Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    qualifier: I am the custodial parent now.
    
    I thind that this would do little to help collect any support and
    will just add fuel for the men-hate groups.
    
    fred();

I must admit I had mixed feelings when I read about this.  Apparently the
men cited in the poster have been "conciously evading" paying support, some
by constantly moving and being unlocatable.  But we don't know the whole
story.

I do know that many non-custodial parents (almost all being fathers) get
frustrated at the child-support system and, though they do want to support
their children, also don't want to be forced into bankruptcy because of
arbitrarily-decided payments.  (Then there are a large number of NCPs,
also mostly men, who don't seem to give a damn about their children and
just skip out.)

If I felt that the system of awarding child support was fair and equitable,
I'd support a "poster" if it helped nail those who duck their responsibility.
But with the way things are now, it seems to me that it's a witch-hunt.

					Steve

    
    Re. Fred()
    
    Too right Fred, you've only got to read some of the things written in
    here to see this could,and would add to the men-hate issue.
    I'm an NCP and I pay for all my kids school and extra-cirricular
    activities and have done for the last 9 years.
    Yeah, feels really good having someone else raise ya kids while you pay
    for it, but hey..it's a fair life!!
    
    I love women but sometimes they can really get ya goat, and now someone
    wants to put the most wanted on a poster,..good one.
    
    Luv
    
    John M

    
    	
    	  I know some individuals who are involved in tracking these people
	down. They say it's effective in the most part. Personally I feel if
	an individual is late on 200 or 300 weeks, they should be tracked
	down and brought forward to pay there debt.  These people have
	a responsibilities and that's to provide for there children, if it
	takes having a picture stating, MOST WANTED, then that's what it
	takes.
	
					Dice
	
					    	
    
    	

    I have seen, and still see men, who are making an honest attempt to
    pay. Are paying more than the RSA guidelines. I know of three men, as I
    write, who are paying more than they are making in income. They are
    sleeping on someone couch and in their cars. Next. 
    
    One gentleman who is a read only in our community has a $28.00 a week 
    spending income. Of which he can by food, gas, and pay for his rent.  

    I do not see any provisions in this for women. And according to the
    local DHS of N.H., women are the worst to collect from. Call the
    locals in Nashua for your source. 

    I have an acquaintance who has not collected a farthing from his ex and
    he has had custody of his daughter for over a year.

    There are women out there who are paying, as there are men. To them
    my hat is off to you. 

    The idea seems sound. But it seems with the uneven playing grounds men
    have in divorce court. It appears to be another attempt to make the
    grounds even more unfair. 
    

    
    	when i first started reading the article my first impression
    	was the witch-hunt theory that (was it ::HADDOCK?) had appeared
    	in a few replies past. as i continued reading they were listing
    	the men and how much they were delinquent on child support, this
    	was pretty outrageous....amounts of over $10,000. i think that
    	within the limits (unstated clearly as of late) it has its 
    	possibilities....but without clearly stated guidelines i keep
    	seeing privacy violations, oppressive action taken, and even a
    	possible uneven slant (and slight mebbe?) against men.
    
    	and there's probably more i'm not aware of.

    Apparently these are guys who have organized their whole lives around
    evading their financial responsibilities to their children -- changing
    jobs and residences and states regularly, doing work that pays under
    the table, etc. 
    
    They're behind hundreds of weeks in payment, and the state has simply
    been unable to get them to act like men. 
    
    But then the idea on the part of many folks that supporting your kids
    is optional is only a reflection of the greater abdication of personal
    responsibility in society.
    
    Kit

    .6

    About a year ago, on a Boston T.V. station. I saw a woman who was
    avocation this program. She was also avocating having men castrated
    because they are not able to pay child support, but start another
    family. 

    This kind of also leaves men on the side line. The have no say in 
    the birth or un-birth of children. And this woman/wymin on this T.V.
    show wish's to inflict her Nazi principles upon men. 
    
    What of women who are having children on AFDC then? Children by 
    acquaintance? What of women who are refusing to tell Welfare of
    the fathers of these children? For the few who are paying, it seems
    rather one sided again. I know of these women/wymin. For they have been
    tenants of mine. I have respect for them and treat them with the 
    dignity that they have coming to them. This is just an observation
    of mine.
    
    

    re.8
    
    People who do not pay child support are one issue. I'm all for this
    "Ten Most Wanted" exercise.  Those who owe child support should pay.
    Those who do not pay what they owe should experience some pain.
    
    Women who have many children while on AFDC are a different issue. Those
    who abuse the system should be singled out for notice as well.
    
    The only two connections that I can see between these issues are that:
    1) both involve children and 2) both cost tax-payer monies.
    
    citing welfare mothers who abuse the system as reason not to enforce
    payment of court-mandated child-support by others is a fairly
    transparent attempt at misdirection at best.
    
      Annie

    Annie,

    	Perhaps as a bounty for the Deadbeat dads/moms. There should be
    a bounty for welfare cheats and fraud. Thus keeping the system strong
    and healthy.

    	Those who owe are sometimes victims of the system. As in mentioned
    in .8 men who are under court order to pay more than they are making.
    Or forced into poverty themselves. Same stories. 

    	Both involve children, both tax others. Perhaps if this program
    was invoked, as I think I have said already, it would force the
    hand of local courts to face up to impoverishing child suport orders.
    Thus making a system fair.

    George
    ps I have custody, and I do receive child sport. But I worked like
    hell for it. I am not trying to impoverish my ex. Nor am I in favor of
    impoverishing others. 
                                                                         

    
    	gosh ::RAUH....you sure have a lopsided & overly pessimistic 
    	perception of things.
    	i'm not trying to disclaim your points, but what you see and
    	hear seems to be a very small fraction of the problems. let's 
    	try focusing a little more on the overall picture, please.
    
    	as an update to my .0, it seems there was a person who turned
    	himself in at yarmouth. he was found guilty of civil contempt,
    	time will be served (60 days) if he can't come up with $1,000.
    	so the whole kit n kaboodle is : $60/wk (to pay for arrears)
    	plus an additional $90/wk for current support. if he can't make
    	payment he has to report to court and explain why he can't.
    
    	i think they mean business ....and that the `deadbeat list'
    	has become a reality.

    Nothing lopsided. Just the facts mam....:)

    
    	i can't help but notice that your `just the facts' have been
    	peppered with a little emotional insight.....which detracts 
    	from what the facts really should be.
    	
    	try it this time....plain & simple.

    Several times I've read claims that NCPs are required by court order to
    pay more than they earn.  How can this be?  Do these folks have
    unearned income which is taken into account in such rulings?
    
    aq

    Obviously to the most casual observer, no..... Its the judges
    discretion. Hence, you make a situation that is not a win-win. But 
    and hurt the children the most.

    .13
    
    Best is to send you an invite to go to a fathers meeting. Meet the guys
    next door who are treated like criminals before they get to court. 
     
    Peace

    i find it extremely unfortunate that a trend to treate civil issues as
    criminal is continuing. the assumption that these men are all dedbeats
    is like saying all criminals in prison are guilty of crimes when we
    know in our hearts many are innocent. the same principal applies here.
    the probate system is extremely unfair. using "in the best interest of
    the children" to justify decisions that rob many men the ability to
    have normal lives. each support order the coarts dish out have a
    complex set of circumstances that are not addressed by the "guidlines"
    most states have today to calculate equitable financial allocation.
    this is a very serious issue in todays society and needs more
    attention. almost all media attention is slanted towards a view that
    men are irresponsible and don't want to provide for their children.
    the reality is men do feel responsible and are more than willing to
    share in a fair and equitable arrangement. unfortunately many men have
    unlivable court orders forced down their throats and are expected to
    perform in the workplace as if everything is as it should be. and if
    they begin to have financial troubles the system turns away. for those
    who are not familiar with the issue should breeze through the
    non-custodial parents file. some of the stories will shock you!
    					
    					dan d.
    
    
    

I'm against a 'most wanted list.'  There are many 'reasons' that some men don't
pay.  Some are perhaps valid, others are not.  As Steve said, we don't know the
reasons behind "their" reasons. And what about a 'list' of women that didn't
honor visitation rights?  That would be a pretty long list too.  Yep, we could
have MANY different types of lists.  But lets don't stop there.  Next we'll
have a TV show, "AMERICA'S MOST WANTED DADS" or some such nonsense.  That'll be
next.  Yep, some child is sitting watching TV with his mom and sees his Dad
plastered on the TV, a composite of what he may look like today with a beard as
well!  If you've see him, dial 1-800-HES-SCUM.

Many dads, and perhaps a few moms, would wind up on such a list or show that
really didn't deserve to be treated in such fashion.  I feel it'd do more harm
than good.

    I think the whole issue around child support is an emotional one.
    
    Yes, I do feel that the mother/father are responsible for the support
    and welfare of their children, regardless if one is not in the home. 
    
    I think that fathers, (I don't know if it would be the same with
    mothers, but it seems it's acceptable for NCP moms to not pay, since it
    may insult the father, that he's hounding a woman for money) once
    they've been divorced from his wife (and didn't want it) attaches his
    children to his wife as if it were all a package.  I don't think he
    thinks about the kids as his too.  
    
    Our society has for so long given women the "rights" to children's
    welfare by default.  I think for divorce cases and custody cases to
    reach fairness or equality between mothers and fathers, it will take new
    perspectives as well as new laws.
    
    Example: does the father have the right to demand the mother to carry
    pregnancy to term if she would rather abort the pregnancy?  Then take
    custody of the baby and demand child support, or is the entire decision
    belong to the mother because it's her body?     After all, it took both
    parents to create.
    
    Fair or not, it seems that the less involved the NCP is with their
    kids, the less that NCP is willing to contribute to their support.  I
    don't know if that's human nature or what.
    
    I would say that each case is as unique as the individuals involved.
    
    cindy
    

    
    
    Has anybody thought of what this will do to the kids of the fathers
    on these posters.  Imagine this, little johny jr who's with his bunch
    of 8 year old friends walks into a corner store to buy a coke.  There
    at the cash register his friends see this poster and then the
    inevitable happens.  Hey johnny isnt this your dad, why is he here?
    What did he do?  Is he in jail?  
    
    I don't think most kids will understand what the posters are all
    about.  And once again, it's the kids who will get hurt the most.
    I think this program needs to be reevaluated for issues like this.
    I also think that the same type of system (minus the posters) should
    be set up for the custodial parents who routinely deny visitation.
    They are doing just as much harm to the kids caught in the middle.
    
    
    Michele

    
    its not about helping kiddies get their just dues; it's about sleazy
    DAs furthering their careers by seizing upon a cause du jour and 
    riding it for all its worth.
    
    

    
    	from last friday's globe, another dad turned himself in.
    
    	if nothing else, its effective.

    To bad there isn't a bounty for welfare cheats. Imagine the local money
    that could be saved in your tax dollars if some of these folks walked
    the streight and narrow like the rest of us. 

    
    	NAH!
    	they'd only think of a way to *re-invest*....

    The following reply has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






    	I hesitate to judge these guys based on the Court or the  news
    media's condemnation of them. 
    
    	 When I was in probate court recently,  the Probation or Family 
    Sevice officer asked my ex her work address,  she gave the wrong street
    name.  As he started to write it down,  I said it was incorrect and
    held  out to him an envelope of the company's stationery with the
    correct address printed on it.  He looked at me and waved the envelope
    away.  He then  wrote down the incorrect address she gave him.  I took
    this as just one more indicator of the disdain the courts in general
    have for fathers  (custodial or not).  They don't believe what you say
    or give you any  credit for caring about your children.
    
    	While I don't personally know any of these "dead beat" dads and I 
    always paid my child support before I got custody,  I do know that in 
    the Massachusetts Court system that judged them, fathers are guilty 
    'til proven innocent.  Some of these guys could be "dead beats" but
    some of them could be guys who lost their homes and their children
    against  their wishes.  It's very sad that the courts haven't found a
    better way. I wish that the courts would aim to keep fathers involved
    with their  children.   A father should still be a parent not just a
    check to his  children after a divorce.  
    
    	Too bad the news media focusses on the sensational rather than the 
    reasons behind this situation.  Maybe we could learn something from 
    these "dead beats" about what might help  get them involved with their
    children.