forced to pay child support!
April 24th, 2008 at 8:15 am
donnie w- Welcome to the site.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:44 am
donnie w you gotta face the fact that you aren't wrong. And as far as beating the dead (and useless) horse of feminists (not feminism itself) they would just say its the courts fault that he is being treated unfairly. Of course they won't ask why the woman has to sue for extra support if this guy is staring down the barrel of paying 125% of his monthly income or if his payment is so high where is the money going. They just going to play the broken record, "He's a deadbeat!"
April 24th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Lewis,
Here in Florida they can only hold you for 6 months on a civil contempt. But who cares? I still think the jail tme is worth it if you can't afford the ransom. That's just my opinion though.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Bill C,
Does going to jail eliminate the dues? Even if not, men in his situation need to stop paying the lawyer and CS and fill up the prison. Fill up the prisons .. that way, the state pays the price of creating unjust laws, not you (to your lawyer and govt agencies).
April 24th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Idea is that the system is counting heavily on men to try and avoid prison. What if - the men stop avoiding it and rather get eager to enter it? Either that or form a strong lobby and change the laws.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:06 am
re: Under state law, if his owed child support exceeds $50,000, he loses his right to appear in court to defend himself against her charges.
...Huh????....
April 24th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Loosing your right to defend yourself if the arrearage exceeds $50,000 is just one on the long list of injustices the Child Support system plays on men.
Another is the “50% of income limit” trick. Of the number itself, since when does a 6 year-old have the same expenses of dad sole-supporting himself in a manner that he is employable and very likely a second family?
Second is, 50% of what? Add up the gross amount of all his employment including temporary overtime, impute even more earnings, add back in his retirement contribution, don’t count child health insurance and day care (about $2,000.mo.), don’t subtract for non-paid days off?
Increase the amount retroactively to the hour an increase occurs within a week but only down-adjust for decreases longer than 3 months, take 6-9 months to do it, and not retroactively?
Laws that allow this pass at the speed of light, paid for by the government. Getting them reversed is paid for by people who will not stand for this injustice. You, you children, and your children’s children will live under this tyranny until you contribute to the organizations working their butts off trying reverse this wholesale attack on men and their roles and relationships in the family.
DanH
April 24th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Pankaj,
No, what happens is that the judge lets you out usually after a few months, orders you to pay it, gives you some time, then the State Dept. of Revenue files to have your drivers license suspended, then you go to jail again anyway. Its a joke. I can't stand the fact that most women I have ever talked too, or even my ex-wife just thinks its so great that a man will go to jail for not paying, and they actully "get off" on it.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Babies Pop out of Men's Penises
Glenn writes: " OK, bakery worker Robert Sean Myers was foolish to have six kids with at least two and possibly more women."
PK writes: Er, not necessarily "OK" Glenn. I can see your point but at the same time, why would it be "foolish" on the man's part to "father" children even from
This is classic feminist/chivalrist thinking that claims that men "father" children just by having sex while babies pop magically out of innocent doe-eyed women's tummies (except when feminists try to milk the pain of childbirth to make up for their lack of personal achievements.)
Let's assume for the moment he has children with 3 different women. It's not unreasonable that the first set of children came from a marriage he entered into reasonably but failed. What's he supposed to do? Live like a monk in celibacy? Next, he gets married again and apparently this relationship failed to work out. Then maybe he had contraceptives failure with a third woman.
I don't see how that's especially foolish. Especially UNLUCKY but then again the system sets him up for that. The only way for a man to guarantee to not be "foolish" would be to either regard women in this culture as totally untrustworthy as I do, but then I'm referred to as a sexist and chauvanist OR to live like a monk.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:23 am
BillC says: "I can't stand the fact that most women I have ever talked too, or even my ex-wife just thinks its so great that a man will go to jail for not paying, and they actully "get off" on it."
PK responds: I used to get irritated by it too but, Bill, here's where the freedom lies: It's YOUR problem, not theirs. If they don't mind seeing sexism used to benefit and empower them and even abusive women, what does that say about the starry-eyed notions of equality here? Are those sentiments realistic or not? If a man continues to view women as equals, even after most of them admit either outright, or through sophistry, that they embrace sexism, isn't he settiing himself up as a fool? Why shouldn't the women exploit him to the max?
I found this in my own personal life where I realized I was an enabler for manipulative, shallow people. Something happens to them where they get this glint in their eye when they realize that you did something nice for them and their first urge is to exploit you to the max. But if you treat them like dirt, they actually respect you (since they are used to giving such treatment to others and having it delivered to them by people they recognize as saavy.)
Women haven't EARNED equal treatment from us guys and they NEVER will. Get over it!
April 24th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Whatamess,
This is Family Court.
There are actually two courts in America. One is criminal court, this is when the government (Federal or State) charges you with a crime against society. Our constitution seems to be holding the standard against such a move by forcing the system to provide a lawyer to defend you against such an accusation.
Family Court is not a constitutional court. It is a State intrusion into family matters. Especially where minors are involved the State exercises what amounts to powers that rival fascist or dictatorship levels. Family court can incarcerate you, take your property, keep you from your children, remove your right to travel (especially by driving) or leave the country and throw you into indentured prison (we call them work release) without even giving you even a farce trial, certainly not a trial with a jury. Ex parte means that the judge decides in the safety of his bureaucratic office surrounded by armed guards to protect him what your life will amount to from now on.
My State Colorado has a new law working its way through the legislative process that makes it a felony to threaten a judge or his family or associates. Threatening is somewhat vague sounds like he or his only have to "feel" threatened and the perception is enough to charge you with a felony crime. I am not sure, will this fall under the label of Domestic Violence?
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2008a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/08DD18729488705687257375005812FB?Open&file=1115_ren.pdf
Read the bill if you think I exaggerate the threat of the new bill to men's rights groups and there is movement in other States to pass these kinds of laws.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
There is a simple solution that requires widespread application to be effective.
Simply refuse to pay any support order.
Ask for Shared Custody or nothing. It's a hard thing to do but as long as men are willing to pay or at least try to pay they will continue to be unfair and draconian.
When we collectively stop paying the system will break down and then they will pay attention.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
"But Chandra Myers has a standing order requiring him to pay $2,000 per month in support based on her expenses."
Her expenses? What the hell do "her expenses" have to do with it? No child costs $2,000 a month to raise unless the custodial parent has a serious problem.
Children of married parents are entitled to exactly nothing from their parents beyond food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Let the parents divorce and all of a sudden the children (i.e. mom) are "entitled" to a certain lifestyle (to be determined by the court, not the parents) and a certain amount of money.
It's blatantly discriminatory and no one seems to care.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Removal of right to a fair trial for the hated class of people? Haven't we seen this before?
April 24th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
PK,
I agree, and believe that we have enabled women for way too long.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
For every one bizarre injustice that comes to light, there must be many, many more men who are held in an impossible state of debt, with mounting penalties and interest. As far as I am aware, there is no way to escape this. Thus as these men get older, they face an ongoing nightmare of fear and poverty and no humane future. Will governments go after their pensions too, assuming they are able to build any?
April 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I do agree with the jail option in this case however, it is my understanding that just like Title IV-D, the prisons will get monies from the feds for every prisoner as the state also does for every CS order. In the end it is a money making proposition all around at the expense of the family and of the child. Whose best interest again?
April 24th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
This is Daylight Extortion and Legal Terrorism.
Fathers and Husbands -- Wake up, Unite, Spread Awareness and ACT NOW before you are made a criminal by the system
Supporting Fathers and Families at - http://killingmarriageforvotes.wordpress.com/
April 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
This entire story sickens me. How this women is expressing this "Woe is me" attitude like she is so destitute. She is in the newspaper picture wearing a fur. She proclaims to be a CEO of a record label and a PhD in pharmaceuticals and she wants this man to give her child 2,000.00 a month. What about the other 5 children, just because they aren’t her children they don’t deserve to receive monetary support from their father.
And how about the fact that this woman laid down and procreated with a man whom she knew already had 3 children before she had the 4th of his 6 children. This lawsuit is not about the mother and daughter suffering it about the mother trying to make a name for herself and seeking revenge on the man that fathered her daughter.
Yes the child is suffering because she hasn’t been able to build a relationship and bond with her father and siblings but the mother isn’t suffering because according to her she has herself together. Why isn’t the mother pushing for the father to spend time with their child and have a relationship? Why because it’s all about money with her and seeing him suffer. She knew when she kept going to court requesting upward modifications and he not being able to come to court was going to cause a larger mess. A warrant would be issued for his arrest and the Order wouldn’t get paid because he couldn’t afford it. This whole thing is deplorable and the woman in this story should be ashamed of herself, she is making “baby mamas” and women in general look bad. As a woman myself I am ashamed of this despicable behavior on her part. You don’t tear a man down like that and expect him to want to comply.
To the woman in this case all I have to say to her is, “Pride come before the fall.”
April 24th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
re: Under state law, if his owed child support exceeds $50,000, he loses his right to appear in court to defend himself against her charges.
pjk: To answer your question, in this case the Support Magistrate Michael J. Fondacarro denied Robert Sean Myers the opportunity to participate in the hearing via electronic testimony, even though the he cited in his request the Amendments To Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (2001) Specifically Section 316, subsection (a) and (f)
Section 316. SPECIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE: (a) The physical presence of a nonresident who is an individual in a tribunal of this State is not required for establishment, enforcement, or modification of a support order or the rendition of a judgment determining parentage, (f) In a proceeding under the [Act}, a tribunal of this state shall permit a party or witness residing in another State or foreign country to be deposed or to testify under penalty of perjury by telephone, audiovisual means, or other electronic means at a designated tribunal or other location in that State. A tribunal of this State shall cooperate with tribunals of other States in designating an apporpiate location for the depostion or testimony.
Perhaps New York has not adopted the AMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT (2001). Therefore because the arrears were in excess of 50,000 dollars the Support Magistrate is permitted by law to deny a respondent's request to participate via electronic means.
On a larger scale what this means is, if a custodial parent has a case opened in one state and the non-custodial parent resides in another state, he/or she better damn well be able to afford to travel to the other state to provide testimony, or pray that the court order remains under 50K, less you will be facing an arrest warrant and held in contempt.
That's right, this guy could not afford to travel to New York from California to appear on this matter and the ex-wife Chandra is particularly litigious, so she has continuously presented motions to the court, which require Robert Myers' participation, and now he faces incarceration.. His license has already been suspended.
The irony in this case is that the arrears remain exorbitant because he has continued to lose on default (for failing to be present in court) and once the CS arrears are over 5,000 an individual risks revocation of license. Remember he has been employed as a ROUTE SALES DRIVER, so now he can't even work.
Oh petition the court for a downward modification, based on a change of circumstances, that's unlikely since he can't afford to appear in court, and the court refuses his right to electronic testimony, that petition would likely be dismissed, the arrears keep mounting, while Chandra poses for pictures in front of the court, spouting out how this route sales driver is a millionaire deadbeat dad, while preparing to sue Bimbo Bakeries/Sara Lee in Federal court for 8 million dollars.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I found a piece of this really old document, possibly a copy, but it seems to apply here. The date of the document is 07/04/1776.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security...
Then there's this other document, called the "Bill of Rights", part of which is called "The 5th Amendment", it also seems to apply...
“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ”
There is a reason they were called the Founding "Fathers".
April 25th, 2008 at 2:25 am
"Deadbeat companies"???....WTF. Once again, the HUGE sense of entitlement. I am a woman, if I want something law enforcement, the courts, the government at large, and now private businesses better make it happen. I hope she gets toxic shock syndrome and croaks to make our world more peaceful.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:27 am
I can't understand how you guys can have such excessively high child support demands compared to your income -m in Britian it is a percentage of income which should leave the guy with reasonable money , although even so some people have committed suicide .
April 25th, 2008 at 7:22 am
The fact that she wants 8 million from the companies tells us very clearly what this is all about. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, she's just greedy. Dont get married.
And what the hell is this crap about not being able to defend yourself? Bundy and Dahmer can get to defend themselves but guys who owe child support can't? How the hell do laws like this even get passed?
April 25th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Interesting...if the reason for prison is to PAY for your crime, then that means that someone who murdered an innocent person PAYS for his crime through going to jail. When he gets out, he has PAID for his crime. With child support, you go to prison for what? It doesn't PAY for your crime, right? I mean, the money the crazy ex wants is still owed, so what exactly are you PAYING for? O, sorry, because it's a monetary debt, just like credit card debt, etc...you can't possibly pay it with prison time...hmmm...ah, maybe that's the reason that you also don't go to jail for not paying your bills.
I want every single woman out there who requests welfare to go to prison for not financially supporting their kids. The state should take the kids away and feed them with welfare money while the mother is in prison. Once the mother is let out, she needs to have a "grace period" to start paying the goverment back for the welfare money to feed her kids and ensure she keeps a stable job after leaving prison.
That will be the day, that the laws finally change.
Of course, this 50K never happens to women in NY...their support orders are normally 10% of the men's orders, if that much, and then if they don't pay, they are never harrassed by the CSE courts.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
ah yes, a plan for this poor guy...find someone to harrass your ex-wife in NY. Then, the NY courts will arrest you and take you back to NY for free...then, you'll have a right to defend yourself in court and get this mess resolved...what a deal!
April 25th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I'm a Paternity Fraud Victim in the Philadelphia Family Court System. I have resided in Delaware since 2004. The mother and the child moved to Delaware in 1999. The support case originated in Philadelphia. I had DNA testing done and found out that my twelve year old son was not mine. The mother knew who the real father was and has reunited this man with the child. She refuses to vacate the support order or submit DNA testing in court. The judge denied my request for DNA testing because I signed a Paternity Acknowledgement form. I'm stil paying support although the court is aware there is a biological father involved. The mother doesn't allow me to see this child and Delaware Family Court gave the biological father court ordered weekend visitation. I think this is fraud and I'm aware that many other men are going through this also. That is why I refuse to support Hilliary Clinton because I think she will be insensitive towards Paternity Fraud Victims. This Paternity Acknowledgement form is the problem. Once you sign it your stuck, even if a women lied to you. This form originated with Welfare Reform when Bill Clinton was President men must remember this. The Clintons think that it is fair for men to take care of children that are not theirs. President Clinton should had made DNA testing mandatory prior to signing acknowledgment forms. If Hilliary gets in office these laws will never change.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I'm 23 and am scheduled for vasectomy. I lied to the doctor and said I already had kids. It will cost me nearly $1k but will be a wise investment. Men have no rights at all and this child support/debtor's prison is a nightmare. I don't want to live life having to constantly fear that the court system has a death grip on my neck.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
As men, we're put in the position however of being unable to take the risk of trusting any woman, no matter how trustworthy or untrustworthy she really is. We're being forced to stay apart from women and children too out of sheer self preservation. Women like this gold klanking ***** in NY only add fuel to an already raging inferno. Sperm is like nuclear missiles, bullets and hurtful words, there is no recalling or taking them back. Therefore the winning move is not to have any sexual contact with women or failing that, taking steps to prevent conception. The more young men realize that right now, the better our society will be for it.
Taras
May 21st, 2008 at 8:55 am
He Earns $1,600 a Month, the Child Support Order Is for $2,000 a Month--and the Media Doesn't Notice
Immediately following the above title, you post an article which reports precisely what you claim the media doesn't notice?
That takes a special kind of genius.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Ms. Literate--yes, the article mentions it in passing. My point is that it's absurd to focus on the guy as an alleged "deadbeat dad" without discussing his obviously fallacious and impossible-to-pay child support order.--GS
May 21st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I don't know what article you're referring to, but I'm commenting on the one you've posted here. It does not mention his income vs. the amount of the support order only in passing. On the contrary, it is one of the article's major points.
Mr. Meyers is not being portrayed as a "deadbeat dad", he is being portrayed as a victim, while his ex-wife is portrayed as a gold-digger. And not only in the article you've posted, but all over the internet as well.
Your interpretation of this piece makes less sense than the title of your post, and if you think this man is being portrayed as a deadbeat, you clearly haven't been following up.