Many men fear being taken to the cleaners in divorce. Some so much so,

[tinktronik]

The courts look to primary caregiver while the marriage was still intact in order to ensure for continuity for the children. If men weren't the primary caregiver prior to the dissolution of the marriage, why would they suddenly want to become one now? Or is it that it's the same old excuse?

 

I think this is what we're being fed though. As a young one divorcing what I saw was the courts look to whoever could pay the better lawyer and wants custody. The young and the poor do tend to get shafted in court.

 

I have no problem with the payout of child support. I just think states that do even split custody have the right idea. I hope to see more and more courts recognize that fathers (or non-custodial) parents do need and want to take an active role in children's lives. I love it to hear about parents that do 50/50 custody splits. It leaves fathers as fathers and daddys, not just paychecks.

 

I cringe with all the talk of deadbeats and get what's yours talk I see mostly coming from women. I know what it feels like to be whittled out of your children's lives, even while doing everything you can, only to be called a deadbeat parent and made to feel like the only contribution wanted is monetary, that's the only one that counts.

 

Even this morning on this board I saw a poster advise an OP to wait until her child is 16 and then go after the dad for child support, that way he will own possibly hundreds of thousand dollars in arrears and be screwed. Maybe baby-daddy is a award winning jerk, but there's been no paternity test done, I don't think the father has even been informed the child is in fact born. But going after this man with 16 years of arrears + the interest, instead of doing it upfront in a reasonable way, would destroy his life, possibly his family or existing children's lives. It mounts a debt that IS impossible to get out from under and often will lose jobs, destroy credit, resulting in arrest or lord knows what else. It is a way the courts are used as a weapon, a tool to destroy rather than a mediating ground in the interest of families or children.

 

The laws are bizarre in some cases. Family law sometimes more so. And I do think we have a society that cries for father's blood often b/c touting tough "taking care of children's" laws gets people elected.

 

It's scary stuff.

Edited March 31, 2011 by tinktronik

[Memphis Raines]

Lurker here if you don't think men don't get intentionally screwed in divorce read this article.

 

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2008-04-03/news/family-court-judge-sheds-light-on-unfair-child-support-practices-in-texas/

 

yup, but Texas isn't the only state that will refuse to make the real father pay for his children.

 

And in the case above, NEITHER of the girls ages 5 and 7 were his. Makes any man want to vomit. Furthermore, the x-wife KNEW he wasn't the father of either which is why she wanted the testing halted.

 

Men get screwed with regards to custody in divorce. My kids are definitely better off with me, but a court won't have it as long as my x wanted custody. I'd have to have tangible proof that she would do something like shoot up herion , or something like that, in order to get custody. It takes an act of god to declare a mother unfit, no matter how unfit she may be.

 

I feel for this guy. having to pay for 2 children that aren't his, and she knew it the whole time. She gets money for being a total whore.

[Memphis Raines]

The courts look to primary caregiver while the marriage was still intact in order to ensure for continuity for the children. If men weren't the primary caregiver prior to the dissolution of the marriage, why would they suddenly want to become one now? Or is it that it's the same old excuse?

 

If both the mother and father work, then they are both the primary care giver (unless the father just has nothing to do with parenting when he gets home)

 

Just like my situation. It doesn't matter. I am the man, I had no chance.

[Crusoe]

I just think states that do even split custody have the right idea. I hope to see more and more courts recognize that fathers (or non-custodial) parents do need and want to take an active role in children's lives. I love it to hear about parents that do 50/50 custody splits. It leaves fathers as fathers and daddys, not just paychecks.

 

I cringe with all the talk of deadbeats

 

Couldn't agree more. Most of my divorced friends get to see their kids between 9am Saturday, and 4 pm Sunday every other weekend. That's all they get. They aren't deadbeats, they're good men. They work hard, they take on second jobs to provide a standard of living and a future for their kids that the state doesn't expect them to do. They don't complain about having no money for themselves, or their grotty little bedsit, or about their own bleak future. They want to work and provide, and they want to be a Dad to their kids. Strong, proud men, no way they will see their kid go without. Yet they get to spend 26 nights a year with their kids. It nigh on destroys them.

 

The kids hurt too. I teach golf to most of them, can't tell you how many times one of them has broken down because they miss their Dad. Sometimes we sneak the Dad's onto the course, have them waiting out of sight by the 2nd tee, just so the kid gets to spend an extra afternoon with them. It shouldn't be like that.

[SummersEve]

I have no problem with the payout of child support. I just think states that do even split custody have the right idea. I hope to see more and more courts recognize that fathers (or non-custodial) parents do need and want to take an active role in children's lives. I love it to hear about parents that do 50/50 custody splits. It leaves fathers as fathers and daddys, not just paychecks

 

That might make the father happy but I would think it would be very unsettling child to be shuffled back and forth 50/50 between two different homes, with different parents, friends, activities, sleeping place. I would hate that myself.

Edited March 31, 2011 by SummersEve

[tinktronik]

That might make the father happy but I don't think it's best for the child to be shuffled back and forth 50/50 between two different homes.

 

I disagree. Children can have 2 homes, and 2 parents that love them and provide a continuum of care and love and support. You feel a house or a dwelling is more important than a father's attention, love, support and what he can pass along to his children. That's just sad.

 

It makes the children happy too, not just the father.

[SummersEve]

I disagree. Children can have 2 homes, and 2 parents that love them and provide a continuum of care and love and support. You feel a house or a dwelling is more important than a father's attention, love, support and what he can pass along to his children. That's just sad.

 

It makes the children happy too, not just the father.

 

I did not say it was about the dwelling. That was not my post. Fathers are very important. As pertains to the best needs of the child, not what the father wants for himself. "50/50" is how assets are divided. It smacks of "mine, my share. my rights." That is not focused on the child's needs, imo. How about work around the child's stable home instead of splitting the child in half along with the furniture and bank accounts?

Edited March 31, 2011 by SummersEve

[tinktronik]

I did not say it was about the dwelling. That was not my post. Fathers are very important. As pertains to the best needs of the child, not what the father wants for himself.

 

As a previous poster pointed out 26 days of visitation a year does not allow a child to really experience their non-custodial parent. What I tend to see is a huge number of custodial parents who want to go on with their lives after divorce, never deal with their ex or work with them as parents, make whatever choices they see fit and basically parent alone or with whoever they pick as their new child's mommy or daddy, all the while collecting a paycheck from someone they basically isolate from their children, resulting in turning what could be a father into just a paycheck.

 

I think it's important the kids have continuum, the same school for example throughout the year. But I strongly believe that time spent equitably between two parents and the opportunity to know both your parents gives you the opportunity to define who you are. I think this is far, far more important that the same set of friends, or stuff or dwelling.

 

[You keep editing your posts after I have quoted you. Not fair.]

Edited March 31, 2011 by tinktronik

[SummersEve]

As a previous poster pointed out 26 days of visitation a year does not allow a child to really experience their non-custodial parent. What I tend to see is a huge number of custodial parents who want to go on with their lives after divorce, never deal with their ex or work with them as parents, make whatever choices they see fit and basically parent alone or with whoever they pick as their new child's mommy or daddy, all the while collecting a paycheck from someone they basically isolate from their children, resulting in turning what could be a father into just a paycheck.

 

I think it's important the kids have continuum, the same school for example throughout the year. But I strongly believe that time spent equitably between two parents and the opportunity to know both your parents gives you the opportunity to define who you are. I think this is far, far more important that the same set of friends, or stuff or dwelling.

 

Please see my post, I edited it after this. What I'm saying is the whole "husband's rights vs. wife's rights" is wrong and selfish. It is not focused on the CHILD'S rights. Start with the child's life and work out from there, not start from the point of view of "your" rightful share.

 

The fact is, when the parents screw up it is just a mess. There is not any way to do it that's going to be as good as if they could work it out. It is very easy to confuse "best for the child" with "best for me." The parent is NOT, nor should be, the center of the child's life. Other way around is the best starting point.

 

It is very very nice though that you care. Many fathers do not.

[tinktronik]

Please see my post, I edited it after this. What I'm saying is the whole "husband's rights vs. wife's rights" is wrong and selfish. It is not focused on the CHILD'S rights. Start with the child's life and work out from there, not start from the point of view of "your" rightful share.

 

The fact is, when the parents screw up it is just a mess. There is not any way to do it that's going to be as good as if they could work it out. It is very easy to confuse "best for the child" with "best for me." The parent is NOT, nor should be, the center of the child's life. Other way around is the best starting point.

 

It is very very nice though that you care. Many fathers do not.

 

First thing, I'm a non-custodial mother, not a father. Parents do screw it up, no doubt about that. I think the law has long been antiquated and that the father's right's movement is necessary, even if at some points it can be aggressive.

 

Part of the point is that a large amount of divorced parents cannot equitably work together out of one stable home, that's just reality and there is no fixing this on an individual level but maybe at a legal level there is a shot.

 

IMO giving kids a 50/50 custodial agreement allows them to know who their parents really are, it provides them with the time needed to understand who both parents are, what they do with their daily lives, how they can express love and emotion and what they are passionate about in their lives. Let's face it, children's lives DO center around their parents. IME short flashes of children appearing do not allow time for a parents lives to center around their children, bond properly or express who they are. It stunts the parenting experience as well as the much needed bonding experience that the child desperately needs with that parent as well. If you give the parents equitable time with their children the there is time for that child to experience both as well as for both parents to form a life around that child.

[Crusoe]

Please see my post, I edited it after this. What I'm saying is the whole "husband's rights vs. wife's rights" is wrong and selfish. It is not focused on the CHILD'S rights. Start with the child's life and work out from there, not start from the point of view of "your" rightful share.

 

The fact is, when the parents screw up it is just a mess. There is not any way to do it that's going to be as good as if they could work it out. It is very easy to confuse "best for the child" with "best for me." The parent is NOT, nor should be, the center of the child's life. Other way around is the best starting point.

 

It is very very nice though that you care. Many fathers do not.

 

Is it not every child's right to be raised by both parents? Surely both parents should be the center of a childs life.

[SummersEve]

Is it not every child's right to be raised by both parents? Surely both parents should be the center of a childs life.

 

I was talking about her response that custody should be "50/50." My response was it sounds suspect when they want to divide the child up by the same formula as furniture and bank accounts. That it should not be based on "husband and wife both getting THEIR rightful share" but focused on what is best for the child, which would not be constant shuffling between two homes at the convenience and for the "rights" of each parent.

 

Both parents should be the center of the child's life? Maybe, but in the background, in service to the child I guess you'd say. A child's life? School, after-school activities, friends, dinner, help with homework, to bed. See, the parents role is in the background, not dragging child here and there to two different areas and lives and homes and sets of friends and beds for THEIR convenience. Stability is important. "Continuity" is important.

 

Summertime, okay. Non-custodial parent coming to take child to child's activities or do things on a regular schedule, okay. Parent moving closer to be there for child's needs, okay. Parents making child live out of a backpack because they want both want THEIR fair share of the child? No.

 

If it was better for your child for YOU to accept less than what was mathematically your fair share of time or money, or smoothing things over when your ex was wrong for your child's benefit which do you pick?

 

That's my point here, what's best for child and parent don't often match up and when people talk like they do they are missing something important, imo.

 

Fathers are extremely important. There is no question that children with their involvement do much better.

[Woggle]

I think this is what we're being fed though. As a young one divorcing what I saw was the courts look to whoever could pay the better lawyer and wants custody. The young and the poor do tend to get shafted in court.

 

I have no problem with the payout of child support. I just think states that do even split custody have the right idea. I hope to see more and more courts recognize that fathers (or non-custodial) parents do need and want to take an active role in children's lives. I love it to hear about parents that do 50/50 custody splits. It leaves fathers as fathers and daddys, not just paychecks.

 

I cringe with all the talk of deadbeats and get what's yours talk I see mostly coming from women. I know what it feels like to be whittled out of your children's lives, even while doing everything you can, only to be called a deadbeat parent and made to feel like the only contribution wanted is monetary, that's the only one that counts.

 

Even this morning on this board I saw a poster advise an OP to wait until her child is 16 and then go after the dad for child support, that way he will own possibly hundreds of thousand dollars in arrears and be screwed. Maybe baby-daddy is a award winning jerk, but there's been no paternity test done, I don't think the father has even been informed the child is in fact born. But going after this man with 16 years of arrears + the interest, instead of doing it upfront in a reasonable way, would destroy his life, possibly his family or existing children's lives. It mounts a debt that IS impossible to get out from under and often will lose jobs, destroy credit, resulting in arrest or lord knows what else. It is a way the courts are used as a weapon, a tool to destroy rather than a mediating ground in the interest of families or children.

 

The laws are bizarre in some cases. Family law sometimes more so. And I do think we have a society that cries for father's blood often b/c touting tough "taking care of children's" laws gets people elected.

 

It's scary stuff.

 

Thank you. It is really good to hear a woman say this. It really does make my blood boil and bring the hatred out when I hear how good fathers get treated in family court and some women's attitude towards it really makes me angry.

 

The fact of the matter is that it is very easy for a deadbeat dad to skip out on his children. All he has to do is disappear and work off the books and he can skip out. I have no sympathy for these men and they should be forced to work for free to pay for what they do to do their kids.

 

On the other hand I know men who care and will do anything for their kids that have to fight tooth and nail with a vindictive ex that knows she has the system on her side in order to be a father. If a custodial parent who in most cases is the mother wants to use a child as a weapon they can do so with impunity. I am not against making fathers support their children but the system needs major reform.

[callsign]

The problem I have with this thread is the self-centeredness of it. Just because you are a male and got divorced and have less than you did does not mean your wife does not also have less than she did. It is simple math, two households on the same salary sucks all around. If you think being a single mother is easy then you are really too stupid to breed in the first place. What an arrogant thing to say. And your CHILDREN should come first. If they did (overall) then the highest group living in poverty in the US would not be children. Who cares if you want more for yourself. Too bad, you need to take care of your children, everything was never all yours in the first place, and by the statistics on child poverty, as a group you are certainly NOT paying enough.

 

My recommendation to both sexes is (1) first of all, don't be stupid in the first place. How many couples do you know where it was an ill-advised marriage in the first place? 75%? Yours? (2) Second, when you get a spouse, treat them right. Most people who are divorced seem to feel they were an innocent victim. Most are lying. Usually it takes two to build and two to destroy. And just because you can rundown a laundry list of your spouse's faults and sins does not mean you acted right yourself. What did you do to contribute to the divorce? What did you ever do to try to fix the problems? (3) Third, travel light. Consider having one child instead of three. Live beneath your means, save and invest. Then even if it's divided by two, or any of the other bad things that can come your way, you will do better. Then, just in the sake of not driving everyone around you crazy, don't whine. Don't be so self-centered that you always think you got were the victim who was innocent and got the short end of the stick. Realize that that's probably ridiculously false. And even if it's true, you probably deserved it anyway for being stupid.

 

Who can look back on all of those three things and still say they are the only poor innocent non-retarded victim out of the three (the three sides being them, spouse, AND children)? I would really like to know. The worst loser in divorce is, by far, the CHILDREN, not some grown man who thinks all the marital assets and salary should still be all for himself. Just going on and on about himself and "what SHE got" with a butt-ignorant no mention of the children at all shows a huge gap in maturity.

 

in my case, the ex made out like a banshee. Two months after I moved out she: purchased large flat screen tvs, had every room in the home repainted, retiled the bathrooms and laundry room, replaced all the exterior doors and windows in the home, replaced all of the interior doors and mouldings in every room of the home, took a luxury vacation of 1 week in Poland, two weeks on the island of Crete with side trips to Athens followed by the next summers luxury vacation to Puerta Vallarta. And these weren't cheap resorts. Then signed the one kid up for a traveling soccer team, the junior affiliate of a national team to the tune of over 5 grand. If my support is going for 200 dollar kangaroo skin soccer cleas every 3 months, where is it going for college saving? Oh wait, she's now making 6 figures, plus everything I give her. Pity the poor woman

[SummersEve]

in my case, the ex made out like a banshee. Two months after I moved out she: purchased large flat screen tvs, had every room in the home repainted, retiled the bathrooms and laundry room, replaced all the exterior doors and windows in the home, replaced all of the interior doors and mouldings in every room of the home, took a luxury vacation of 1 week in Poland, two weeks on the island of Crete with side trips to Athens followed by the next summers luxury vacation to Puerta Vallarta. And these weren't cheap resorts. Then signed the one kid up for a traveling soccer team, the junior affiliate of a national team to the tune of over 5 grand. If my support is going for 200 dollar kangaroo skin soccer cleas every 3 months, where is it going for college saving? Oh wait, she's now making 6 figures, plus everything I give her. Pity the poor woman

 

I certainly did not say I pitied your ex-wife's wealth, I don't even know her, although I'm sure you know that is not the normal situation. I don't understand your complaint though.

 

So what if your wife makes lots of money, do you still think your child support should not go by the usual percentage of your own income?

 

It would seem to me that she is buying her own fancy things and it is not your business. Your child support is for your children's support. Honestly unless I misunderstood, you are twisting things in a very obvious say. How are YOU paying for all those things when you say she makes enough to buy them herself? You are paying your child support. Or are you saying you should not have to pay it or should control her budget or what? Assets are usually divided in half. I believe college payment is spelled out by the judge, isn't it?

 

I don't understand your complaint.

Edited March 31, 2011 by SummersEve

[callsign]

I certainly did not say I pitied your ex-wife's wealth, I don't even know her, although I'm sure you know that is not the normal situation. I don't understand your complaint though.

 

So what if your wife makes lots of money, do you still think your child support should not go by the usual percentage of your own income?

 

It would seem to me that she is buying her own fancy things and it is not your business. Your child support is for your children's support. Honestly unless I misunderstood, you are twisting things in a very obvious say. How are YOU paying for all those things when you say she makes enough to buy them herself? You are paying your child support. Or are you saying you should not have to pay it or should control her budget or what? Assets are usually divided in half. I believe college payment is spelled out by the judge, isn't it?

 

I don't understand your complaint.

 

 

complaint is that she very well used the system to make herself comfortable at my expense, and yes, at the expense of the children. Once the process of divorce was started, I discovered ho well prepared she was for the event. Large, large amounts of money in foreign bank account and held in trust by family in Europe, heavy doses of consultation by friends in the legal profession and a clear understanding of the bias Illinois places towards women in divorce. The laws were created at a time when women REALLY DID need this bias because of the social and employment norms. Things have changed. Argue for joint residential custody and I was looking at 3 to 5 years and 18 to 35 grand to fight for it. Odds stacked against me. Everything I had was tied up in the house and going to keeps us going. Here is where seperate bank accounts really worked against me. All I heard was, "I don't have enough money" from her. It was only after papers were filed that I started investigating and found hundreds of thousands stashed away in a European account, her once limited English was suddenly peppered with legal terms not common in conversation and two dozen other hints I never really paid attention to. I went to work, never cheated, broke myself financially to keep the house going and here she is quietly squirelling away thousands in preparation for getting the house, the kids and a secure future, minus me. There's more, as you can well imagine, but don't get the idea I don't love my kids or want the best for them. I stayed in the 13 year train wreck for no other reason than I didn't want to break up the family.

[tinktronik]

I certainly did not say I pitied your ex-wife's wealth, I don't even know her, although I'm sure you know that is not the normal situation. I don't understand your complaint though.

 

So what if your wife makes lots of money, do you still think your child support should not go by the usual percentage of your own income?

 

It would seem to me that she is buying her own fancy things and it is not your business. Your child support is for your children's support. Honestly unless I misunderstood, you are twisting things in a very obvious say. How are YOU paying for all those things when you say she makes enough to buy them herself? You are paying your child support. Or are you saying you should not have to pay it or should control her budget or what? Assets are usually divided in half. I believe college payment is spelled out by the judge, isn't it?

 

I don't understand your complaint.

 

I don't really get the complaint either. It sounds as if the OP ex makes enough to do these things off her paycheck. Child support just kind of flows into the income stream of providing for a child's everything monetary while in one parents home. Is there something the poster has perhaps left out?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

My only real issues with CS is when you see one parent making a good sum and the other crippled by CS to the point they can't maintain a lifestyle for their children to spend time with them. I have to be able to both maintain a place where my children can live, have entertainment, feed, clothe, everything for them while also providing it in monetary support to their other parent. Okay, I can deal with this as long as the numbers work.

 

 

I've got no problem with paying my CS, if fact, it's due tomorrow.

 

BUT what I do have an issue with is that in order to protect my ability to care for my children, spend time with them, and not be crippled my the amount due I have to lawyer up against my ex's free state sponsored group with their own free attorneys. My children are not on any state subsidy. Why does he get free legal assist? The court docket does not represent my children vs. me. It's my ex vs. me. If I have a court date, even with my attorney present, I darn sure better show up or else I'm a deadbeat, meanwhile my ex is out of the country and no-one knows where he is.

 

CS does not always go for a percentage of your income, in my case they asked for that "regular percentage" X 2 and I had an attorney who argued it down to the "regular percentage", for now. But in 6 months will it be so high that I will not be able to afford to see my kids? That would be 67% of my income BEFORE TAXES (that equals exactly 100% of what I make a year after taxes). They decided my ex needed this money because he bought a new $400,000.00 home and a Tahoe and had 3 more kids outside our marriage, and he "needed" it very much to pay bills; thus they deemed it "fair". I did not buy a $400,000.00 home, nor a Tahoe. I live in a 1,200 sq. ft. house and drive a car that's 14 years old. I am just now carrying my only child, after 10 years of divorce, that I will birth outside of our marriage, I did not have 3 more children in the last 10 years. Yet the CS office and my ex began to refer to my babe as the "bad-faith baby" in open court.

 

That and it turns into a merry-go-round of court appearances. It actually turns into a way for him to bleed me dry until I run out of money to represent myself properly, get the numbers so ratcheted up that I cannot afford to pay or in order to keep current cannot spend time with my children. This is my point about the courts being used unfairly against fathers and as a weapon rather that a mediating ground for families or children.

[Crusoe]

Fathers are extremely important. There is no question that children with their involvement do much better.

 

Yes, Fathers are extremely important, just as important as a Mother, surely it's beneficial for a child to spend as much time as possible with both.

 

I don't think men would be quite so wary of divorce if it were so. Can you imagine having your kids taken away and told you can only see them twice a month? I think that prospect would scare most people.

[Woggle]

I also have a coworker who until recently paid his ex child support even though he had the kids 95% of the time. She actually told him she doesn't care if he has them 100% as long as the checks keep coming. Luckily he took her to court and got that straightened out but something that was intended to insure children are supported has been horribly abused.

[tinktronik]

I also have a coworker who until recently paid his ex child support even though he had the kids 95% of the time. She actually told him she doesn't care if he has them 100% as long as the checks keep coming. Luckily he took her to court and got that straightened out but something that was intended to insure children are supported has been horribly abused.

 

I'll tell you, if my ex left the kids with me 100% of the time I would keep sending those checks and keep my mouth shut too.

[Ballerfamily]

Thank you. It is really good to hear a woman say this. It really does make my blood boil and bring the hatred out when I hear how good fathers get treated in family court and some women's attitude towards it really makes me angry.

 

The fact of the matter is that it is very easy for a deadbeat dad to skip out on his children. All he has to do is disappear and work off the books and he can skip out. I have no sympathy for these men and they should be forced to work for free to pay for what they do to do their kids.

 

On the other hand I know men who care and will do anything for their kids that have to fight tooth and nail with a vindictive ex that knows she has the system on her side in order to be a father. If a custodial parent who in most cases is the mother wants to use a child as a weapon they can do so with impunity. I am not against making fathers support their children but the system needs major reform.

 

On the other hand I know men who care and will do anything for their kids that have to fight tooth and nail with a vindictive ex that knows she has the system on her side in order to be a father. If a custodial parent who in most cases is the mother wants to use a child as a weapon they can do so with impunity. I am not against making fathers support their children but the system needs major reform.

 

It makes me sick to my stomache how woman like you (summers eve) paint good men and fathers with your brush. Maybe you would like to be on the short end of what woggle is talking. (it would be like me calling all woman who divorce, whores.)

 

Go spew your man hate somewhere else. This is spot on with these kind of women, and this is very common with WAW. I've seen enough of your hate. Save it for true deadbeats. I have (10) divorced men friends, and we all work extra to support are kids. My 20 yr old always comes to my home,(his mom can't control him,and she doesn't pay one damn cent for him, because the courts can't make her) and my (8 yr) can't wait to get with his daddy.

 

Let the kids decide , eh. Would be a hell of alot better then most of these crooked courts, etc. I have a very good Lawyer friend, who would be the first one to tell you this. NOT ALL WOMEN. But a whole hell of alot, for sure

 

My guess is the OP that started this thread had an Ex like I'm talking about. But according to you, he is just selfish. Go take a hot shower. I'm gonna puke

 

My ex cost me my job with a made up false charge, cost me $12,000(according to you would be my fault, no doubt) got behind in CS with no job, and she filed contempt charges. I then eventually got (2) jobs, so I could pay the arrears.

After paying arrears in full, she still pleaded with judge to throw me in jail. Got anything else you would like to tell me??????

Edited March 31, 2011 by Ballerfamily

[SummersEve]

On the other hand I know men who care and will do anything for their kids that have to fight tooth and nail with a vindictive ex that knows she has the system on her side in order to be a father. If a custodial parent who in most cases is the mother wants to use a child as a weapon they can do so with impunity. I am not against making fathers support their children but the system needs major reform.

 

It makes me sick to my stomache how woman like you (summers eve) paint good men and fathers with your brush. Maybe you would like to be on the short end of what woggle is talking. (it would be like me calling all woman who divorce, whores.)

 

Go spew your man hate somewhere else. This is spot on with these kind of women, and this is very common with WAW. I've seen enough of your hate. Save it for true deadbeats. I have (10) divorced men friends, and we all work extra to support are kids. My 20 yr old always comes to my home,(his mom can't control him, and my (8 yr) can't wait to get with his daddy.

 

Let the kids decide , eh. Would be a hell of alot better then most of these crooked courts, etc. I have a very good Lawyer friend, who would be the first one to tell you this. NOT ALL WOMEN. But a whole hell of alot, for sure[/QUOT

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I don't have man hate and didn't paint any good fathers with any brush. I've been in a long marriage with a lovely man, why would I. It's the other way around, and I am sick of the woman hate here. Don't twist my message into whatever you feel like arguing against. I was raised by a divorced mother in a place full of many many other divorced mothers who all lived in poverty and rarely saw a father. I don't care what you've seen, that's not all of it or most of it. It would be different if it was discussed on a case by case basis but if you read through this thread it's all about how fathers get screwed and the single mothers break up the family for no reason except they feel like it and live in luxury, presented like it's the usual thing. It's retarded.

Edited March 31, 2011 by SummersEve

[Ballerfamily]

It makes me sick to my stomache how woman like you (summers eve) paint good men and fathers with your brush. Maybe you would like to be on the short end of what woggle is talking. (it would be like me calling all woman who divorce, whores.)

 

Go spew your man hate somewhere else. This is spot on with these kind of women, and this is very common with WAW. I've seen enough of your hate. Save it for true deadbeats. I have (10) divorced men friends, and we all work extra to support are kids. My 20 yr old always comes to my home,(his mom can't control him, and my (8 yr) can't wait to get with his daddy.

 

Let the kids decide , eh. Would be a hell of alot better then most of these crooked courts, etc. I have a very good Lawyer friend, who would be the first one to tell you this. NOT ALL WOMEN. But a whole hell of alot, for sure[/QUOT

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I don't have man hate and didn't paint any good fathers with any brush. I've been in a long marriage with a lovely man, why would I. It's the other way around, and I am sick of the woman hate here. Don't twist my message into whatever you feel like arguing against. I was raised by a divorced mother in a place full of many many other divorced mothers who all lived in poverty and rarely saw a father. I don't care what you've seen, that's not all of it or most of it. It would be different if it was discussed on a case by case basis but if you read through this thread it's all about how fathers get screwed and the single mothers break up the family for no reason except they feel like it and live in luxury, presented like it's the usual thing. It's retarded.

 

and your talking about gutless, cowards. Not what this thread is talking about. WERE TALKING ABOUT THE KIND OF WOMAN THAT SCREW MEN. PERIOD

Edited March 31, 2011 by Ballerfamily

[SummersEve]

Then live it before you are start spewing your bs. You haven't a clue.

 

I have lived it, from the CHILD'S point of view. You live that before you start spewing your bs. You are the one who hasn't got a clue. It's not all about you and what you want.

[SummersEve]

and your talking about gutless, cowards. Not what this thread is talking about. WERE TALKING ABOUT THE KIND OF WOMAN THAT SCREW MEN. PERIOD

 

Exactly, in other words a woman hating thread. It's all case by case, not "men get screwed in divorce" as the general way it's done. Because it's not.