When Women Pay Child Support: Court Allows Anne Heche to Skip a Payment
May 17th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"You've never heard complaints about paying child support until it's a woman who has to pay it."--Seattle Family Law Attorney Lisa Scott
"Courts almost never allow men to get downward modifications on their child support. I represented a guy who earned $33,000 a month and paid $12,000 in child support. His company went bust and his income crashed down to zero.
"We went in and asked for a downward modification--not an elimination of child support, but a downward modification. The judge said 'no,' and told him 'tough luck--you're capable of earning $30,000 a month, so go do it. I don't care if you live under a highway underpass in the meantime, just pay your support as ordered.'"--Los Angeles family law attorney Adam Sacks
Anne Heche (pictured) is having a hard time paying her child support and it's a good thing she's a woman, so she gets preferential treatment. Apparently Heche has had some career troubles and bad luck and the court is allowing her to skip an upcoming payment. The court is probably correct--I don't know the details--but were the genders reversed, I doubt the court would be so accommodating.
The full article is Anne Heche Doesn't Have to Pay for July (EOnline, 5/14/08).
I've previously discussed Anne Heche's divorce in A Fathers' Rights Perspective on Anne Heche's Divorce/Custody Settlement and A Crucial Point Missed in the Anne Heche/Coleman Laffoon Custody Battle. On the subject of women paying alimony, see From WomenPayingSupport.com--'Be a Man...Don't Ask for Spousal Support.
"));
19 queries. 0.335 seconds.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:04 am
A downward modification for a male is no easy undertaking. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars and still no guarantee of a successful downward modification.
If the ex lives out of state the downward modification can become even more complex as the ex could file for a change of venue and get the case changed to her current state.
If you are a man then when it comes to the subject of child support cries for help will only be met by the whip of harsh taskmasters. That is unless you are a woman paying the child support at which time such cries for help are answered immediately.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Apparently Heche has an ongoing history of some sort. Below is an excerpt from a Sept. 3, 2001 E!online story about her. Note especially the third paragraph.
------------------------
In August 2000, Hollywood's best-known lesbian couple [Heche and Ellen DeGenares] announced they had split up after three and a half years together, calling it an "amicable parting." Hours after news of the split broke, Heche was found wandering dazed through a rural stretch of Central California.
In a much-hyped interview with Barbara Walters airing Wednesday on ABC's 20/20, Heche blames her post-split meltdown on her own fragile mental state. "I was told to go to a place where I would meet a spaceship. I was told in order to get on the spaceship, that I would have to take a hit of Ecstasy. Again, a voice. All of this, justification for the end of the journey. I did go to a house. I did ask people to join me...I did go to the hospital."
Heche tells Walters that her late father sexually abused her, causing her to become "insane," develop a second personality (named Celestia) and frequently have conversations with God. Heche says she has since recovered from any mental illness. "
------------------
May 17th, 2008 at 4:19 am
So Norman - are you supporting the one month waiver of child and spousal support because of her prior mental health issues? If you are, that is very magnanimous of you.
If not, I fail to see any relevance of her prior mental health issues to not being able to allegedly afford to pay support for one month.
Doc
May 17th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Before I had my support changed I was paying about 70% of my net income to my wife. Now it's about 40%, though the law states 20%.
I avoided using a lawyer and was successful at reducing my support. I suspect that using a $200-$400 per hour divorce lawyer to reduce your monthly payment is unwise.
Another tip is to use the word "Temporarily" in the title of the Motion, for example, "Motion to Temporarily Modify Child Support."
May 17th, 2008 at 9:42 am
@Judson
Some states like Texas hit you up for "medical support" on top of "child support."
What I like about all this is that downward modifications are costly and are not guaranteed, but upward modifications are free and guaranteed.
Example:
If a single male is making 40,000 a year the taxes he pays is more than a single male making 30,000 per year. Let's say that this single male making 40,000 per year lost his job, and the best he could replace it with was 25,000 per year.
Now the IRS still takes out the taxes just like he was making 40,000 dollar per year. To get that changed he has to hire a layer for thousands of dollars and get a downward modification for his taxes. If he doesn't he could be charged with tax evasion, and labeled a deadbeat tax evader.
Now of course the above scenario doesn't happen because his taxes are "automatically" adjusted to accommodate his new reduced salary, but the example is clear. Could you imagine what would happen if the above scenario became the law of the land? Now, child support should be adjusted automatically the same way. But it isn't, and it isn't so the system can create a cottage industry to generate income for itself.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Of course this judge let her get away with not paying, our courts are now full of baby boomer males with their
" anti-male perversion", who not un-like modern day Don quiotes think they are the "real protectors" of women.
Misplaced chivalry, to the point of a sort of perversion.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I can just see the new shirt with Heche's picture on it: "This is what a deadbeat parent looks like."
May 17th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Doc,
You're assuming I had some sort of agenda in posting the above.
I didn't.
Then again, she is a celebrity and thus her "personal life" is subject to being publicized. Also, within any one individual's psychology, as professionals in that field have pointed out, everything is related. And, obviously, her previous meltdown has some relationship to her career troubles, i.e. not getting many offers.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Hopefully this will bring light to the problem that is the American family court system.
Probably one of the reasons he has custody is she makes more money. The state can charge her more child support, which is really not child support but a transfer of wealth and a lifestyle for the other parent. Since the state will collect money from the federal government, for whomever they collect the most child support from. they pick the person with the most money.
Of course she has astronimical legal bills which she also shouldn't have to pay because as a parent she should have joint physical custody unless proven unfit.
With the typical male female roles reversed in this case I hope it brings light to what men in this situation face everyday.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Where do I get one of these "get out of jail free" monopoly cards like women? They can now get away with not paying child support as ordered, they can deny parenting time to dads with no repercussions, they can rape young underage males and not go to jail for it, they can even murder their husbands and not get jailed for any real length of time.
I am writing a letter to my choice for the next president to ask if they will help out men who have been bashed by society for the last 30 years. I wonder how many Dads are in a place of power that would agree and cast their vote to help us? Since feminists say that men are all at the top, lets ask those men to use their power to help us, and we will buy their company's products. 49% of the consumers in America are MEN. If we could get 49% of the populace to not buy products of companies that support feminist causes, we would see ENORMOUS change.
Who's with me? I will start a list of companies to avoid. I will need help. One of the most useful tactics to win a war in history is called an "embargo". It works, and we can do it. If anyone agrees, say so and I will add you to the list of updates and new information about what companies to not buy products from.
I guess I would have to take out of my 49% figure, the castrated, whipped, male feministos. The rest of us could still wield a lot of power.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:36 am
"If not, I fail to see any relevance of her prior mental health issues to not being able to allegedly afford to pay support for one month."
It is relevant in that the studios are less likely to hire her as getting insurance for a star with not only a substance problem but also a psychotic illness is both difficult and expensive, so unless the nut in question is a huge star, they will simply hire another b-lister who will be much easier to insure.
One has to wonder of course, if the court would be so lenient with a Mr Heche. Frankly, im surprised the crazy lady with the Ecstacy probelm didnt get custody.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
If Heche was honest, here's her interview with Walters
Ba-ba: Ann, tell me about your problems?
Heche: I grew up sexually confused and became a lesbian. Then I met a guy and decided I like men instead, so Ellen got pissed off and kicked me out. I had just enough time to grab my bag of ecstasy..later, while driving around randomly in a state of anger and confusion, I took a few hits and somehow ended up in Fresno (or was it Merced?). By then the ecstasy fully kicked in, so I thought I saw a spaceship, then went to some lady's house and ask them if they want to go with me to Jupiter.
Ba-ba: Really? That sounds like an experience I myself had in 1964..long before I flirted with a murderous dictator...
Heche (interrupting): You guys didn't give me enough prior notice for this interview..I barely had enough time to fabricate the story of childhood abuse..I would have preferred to embellish on it a little.
Ba-ba: okay, go ahead..take your time, there is a commercial coming up...
May 19th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Norman L:
Awesome post!
May 25th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Regarding the comment by the judge to lawyer Adam Sacks' client to "live under a bridge" but keep paying. Well, folks, I've lived under a bridge (and other similar locations) for two-and-a-half years. I'd do it again. When the judge finally says "Sir, you're off the streets in publicly-subsidized housing, go get a job and pay support" I _will_ be telling her/him "No, judge. I have not seen my daughter for (x amount of time) because you and your organization have neglected to enforce both the law and the court order guaranteeing me visitation. Until that happens _and_ the time I've missed is made up (as if it ever could be), I'm not paying. Period. If that means jail, go ahead. You pay and will continue to do so. I can wait."
See, that's what I don't get. The judges say "pay or jail". PICK JAIL. _They_ can't afford it, _especially_ if we _all_ said "jail". They haven't got that much _acreage_, let alone jail beds. And _then_ there's the collateral economic leverage of that many workers suddenly being in jail. And then the jails to build and staff, and so on, domino after domino.... The way to win this is to hit the wallet. The way to hit the wallet is to say "OK, jail". The best part about it is that eventually, Joe and Mary Average are going to be noticing that this is all about what the vegeful-child-radical-feminist (male or female) academics want , and say, OK, _you_ pay, we're not. And the laws _will_ change. The money requires it. Granted, we'll have to do jail stretches and be adamant about not coming out until this is fixed, but hey, I'm game. Anybody else?
September 30th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I have a solution to child support. All non-custodial parents pay a new tax deduction from their payroll, this goes into a privatize trust fund collecting interest and growing with reissued dividends. The money is used by the states department of social services to pay non-custodial parents: child support monthly payments, health care, child education needs, clothing vouchers, food vouchers, etc. No taxpayer money is used. The State bears no burden. Basically the non-custodial parents pool their money together and everyone gets paid. The non-custioal parent pays only a fraction of what he ever did or would.
No courts involved, no hearings, no garnishments and license revolks, no passport lien, no mortgage liens, no nothing except paying a monthly due, like paying your health insurance each pay check. There is a over-site committee, to solve the daily issues of parental hood, etc, but nothing like before. It can be done.