| kcutie514 |
| (recently joined) |
| 12/06/04 02:29 PM |
deadbeat Daniel Hodge
|
Does any one else have this same problem? My ex husband was married before and had three children, all under the age of 9 now, though they were 4.5 3 and 1.5 when he got divorced, he paid one payment for them the four years that we were married, though he claimed his ex wife didn't want him in their lives which turned out to be untrue, any ways, in May of 2003 he signed away rights to his three children because he was $19,336.18 behind in child support (and just so you know she didn't go after him for parental rights, HE found a lawyer himself and went about terminating his own rights to them) she was awarded the back child support and orederd to pay $403.00 a month until it was gone. I paid this for him for a year while we were married, but I after being moved into his parents house, because we couldn't afford the house, that he had just bought, and the new car he had just bought, with me saying no the whole way, his parents decided to move to the country but we couldn't move with them because his dad couldn't handle being around our 8 month old and our 3 year old, to much, he is pretty gruff to say the very least. He moved us into a consession stand!!! We finally got divorced in May of this year, and he is already remarried, he is not paying child support or as of right now, no medical insurance. On the one weekend that the judge said he could see the girls,( he hadn't seen them but one time, and only because I basically made him for an hour at the park, in almost two months) I waited for him for half an hour in a parking lot for him to show, he didn't, then I left he finally picks up the girls at my residence at 8:15 AT NIGHT WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO PICK THEM UP AT 6, then goes and gets married that weekend to his girlfriend of two months, leaves the girls with someone else so they can have their "married" time, returns the youngest who isn't even two yet, with a diaper rash so bad that it was blistered and bleeding! The cop that looked at it said to take pictures so I did and we had court the next week the judge gives him Standard Vis with only one over night with B a week, and guess what this past weekend was his weekend, guess who didn't show? Yep deadbeat. He owes me as of right now, $7100.00 in childsupport and all the medical, he owes his other children over $15,000 and refuses to pay her anything. He just took on a new family, he is behind to the point on his $37,000 vehicle that they are talking about repoing it, and he is letting the house we had go back, it is under foreclosure, after raising the rent on the renters who where in it up to $1,500 a month, knowing that they where trying to buy it and have 4 children. Anyone else have some one who is like this?
| Eric |
| (old hand) |
| 12/06/04 02:33 PM |
I'd have to say...
|
that 99.99999% of the men on this site have had someone just like that and wished to God they they didn't for the rest of their lives...
Why?
Eric
www.FIRMncp.com
| kcutie514 |
| (recently joined) |
| 12/06/04 02:46 PM |
|
Re: I'd have to say...
|
I was just wondering how many deadbeats get away with this stuff. And how many guys have muliiple accounts that they don't pay on.
| Eric |
| (old hand) |
| 12/06/04 02:59 PM |
|
Statistically...
|
Deadbeat Mom's fit your "signature" of NCP's. Statistically, men have no problem in paying child support when there is unencumbered access to the children to the point that the issue becomes moot.
Why?
Eric
www.FIRMncp.com
| aussie928 |
| (old hand) |
| 12/06/04 03:04 PM |
|
Re: I'd have to say...
|
yes luv...you just got a post from one.. our very own village idiot...Sir Eric . He was and is a dead beat dad...lost his kids his wife..due to abuse.. and would rather drink then support his children. IGNORE him..the rest of us do. He speaks for himself and the voices he hears. Many fine posters here...he is not one of them
| aussie928 |
| (old hand) |
| 12/06/04 04:54 PM |
|
Re: I'd have to say...
|
99.999999%...you are not playing fair limp dick...the voices in your head dont count mate
| Onyx |
| (old hand) |
| 12/06/04 05:08 PM |
|
Re: Statistically...
|
Erica, you proclaim that child support is a separate issue from access to the child(ren). Now with this post, it isnt so.... which is it? Oh, I see, you tailor your responses to whatever you feel like at the moment.... right, just as I thought, you havent a single brain cell.
[quote]Deadbeat Mom's fit your "signature" of NCP's. Statistically, men have no problem in paying child support when there is unencumbered access to the children to the point that the issue becomes moot.
Why?
Eric
www.FIRMncp.com [/quote]
| gr8Dad |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 12/06/04 05:18 PM |
|
You missed the point...
|
When access is not denied, those male NCP's have a higher percentage of paying on time and in full.
| Onyx |
| (old hand) |
| 12/06/04 06:16 PM |
|
Re:I didnt miss the point.
|
He (Erica) is condoning this, when in other posts, he bashes it. Just making things clearer for newbies in Erica Land. While it might be a fact of life, it doesnt make it right, or correct. They are separate issues. My older son's Dad cant always pay me on time. I never deny him access. Has nothing to do with the money. He is a good Father, and what kind of person would that make me if I told him... :"No money, no child": ? My youngests Fathers payments are always on time, and he choses not to see him.... See what I'm saying here? Blessings, Onyx
| almostheaven |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 12/06/04 06:38 PM |
|
|
Actually, I think it was you missed the point...
|
Because with the way Eric(a? LOL) worded that, he wasn't laying any claim to the percentage being higher. He stated that "men have no problem in paying"...period. He stated that "the issue becomes moot", as in ALL NCPs pay CS if given unencumbered access to the children. Your claim is that he was stating that the percentage that pays is higher, when his words say no such thing.
| aussie928 |
| (old hand) |
| 12/06/04 07:10 PM |
|
Re: Actually, I think it was you missed the point...
|
I think he is still missing the point.. I dont knwo what these figures are or if they come from a male site..which means nothing to me..any more then for a female site. Regardless these numbers mean nothing. You cant have it both ways..if you are saying that men only get custody 10% of the time and women 90% and then you base your percentage figures on this ...of course more women dont pay % wise. These numbers will never be refected correctly until custody is given evenly
| gr8Dad |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 12/06/04 07:18 PM |
|
I don't think you understand percentages...
|
Of the MEN that are ordered to pay support, 43% are in arrears. Of the WOMEN that are ordered to pay support, 57% are in arrears. The reason percentages HAVE to be used is BECAUSE the custody situation is so uneven.
To use an example, if you have a neighborhood with 75% caucasians and 25% African Americans, and the jail population for that area was 75% white and 25% black, that would be an appropriate number.
BUT, if you said that of the WHITE people in jail, 43% were there for violent crimes, and 57% of the BLACK jail population was there for violent crimes, THAT would indicate that the black population in that area was MORE violent. Even though there are LESS black inmates in for violent crimes, the PERCENTAGE of those inmate in for violent crimes is higher.
{disclaimer:I am NOT a racist, I simply used this as an example. People are violent per their upbringing and personality and it has NOTHING to do with race.}
| aussie928 |
| (old hand) |
| 12/06/04 08:50 PM |
|
Re: I don't think you understand percentages...
|
I am an Aussis mate..not an idiot. Thats exactly why they cant be used..you are not dealing with like numbers. In your example you are still dealing with like numbers. There is not enough data for acurate figures here since men havent had custody that long. Anyway, I dont know where you get your figures. I got mine from www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs. these figures state that 74.5 percent of men and 67.4 of women pay some child support. 45.4 of men and 39.0 of women pay all of ordered child support. Yes the mens figures are higher but they are comparing to 5x as many women as men. If the numbers were equal, the percentages would change...and neither you or I have a crystal ball mate as to which direction they would go. Of the child support paid women pay an average of 68% of whats due and men 62%. You present yourself as very sure of things..kind of like the definition of demise..
| gr8Dad |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 12/06/04 09:37 PM |
|
First, please poitn out how the numbers are like..
|
I sadi that the community that I was using as an example is 75% white and 25% black. No "like" numbers there. Say the community had 1000 people. 750 would be white, and 250 would be black.
Okaym the jail population is again, 75/25 white and black. Okay, say there are 100 people in jail. That would be 75 white, and 25 black. Again, NO like numbers.
Could you please tell me where the like numbers are?
As for the percentages, I used to have that link, but cannot seem to find it. It was froma study done about 5 years ago, and took into account those that are paying, those that are trying to pay, and those that are not doing anything. And since I cannot find it, I will defer to your study.
BUT, since YOU have stated that the percentages don't matter, because the numbers are not "like", why are YOUR percentages okay?
| Eric |
| (old hand) |
| 12/07/04 05:45 AM |
|
There is nothing wrong with the samples
|
Gr8Dad. The only thing wrong is trying to argue with people that twist, lie and take everything out of contect to purposefully deceive others because they count on the gullibility of others. Even when caught, they will lie. They have never and will never understand true statistics, margin of errors and that the reason we use statistics is so that we don't have to explore every example when the statistics is done correctly and scientifically.
But it sure is interesting when they "think" they have a good statistic to use against the male gender... They publish that every where without the stipulation (as the believe) that since every case has not been studied, the report is false. They only do this when it is their own gender that is shown in a bad light.
It works for them and why is beyond me.
Just look at that feminazi PIG Char's/almosthell post. She comes right out and says that I say something that I did not. Just go back to the post. I prefaced my comment statistically and she says my comment was finite in EVERY case. This is just what they do. It is typical of them and their types.
The true figures are that mom's are TWICE as bad (and honestly worse) than Fathers in paying child support.
Eric
www.FIRMncp.com
Deadbeat Moms
May 5, 2004
by K. C. Wilson
For fourteen years, judge Steven Wakefield has paid such high child support for a son who spends half his time with him that the mother has never been on welfare. Nor worked. She spends much of her time high on pot while Steven and his current wife and two children live in near poverty.
He's lucky. Many who do the same are also not allowed to see their children by the very woman they support. Nobody stops her from this, but make sure he pays.
John Hushion's ex-wife jiggled her breasts at him outside the court. "How do you like what your child support bought?" She now has breast implants.
Richard Green's wife left him and their two pre-school sons to marry a richer man. The arrangement is legally "joint custody" although she rarely sees the kids while he pays her child support. When his business started doing well five years later, she sued for more.
We all know there are deadbeat dads: men who do not contribute what they could of their share of the costs of their children. How many is subject to debate. Studies by the Urban Institute of Washington D.C. suggests that, if a third of all single mothers live in poverty, the fathers are not much better off, with far less public assistance available to them. How many non-paying fathers are actually capable of paying is left to speculation, and social myth.
Still, there are deadbeat dads.
How many deadbeat moms are there?
By deadbeat moms I don't mean non-custodial mothers, who default on child support at twice the rate of fathers though asked to pay half as much.
I don't even mean the whatever number of welfare moms that are generated by that system itself, since, to some extent or other, it does encourage less capable young ladies to get pregnant, not simply to prove their adulthood or escape their family but to assure themselves a basic existence instead of having to earn one. (An option not open to men.)
No. When I say deadbeat moms, I mean women who use children for personal profit. I mean women who collect faithfully paid child support, to make no contribution to the cost of their children themselves when they could; who even make little contribution to the cost of themselves when they could. I mean women who keep all the care-giving to themselves to get more money than that care- giving takes.
I mean women who collect child support for themselves.
After all, if a deadbeat dad is a man who does not contribute what he can of his share of the cost of his children, what would you call a women who does the same?
How many are there? Maybe more than deadbeat dads. We know as much about one as the other.
You would think there would be a great may women anxious to root such women out. You'd think we'd see a fervent social campaign, led by women, to find and eliminate this practice. Women who cheat are a threat to all women, giving all women a bad name by violating the sacred trust that has always balanced the sexes. Who could trust any woman if that sort of thing got around? So you'd think women would engage in a furious campaign against it.
You'd especially expect this of feminists. How could they allow women to exploit their gender-position and the other gender? Before they could cry against it in men, they'd want it eliminated from themselves.
Considering the number of deadbeat moms, it's surprising how little effort, money, and attention is spent on their prevention and cure. It could make you think this society is sexist.
Copyright © 2004 K.C.Wilson. K.C. Wilson is the author of Co-parenting for Everyone, Male Nurturing, Delusions of Violence, and The Multiple Scandals of Child Support, all available as e-books at http://harbpress.com.
| almostheaven |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 12/07/04 09:41 AM |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah...
|
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
| aussie928 |
| (old hand) |
| 12/07/04 02:14 PM |
|
Re: First, please poitn out how the numbers are like..
|
my numbers arent okay...as yours arent either. Just wanted to show you there are other numbers out there. As to like numbers, you say you have 100 blacks....75 are A and 25 are B...then you say it would make no difference if you had 750 and then 250 but thats the point. You cant say that looking at a figure of 100 that if the numbers were 1000 that it would be automatically 750 and 250.. might just be 600 and 400...might be 850 and 150. As numbers rise statistics change, that is a fact...could go one way ..could go the other. Since the one thing we do all agree on is that fewer men by far have custody and its relatively new...there just is not enough data to state as a fact. Let me go totally off this topic to show what I mean. Years and years ago your government came up with a drug..the name escapes me...it was a type of fertility pill I think..help me out here ladies.. anyway...they tested this on a few sheilas that couldnt get preggers, some then had some wee ones and the government said..yes.. and started handing it out like candy. 15 years down the road when they had enough numbers to really do a thorough study, what they found was, yes...many sheilas got preggers...and some like in the early study had healthy wee ones but as the numbers rose of the sheilas that were taking this drug so did the numbers of wee ones that had birth defects until finally the numbers with birth defects outnumbered the healthy ones. The numbers are to few and to new to really give an educated answer from any of us. The other thing you have to take into consideration that may change these numbers down the road is why men pay more so then women (if we were to agree that they do) Societal opinions have great impact in things. I am not saying that this is the reason, lets make that clear..just saying..right now it is acceptable for men not to go for custody. No one thinks the less of him if he does not. Just as, as hard as men are fighting for thier rights, it is not as acceptable for women to do this. There is a sheila on this web site that gave her wee ones to their father for reasons she felt were in the best interest of all concerned. Yet the one person here that should be commending her, if you listened to all of Sir Ericas statements about how men are the better parent, comdemns her. Its not socially acceptable yet. Roght now, as it is so new its not socially unaccceptable if a woman doesnt pay child support as its just to new. Just to many variables mate and to new.
| aussie928 |
| (old hand) |
| 12/07/04 02:32 PM |
|
Re: There is nothing wrong with the samples
|
yes we all know ERica about that whopping 200 a month your x was out doing the town on... you are such a twit.. and your percentages go up right along with your endless rambling. Have a drink luv/mate whatever it is you are...take a warm bath.. paint your nails..pluck the hair out of that snoze of yours. and chill
| chattyboo |
| (recently joined) |
| 12/14/04 12:03 AM |
|
Re: Actually, I think it was you missed the point...
|
Anyone ever consider that women may be in arrears at a higher percentage because while married they were caring for the children and not getting the work experience or education to obtain gainful employment to be able to pay the support? and the man has custody because he is better able to "provide" for the children...well "No, Kidding!" The percentage of divorced women in poverty is much higher than for men. Statistics show that after divorce lifestyles for men improve by upwards of a 50% increase while that of women takes a drastic downward spiral due to unemployment (stay at home mom), underemployment (part time worker), and less college education than men....everyone needs to look at bigger pictures. No denying some women are simply deadbeats, but many are trying to scrape by on minimum wage caring for other children, as well as the one owed child support, and just can't do it. I think anyone male or female in that situation needs to be cut some slack and everyone shouldn't be so quick to label someone a deadbeat...there is a difference.
| Eric |
| (old hand) |
| 12/14/04 01:58 AM |
|
Chatty....
|
You have been lied to. This is the truth:
http://www.hisside.com/2_29_04.htm
One of the most pervasive and pernicious myths of our time is the idea that men gain economically from divorce while women suffer from it. The myth stems from a now discredited study conducted over two decades ago by feminist Lenore Weitzman, author of the 1985 book The Divorce Revolution. Weitzman concluded that women's standard of living after divorce dropped by three quarters while men's rose over 40%. The media trumpeted her research and it led to sharp increases in child support guidelines. However, years later Weitzman was forced to admit that her findings were vastly overstated, due to a huge mathematical error.
Despite this, the myth that men gain economically from divorce remains pervasive, and is repeated even today by numerous writers and commentators, including conservatives like Dennis Prager, feminists like Ann Crittenden, and even by masculists like Tom Leykis.
Sanford Braver, Ph.D., one of the nation's leading experts on the economics of divorce, helped uncover and expose the Weitzman hoax. He believes that when all relevant factors are taken into account, including the numerous tax advantages custodial parents enjoy, the "men gain/women lose" idea is badly in error. In fact, his new research indicates that the opposite outcome may be more common.
| aussie928 |
| (old hand) |
| 12/14/04 05:04 AM |
|
Re: Chatty....
|
If you say it ..its the truth right mate...Chatty was a good heading for you..my sister had one of the those Chatty Cathy dolls when she was a wee one. Pulled a string and it talked. With you, shove a bottle in your mouth and out your ARSE here it comes.
| chattyboo |
| (recently joined) |
| 12/14/04 04:10 PM |
|
Aussie....
|
I hope you were referring to Eric's title of his reply to me by using my name and not to me directly...he seems to attack anyone in here who is in the defense of women...what he needs to understand is not just men are persecuted when it comes to custody....it is unfair on both sides and too many people take advantage of the situation....judges, lawyers, custodial, and non custodials. I agree with him in one aspect reform and change is needed, but as long as there is money to be made, nothing credible is going to be done. And I'm not just talking about child support; I'm referring to the billions being racked in by attorneys, GAL's, mediators, judges, and the like who are raping the system, meanwhile we (CP and NCP) continue to drag one another into court over and over again making these pigs richer and they wouldn't have it any other way. So Eric...don't hold your breath unless you plan to go into the millions of split households and have them make peace so that everyone can stop the litigation mayhem.
| aussie928 |
| (old hand) |
| 12/14/04 04:24 PM |
|
Re: Aussie....
|
lol..of course I was referring to his title and not your name luv. Change needs to be made...I agree.. but it will never be made by the likes of Erica..in fact it is exactly his attitude and beliefs that keep the laws the way they are. I went to court to testify for a friend once. The mate and his attorney (who by the way were going for 50/50 physical) used the following arguements to obtain this. He was better equipped to parent as he made more money, and this would help his ex not be so dependant on his income. He got home an hour earlier then she did therefore he had been the primary caregiver statstically speaking even though he fully admitted he did not bathe, feed or ready the child for bed as when a sheila is in the house this is HER job. However, he would be willing to do this if there was no sheila available. When asked, he had no idea how his child was doing in school nor the name of her teacher. There were other things as well. The judge upon hearing all the evidence looked at the attorney for the mate.. said I can believe that your client would be dumb enough to have those attitudes.. what I having difficulty with is that you actually repeated them in my court room and promptly gave the mum full custody.