Wife Steals Deployed Husband's Money, Is Convicted--but Still Comes out on Top
May 15th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
According to Jury convicts wife of forging checks while her husband was serving in Iraq (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 5/2/08):
"Dana M. Kieser deceived and defrauded her husband when he was at his most vulnerable, serving in Iraq with the Minnesota National Guard, a Ramsey County jury heard Friday.
"She closed out John Kieser's retirement and college-savings accounts, forged his name on two checks totaling almost $25,000, bought a home in Fargo, N.D., and sold their home in Maplewood -- all without his knowledge or consent, prosecutor Laura Rosenthal said.
"Dana Kieser showed little emotion when the verdicts were read. John Kieser was in the courtroom, too, but he clearly took no joy in them. He was served with divorce papers while home on leave in early January 2007 but still held out hope for reconciliation, even two months after his tour of duty ended in July.
"The couple's contested divorce is pending in North Dakota. Dana Kieser said during testimony that she has custody of their two boys, ages 6 and 4...
"Rosenthal said that Dana Kieser left her husband essentially homeless and that he never has and never will live in the Fargo house.
"District Judge James Clark set sentencing for June 12. Dana Kieser is unlikely to serve any time in prison. The presumptive sentence for check forgery is a stayed sentence. The amount of restitution would be determined by probation officials."
There are many, many truths which this case illustrates. Here's a few:
1) It is usually the woman, not the man, who initiatives the divorce and breaks up the family, and it is often done without a genuinely compelling reason.
2) It is often husbands, not wives, who "hold out hope for reconciliation" and try to work the marriage out.
3) Many men are in harm's way in Iraq or Afghanistan and are--let's be blunt--stabbed in the back by their wives. Sometimes it's through wives looting them, as in this story. More often it's through women initiating unwarranted divorces and then moving "back home" with their kids, and then making weighty financial demands upon the father. As I explained in my co-authored column Protect Deployed Parents’ Rights (Trenton Times & several others, 11/11/06), "Many married parents deploy overseas, never suspecting that their parenthood essentially ended the day they left home." In most cases, the victimized parent is the father. It is indicative of our society's disregard for men and fathers that there is no negative social stigma attached to these acts.
This represents a societal change, and a bad one. When my grandfather was fighting against Germany in the Argonne Forest in 1918, can you imagine what the reaction would have been if my grandmother had left him? She would have been condemned--rightly--for betraying her husband. Her relatives would have told her, "How can you betray him when he is in danger? How could you take a man's kids away while he is abroad? Why are you breaking up your family unnecessarily?" This ethos is long gone now. (To learn more, see my blog posts Reflections on Veterans Day Part I and Part II.)
4) I had to laugh at the line "[Prosecutor] Rosenthal said that Dana Kieser left her husband essentially homeless." Actually, we don't have any problem with that--the wife could have made a false claim that the husband "threatened her" or that she is "afraid of him" and she would have easily gotten a restraining order which would have barred him from his home and made him homeless. Hundreds of thousands of women do this every year and nobody even blinks. To learn more, see my co-authored column Letterman Case Shows Problems with Restraining Orders (Albuquerque Tribune, 1/17/06).
5) I get letters all the time from soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan who tell me that their wives have cleaned out their accounts and disappeared, and I doubt that 1 in 10 of them ever gets justice for it. My first thought in reading this story was "Dana Kieser must have really screwed up--women get away with this all the time."
6) After all of this, "Dana Kieser is unlikely to serve any time in prison. The presumptive sentence for check forgery is a stayed sentence. The amount of restitution would be determined by probation officials." So all that happens might be that she is asked to pay some of it back, though even that amount will probably be light, because, after all, she's a single mother with two kids to take care of.
7) Dana Kieser lied and deceived but she has custody and probably will keep custody and John Kieser will face stiff child support obligations. Despite her crime and the criminal conviction, in the end, she wins and he loses.
The full Minneapolis Star Tribune article is here. More details can be found in this video and also this older article.
"));
19 queries. 0.385 seconds.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
No surprises here.
Let this be a lesson to any man contemplating marriage and children in the modern Western World: Caveat emptor.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
So this woman took the kids away from him like a thief in the night and she's getting almost no punishment. There's no need to wonder what would happen if she does hit him for child support and he decides to just stop paying it and move away.
And speaking of not being able to pay child support, I wonder how Anne Heche will be treated.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I believe it was Warren Farrel who came up the phrase - "men are the disposable gender."
What this story illustrates is that men can become the unwilling prey of predatory women who see the husband as a mere wallet, and seek to appropriate his assets with impunity -- knowing that they risk little or no punishment in today's Family Court system biased against men.
Any man serving in the military, away from his home and family, should be legally protected against this type of exploitation while he is putting life on the line every day.
If a couple of prominent Congressmen would draft a bill in this regard, it would probably pass.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
It seems to me that such transgressions against a U.S. soldier constitute treason.
What is the Federal penalty for treason?
May 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I cannot believe that the best the prosecution could do was check forgery. While I am certainly not a legal scholar by any stretch, it seems the crime was so horrible on so many levels that check forgery is the least of them
I agree with Roy that one of our leaders needs to step up to the plate here and protect our soldiers from this all too common threat; golddigging, opportunistic spouses that are given judicial license to do such monsterous things.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
If you can convict a man of raping his wife why cant you convict a woman of stealing (grand theft) from her husband? Does marriage mean automatic consent only when it comes to money?
May 15th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Another serviceman gets cleaned out by wife, yawn, does the military still let those kids get married?
May 15th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
AP.
"It seems to me that such transgressions against a U.S. soldier constitute treason."
MCA, A buddy of mine just got back from Iraq, and his violent bi-polar girlfriend just put her first restraining order on him.
Young men who have witnessed combat are different when they come back, and in no way shape or form need to be abused from a hysterically anti male abuse of police powers.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Cases like this are why women stay "it's bad women who do this, not all women" They attempt to put the blame on the woman who behaved poorly.
That is not where the blame belongs.
The blame belongs on the government who allowed her to behave poorly and GET AWAY WITH IT. It belongs on the government who will not protect the father's right to his children, and prevents the father from protecting that right himself. It belongs on the goverment who will not punish women for their crimes, and prevents the victims from punishing the guilty themselves.
The government not only refuses to protect our rights, but prevents us from protecting our own rights ourselves.
And it's doing this to the people who protect our government......
Glenn, when you get those letters, make sure you reply with the fact that the serviceman affected should blame the government, not the (soon to be) ex. The ex couldn't do that to him unless the government allowed her to do it. Then they will begin to wonder why they are protecting a government which is not protecting them.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Private companies perform justice more efficiently than prosecutors.
My wife also forged instructions to cash out a savings account. I asked my divorce lawyer about criminal prosecution, but it did not appear likely (and I had mixed feelings as well). I went to the financial institution, and after a notarized affidavit of forgery, they reinstated the account, intact, with backdated interest. They did not pursue criminal prosecution, but instead put her on a check-fraud database, which will prevent her from opening new accounts at most banks. At a higher amount, they would have filed a civil claim to obtain a judgement. Eventually she will pay the money back to the bank. I believe she did after getting the lump-sum from selling our house, but I am not sure.
His best course of financial justice is not through criminal prosecution but telling his bank that they released funds upon fraudulent instructions. They will react appropriately if they are shown evidence that he is correct. The house seems more complicated, but the title insurance company will likely pay him as well, if he is not able to re-pay the mortgages at this point.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I agree that treason would be a good charge against this woman. However, you can bet no chivalrous Christian soldier would ever want to press charges. This is the problem with this country. Men need to stop being chivalrous.
Stop fighting wars! Stop stopping crime! Stop being firefighters!
May 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
It's a simple axiom of psychology;
"People don't change behaviors that work for them"
There is absolutely no way that women are going to change their behaviors. Look at what this woman is to gain.
1) She gets the kids, that's an automatic.
2) She gets to steal thousands, consequence free, and keep the proceeds,
3) Even if she's ordered to pay restitution it will be with HIS CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS!
4) She'll have every social service agency tripping all over themselves to give her handouts,
5) And finally, she's free to do it again.
Given this payout, she would be an idiot not to do this to her husband and even more so, she would be foolish not to do this to the next target that comes her way.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
It's time to quit playing by their rules.
Agree with Days of Broken Arrows.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I often hear that the man is away in foreign hostile land, in harms way to defend the freedoms of America.
If you ask divorced dad soldiers, they may have a different description of what they are defending - mostly the rights of women.
The insult to the injury is the soldier’s government condones criminal behavior of another citizen, who has equal rights, against him.
Welcome home soliders.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Glenn said:
"1) It is usually the woman, not the man, who initiatives the divorce and breaks up the family, and it is often done without a genuinely compelling reason.
2) It is often husbands, not wives, who "hold out hope for reconciliation" and try to work the marriage out."
These two items in particular reveal that it is often a myth that females are more "romantic", people-pleasing, cooperative, or relational than males. We are usually wrongly taught that males lack the "emotional IQ" of females. Trying to work out a marriage, like many men do, defines the construct of "love" as something that transcends mere entitlement or immediate gratification.
MXY
May 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
This is why men who enter the military should all be single. This way, they only have to worry about fighting enemy soldiers instead of fighting the more cunning and more dangerous wives at home.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Demonspawn Said:
“The blame belongs on the government who allowed her to behave poorly and GET AWAY WITH IT. It belongs on the government who will not protect the father's right to his children, and prevents the father from protecting that right himself. It belongs on the government who will not punish women for their crimes, and prevents the victims from punishing the guilty themselves.”
Excellent observations.
Kurt Said:
“Given this payout, she would be an idiot not to do this to her husband and even more so, she would be foolish not to do this to the next target that comes her way.”
You are right! Unfortunately this behavior will continue unabated, men will continue to feed the pig until genuine gender equality is not merely an aspiration but something expected and achieved and honoured by the courts – put simply, it serves the system well. One could opine that this (female-biased judicial system) should function as an effective form of birth/population control but it doesn’t seem to.
My kids come home from school exuding interminable rhetoric on womens’ “rights” (many of which are more appropriately labelled “entitlements”) but never, ever a word on “responsibility”, nor evidence of any knowledge of just how long and difficult the real battle to obtain “rights” was. The notion that you don’t get something for nothing is true everywhere but in “family courts”- the one place where the less you contribute the more you are rewarded.
Days of Broken Arrows has a point.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Ed Says:
"If you can convict a man of raping his wife why cant you convict a woman of stealing (grand theft) from her husband? Does marriage mean automatic consent only when it comes to money?"
It is actually more than mere theft in this situation.
What this woman did was circumvent normal property distribution when a divorce takes place.
Normally, even in a divorce, ones retirement accounts remain the sole property of the individual... they are not automatically joint so far as I am aware.
Based upon the article, she closed out HIS resirement account by forging his signature... it wasn't a joint retirement account.
She gained fradulant access to funds that were not actually available to her in the event she filed for a divorce... and just paying them back doesn't actually fix anything.
This man can't necessarily put that money back into a retirement account simply because there are limitations to how much you can contribute all at once... in addition there may have been substantial penalties for the removal of those funds in the first place.
She didn't just steal his money... she essentially stole a portion of his life from him. He might have to work longer than he originally anticipated because he won't have the retirement money available that he had responsibly set aside for later.
This is about more than obtaining consent to access finances within a marriage... it is about consent to determine that someone else will have to work longer or live in poverty because you stole their future through fradulant means.
That money will probably never get back into his retirement fund the way it was supposed to be... and as a result she will always have access to it in the form of child support... something that money would have been protected from had she left it where it was supposed to be.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
"Danny Says: And speaking of not being able to pay child support, I wonder how Anne Heche will be treated."
Don't worry the judge "gave her a temporary break, saying she didn't have to pay her next support payment to her ex-husband Coley Laffoon, 34, covering the month of July. But Superior Court Judge Gail Ruderman Feuer ordered the actress to provide updated income and expense information, People reported."
I am sure a father would have been given the same opportunity, yea right. After all, a father can't without money from a "single" mother. Now, the father on the other hand, he can get a job.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355886,00.html
May 15th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Feminists vowed to destroy the family -- women's traditional area of dominance and power -- in order to "rescue" women. Having institutionalized misandry, female chauvinism, and hyper-chivalry, they are well on their way to doing just that, as individual husbands are replaced by the Great Govern-band (talk about polygamy!!). And this is all for women's "benefit." Who knew that most women, for whom feminists claim to speak, hated men and families this much, and needed to be rescued from this horrible fate? At least, from women's general silence and acquiescence, and the "you go, girl!" mantra spouted by so many, that is what I must infer. Strange that I could have had it so wrong. I thought women wanted a husband and children. My mistake.
The trouble is, if women exercise their fabled prerogative to change their mind and decide they want children with a supportive, caring husband, at this point, given "free" love and men's ever-declining educational and financial prospects, combined with the undeniable risks of marriage and fatherhood, why should women expect that men will still be ready to put on the yoke, jump into the traces, and put their financial and emotional well-being into the hands of someone who needs him like a fish needs a bicycle, and who is institutionally tempted by the Great Govern-band to leave him, and take his kids? Hmmm? Because the feminists say so? Because men can be shamed and denigrated into "stepping up" to their age-old responsibility for women's welfare, even to their own detriment?
Ok. Let's just wait and see what happens... . What could be the harm?
May 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Celia,
Good to have you back!
May 15th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Yah know, I used to think "gays in the military" was a bad idea. Seems to me that I had it all wrong.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Thanks Jay R.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Glenn says:
1) It is usually the woman, not the man, who initiatives the divorce and breaks up the family, and it is often done without a genuinely compelling reason.
2) It is often husbands, not wives, who "hold out hope for reconciliation" and try to work the marriage out.
The blunt reality is that is an enormous advantage to be the person who files for divorce. This is especialy true for no-fault divorce.
The side that files has had the following advantages:
1. emotionally they are better prepared than the other spouse
2. they have had time to consult a lawyer first thereby avoiding common mistakes
3. they can financially spend or squirrel away money for the upcoming battle
4. they can cut back on hours at work in order to jockey for custody or lowered/raised alimony
5. they can build up false accusations to be used later
6. they can find allies to help them in their battle
7. etc.
It is time that the courts take a closer look at those that commit dirty pool during divorce proceedings. It is also time the press gets wise to how this is done. In my humble opinion, this is one reason women are so sensitive to the fact that it is women that initiate 75% of the divorces. Not only does it not fit neatly into the victim paradigm which is all important but it basically bad PR. I suspect this is one reason so many women file false abuse claims and the like. It is the one way to justify what is basically a selfish decision.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Unfortunately in our society, children are a ticket to preferential treatment for custodial mothers.
Many women who have custody of children are able to commit crimes and not receive sentences because the judges will look and say, But who will take care of the children? Thus a ticket out of jail.
Combine this with the female sentencing discount and women can almost get away with murder.
Oh yeh! I think the woman who shotgunned and murdered her minister husband in Tennesee did receive less than 90 days in jail.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I wish I could tell the difference between women like this and women who aren't like this (that believe men have rights too). They all look the same. The evil women know ahead of time what they are going to do, and the men have no way of knowing about it. I guess the only thing we can do is just stay away from all of them until some of them start their own masculist movement so we can tell that they want a husband and not just a wallet. There are several brave women that comment on these threads. I salute these women and offer them thanks. There must be more of them. Maybe they are afraid to come out and just say what they believe for fear of being scorned and ridiculed by feminists. Maybe they have been brainwashed by Cosmo. As I have said before, maybe the exteme feminists who don't need men go create their own country somewhere and leave us alone with the women that actually believe that the two genders work better together than apart.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Celia: "One could opine that this (female-biased judicial system) should function as an effective form of birth/population control but it doesn’t seem to."
In many countries, birth rates have dropped well below the rate to maintain a stable population.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I used to be in the army many years ago ... I concluded after five years that I had done a great thing for my country ... but had been a fool to think the politicians and the powers that be cared .. as time went by I further concluded that I was right because people in general didn’t care.
I have no idea why men and women join and serve today … this is what they are going to protect …. If you are conscripted that’s one thing .. but to volunteer to protect and serve a country which stabs you in the back …
The judges, lawyers , feminists and everyone else out there who has contempt for our military should learn this ….
The men who fought and died on the battle field gave you the liberty and freedoms you have today …
Mmy conclusions are correct …. I was a fool and anyone who follows my path is one to …………. I can hardly contain my anger ….
God Bless him and all who those who serve.
I hope one day there are no men left to protect the lying , cheating, scaniving judges, lawyers , politicians , feminists and anyone else who supports this social tripe …
What will they do when all the brave men decide to not to serve and protect?
AGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH .. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE FROM OUR LEADERS … AGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
May 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Jason at 2:16 pm:
Considering husbands can get in serious trouble if they're caught trying to liquidate their assets (mainly in the way of putting them into someone else's name so the ex wife can't touch them) just before a divorce its really unfair that she was able to clean him out, divorce him, and then have to option (and what are the odds that she won't) to for baby mama support.
And I'll bet this heartless thief doesn't feel the slightest bit of shame for doing this behind his back while he was away defending her, those children, and all the rest of us. I wonder what she would have done if he had been killed in action?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
But that isn't their goal.
Their goal is to live fat off the labor of men without having to contribute their own labor. They can't do that without men.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Demonspawn - "The blame belongs on the government who allowed her to behave poorly and GET AWAY WITH IT. It belongs on the government who will not protect the father's right to his children, and prevents the father from protecting that right himself. It belongs on the goverment who will not punish women for their crimes, and prevents the victims from punishing the guilty themselves."
Brilliantly state, Sir!
Thousands upon thousands of man-years could be spent taking on each and every case of a "bad woman" doing this sort of thing, when much of it could be much more simply resolved with the correct laws protecting spouses who are away from their homes when called to duty.
There are a few laws protecting some jobs, but more are needed. And, laws protecting assets and custody rights OUGHT to be put front and center. Transacting "bussiness", such as selling a home, without proper consent should be prosecutable as a felony (fraud), and jail time plus full restitution should be the routine sentencing guideline.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
It is sorrowful to see this happen to men...
May 15th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Don't get the idea that the military itself usually takes a sypathetic stance toward the guy, in these type cases. At least they didn't used to. When I was in the submarine force, I noted that if one of the crew gets a "Dear John" letter (assuming the wife even has the decency to notify the guy), there isn't much the navy is willing to do to support him, as far as giving any type of emergency leave. Especially if the ship is in a foreign port. I can understand that attitude to some extent during wartime, but I am referring to peacetime incidents.
Sometimes, as in this case, the guy doesn't find out anything until he returns from duty. One of my shipmates went through a horrendous experience: we arrived in home port from a lengthy Mediterranean cruise, whereupon he drove home, knocked on his front door to get in, and who opens the door? His wife's new live-in boyfriend - with her standing in the same room in her underwear ! They had been living together for the last couple months, without it being known by the shipmate, and had already been informed that he was arriving home at the scheduled time - in other words, they didn't give a sh** about being caught red-handed! (Needless to say the husband filed for divorce)
May 15th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
i THINK ONE CAN EXPLAIN WOMEN'S BEHAVIOR USING UTILITY THEORY. CHECK OUT
http://shekidnappedmychildren.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/utilityofmarriage/
May 15th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Danny Says:
" I wonder what she would have done if he had been killed in action?"
The exact same thing she did here... except she'd also recover insurance money and benefits if he had any.
I'm sure from her perspective she would have rather had him die in Iraq than ever come home as disgusting as that sounds.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Demonspawn:
Their goal is to live fat off the labor of men without having to contribute their own labor. They can't do that without men.
Hold on. There was a time period like that in American history. Went on for a few hundred years. Something about being forced into servitude. What was it called again?
May 16th, 2008 at 12:04 am
That is one messed up person.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:47 am
It is a scary situation to be left homeless. She just through him onto the streets, basically.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Folks you are also forgetting the 1000s of dollars of addtional military entitlements that he was paid while serving in a combat zone that she has walked away with. This is a travesty. I agree with an earlier poster that he should pursue civil damages and last I checked this kind of crime constitutes Grand Larceny...Not check fraud.
Female discount in full effect.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Given what we have from the article what should have happened :
- She serves time for check fraud
- He gets the (new) house and the kids, along with the right to sell it and move them somewhere of his choosing. After all, he's now a single parent.
- She gets a child support order based on what she would have earned if she weren't in prison, so that by the time she leaves the accumulated interest will have made a debt so great she'll never catch up.
Okay, the last one was a bit vindictive.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:14 am
That's absolutely correct Mr. Bad, when it comes to marriage it is indeed let the buyer beware! Marriage has become slavery for men, and slavery always leads to rebellion and revolution. The best way for us to rebel is refusing to marry any woman in western nations, period. Definitely avoiding getting a woman pregnant is a must also, given that fatherhood is for all intents and purposes been made into a criminal act. Granted this is an extreme response, but extreme situations demand extreme responses in kind.
Taras
May 16th, 2008 at 11:34 am
When I was in the Navy this happened all of the time. And I'm talking about quite a few guys every deployment. Of course the law doesn't care that these men are being defrauded, and that there's nothing that they can do about it [they're in the middle of the ocean or desert at the time]. They're only men therefore expendable.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Celia: "One could opine that this (female-biased judicial system) should function as an effective form of birth/population control but it doesn’t seem to."
MichaelH:"In many countries, birth rates have dropped well below the rate to maintain a stable population."
-------------------------------------------------
Well, another point is that, if you believe feminism is an offshoot of Frankfurt School Marxism, feminism is doing PRECISELY what it's meant to. Namely, prepare a country for invasion by weakening it from within.
Destroy the family, reduce the population and destabilize the economy (since Capitalism is based on continuous growth, this is hardly "tinfoil hat" type stuff). Require immigration to maintain replacement levels, and you've got an avenue for thousands of your guys to get in easy. Demoralize the men, and make them unwilling to defend the country and families that betrayed them so willingly. Remove the pride of citizenship by demeaning the state.
Then, invade.
Problem is, the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore....so, no invader. Yet.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Of course, following that line of reasoning makes every feminist and feminist sympathizer into a traitor to their country.....which is a tad extreme.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Demonspawn, way up top you said:
“The blame belongs on the government who allowed her to behave poorly and GET AWAY WITH IT. It belongs on the government who will not protect the father's right to his children, and prevents the father from protecting that right himself. It belongs on the government who will not punish women for their crimes, and prevents the victims from punishing the guilty themselves.”
Man, I couldn't agree with you more. Recently I read this article on msnbc:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24524554/
It's about men being hit the hardest by the slumping economy, and that women are suffering the least because more women than men are in schools and graduating from college, and working in fields where the recession doesn't affect as badly. Therefore, because of this economic disparity, men are tired and fed up and looking to government to fix the problem ... now. However, the article went on to say that our current presidential candidates can not overtly pander to men with this pitch because women are "in no mood for it". Apparently we are "tired" and don't have the stomach to accept that the world doesn't only revolve around our problems, and the policitians are afraid that if they start focusing on anybody else's issues they will loose the support of women, a majority block.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:21 am
I have read this story here and some other stories on here also. When I was going through raising my children I didn't get any support money or time spent with my children by there father for years.When my youngest was around 16 and tired of her father using his court order time to make her go with him when he was just tring to punish her as he only came around if he was having problems and he even got a court order forcing her to go to a bar with him when she was only 2. I then took him to court to get support because he had paid less than 3000. in her whole life. He was charged and told the judge he would just quit his job and he did and I wrote the judge to get the amount which was state minimum to cut it in half and he did.He still didn't pay and still isn't.She is 19 now and he owes so little because he was never a parent to begin with and I never allow anyone to speak bad about my ex husband but my children can't hear this HE IS BUM AND NO GOOD SO CALLED DAD. So they are out there just like the great fathers that are there for there kids. Also I did remarry to a guy that joined the military after we married. He spent all his Iraq money and Afghanistan money and while he was in Iraq and I was working 2 jobs to keep my home and child afloat I paid off his bad creit and set us up good for him to screw it up again so I wish it washis money to pay his bills and my money to pay my bills because I would be sitting pretty. So before anyone judges this lady maybe you should know the other side of the story he may of left her no other choice or why else would he still want her bu to take care of the home and kids and be there for him when he wants her but she is screwed because he is the hero and she gets the crap and real work. It figures.