Child Support Enforcement is a Violation of Men's Rights!

[Grace_Adler]

I just have to say this. First Tigger..I'm sure not going to blast you. You and I are on the same page. You better look out for # 1 so you won't get yourself into this mess and have to worry about all this crap. Prevention is the key word here and looking before you leap. (Of course I'm not referring to all aspects in life.) And I know mistakes happen and that's understandable too, as long as it's not repeated. (I'm also referring to ordinary circumstances here not rape and stuff like that) Also I have to say I agree with ryry because you can't pick apart the constitution and apply it how you want to. That's like people totally misqouting and misinterpertating the Bible. People do the same thing and it drives me up the wall. You have to read through the whole thing and also see when it was written to understand what they meant by it and how it is supposed to be used. Yeah, I know men get the shaft alot and it's not cool. So do women though. Alot of men say they'll be there if the woman gets pregnent and says they'll be there for her and then they run out. Both parties are at fault. I know that alot of these laws aren't fair to both sides and I agree with that. But it brings us back to what Tigger and I were saying. You have the opportunity to opt out ahead of time or use extremely good protection but even then there's always a chance. So if you make a concious desicion and consent to sex then you are agreeing to this risk and I think that is what the govt. is trying to say too. I don't think it's fair for a woman to lie, force a child on a man or prevent him from having a baby if he wants one(in which case you better go find someone else who does want kids) Nor do I think it's fair for a man to force her to do something with her body she doesn't want to. Or if an accident does happen to say well I didn't want any kids. Fine I understand that but you took a chance when you jumped in the bed no matter if it was discussed before hand or you were tricked or an accident.How would you like it if someone told you what to do with yours or tried to force you? Women aren't blameless either, I'm not saying that. So what's the answer? I don't know..I see both sides. All I can say it's once again in this situation you better look before you leap.
Angrymom..I totally understand your point too. I didn't think I could get pregnent either but I found out different. I know there are unusual circumstances in alot of situations and that's why I feel not all laws can apply to everyone. I totally believe in exceptions. I think what he's going through really sucks and I hope you guys can find a way to straighten things out. Good Luck to you.

 

[smh33]

Thanks grace for your response and not taking anything personal.

Laws can be passed that are unconstitutional. Roe may be viewed as o.k., but the issue is that that law should apply equally to men...choice. Giving man a choice would not mean a man could force abortion or birth but if man wanted out and mom didn't....she would make her 'choice' knowing dad will not be helping.
I just don't believe that anyone can slam this claiming just gives men an outlet from responsibility when that is exactly what Roe provides for women...an outlet from parenthood.
Ryry..I do not know your state but in mine the cs payor does not get any credit for thier rent,utilities,etc but the cp does get credit for thiers. I did not agree with causmic's 14th issue...I only stated men should have equal choice as women to parenthood. But on the 14th...secure in person,etc.....is one secure when if a man....woman has right to choose birth or term and this sole choice made by another will affect the man's future,finances,family and place him subject to crimminal punishment?

 

[i8maliki]

Well in my opinion all these child support and custody laws were established for a reason.
Yes some men get screwed over and YES believe it or not some women get screwed over because of these laws.
Do you realize how many children have food on the table and clothes on there backs because there are child support laws? Do you know how many parents a majority of them being father's are part of there child's life because of child custody and visitation laws?
Child support is required whether the father wanted the baby or not because if a man doesn't want children use a condom or be celobate.
Cosmic eye if you think the parent who has physical custody of the child should be solely responsible for all expenses for the child's well being then in the same breathe you should do away with public welfare. why should tax payer's be responsible for children's expenses as well as adults. hell if someone falls off a bike and breaks there neck and cannot work why should they recieve free care or foodstamps or any type of compensation. It's not the tax payer's responsibility to help you out. Even if someone hit you with there car and caused the accident out of negligence. Why should they be responsible for your body and your well being? It's your body you decided to get on the bike so you should Solely be responsible for your own well being.
Why should anybody else incur that cost or maybe all homeless shelters should close because why should they take help and take care of able bodied persons when they can't take care of themselves. Answer that question.
No matter how you look at it there are reason's for child support. it is extremely expensive and difficult to take care of another human being. and it's that much more difficult if a single parent has to do it by themselves. maybe you have a ligitimate right to be upset because of your situation but every situation is not like yours and that is why the laws are the way they are.
so think about that!
Also i don't think any man has the right to make any judment's or decisions about abortion because men cannot have baby's so therefore they cannot put themselves in a position to be fair!
how would you like it if a woman told you "Hey you know what i want a new pair of ears and i want you to grow them on your back (just like a lab rat) so i can have them" and you don't have a choice to do it or not to do it. even though it will physicly and mentally alter your life! Men can't get pregnant therefore they have no right to tell a woman when or where to have baby's GOT IT!

 

[smh33]

I didn't understand the cs and taxpayer question....you don't think there should be welfare or that taxes should not pay for it? or Did I miss the whole point all together?? Probably, I am sure.

I am not defending this causmic? poster in anyway or claiming we have any same beliefs. I only posted to start because someone told causmic should contact me due to my posts on another thread. My thoughts do not reflect causmic's opinion. I am taking causmic's meaning of one parent should be solely responsible for child completely different than how it seems others are. I thought the motive of it was more to do with the whole...only woman has choice, only woman should be responsible thing, than to do with actual support,laws,etc....
I know this thread was a little removed from normal topics, but can't say it wasn't interesting!! Some of these threads are like rollarcoasters to me...up,down,up,side.....fun & scary...it's all good though! Yall don't beat me up for this, but this place makes me think about,feel a little bad for even...our politicians,supremes,etc... I see people here very passionate about what they feel is right.....rarely does everyone here agree and our lawmakers, atleast a little bit have to pick between us....does that make sense? Can't be easy I don't think......

 

[lovemybabies]

i sat here and read every post that has been posted on this topic.I see alot of people keep blaming the government because childsupport is breaking them. It is not the government. Men and woman do it to themselves. Why do we make innocent children then set back and think we should not support them? People need to think before they jump in the sack with someone for a hour or few minutes of pleasure however long you guys desire, that a child can be made and yes you are responsible cause it takes two to fertilize that egg. I feel there are men just as good as single parents as mothers. But, everyone needs to realize that everyone is different. Instead of labeling them as a man or woman doing wrong. We all have faults but it is not always the woman nor the men.
For those of you men who dont want to support your kids then buy you some condems and wear them or go to your dr and have yourself fixed.This will prevent a woman getting pregnant you know.
For those of you woman who dont want to support your kids then keep your legs closed or get fixed.
I just cant believe that so many people have such a wonderful time creating these precious babies but dont want to take care of them. Then when it does come to them taking care of them they dont want to.. All you get is well its not my responsiblilty. Well yes sir/mam it is.. You helped make it and you could have prevented it but you didnt did you?

 

[i8maliki]

Dear SMH,
If you read all of the posts you will see that i was being sarcastic. bassicly if causmiceye thinks he shouldn't have to pay child support in the same breathe he should do away with everything else i mentioned in my first post on this thread.

 

[CMSC]

I did not agree with causmic's 14th issue...I only stated men should have equal choice as women to parenthood. But on the 14th...secure in person,etc.....is one secure when if a man....woman has right to choose birth or term and this sole choice made by another will affect the man's future,finances,family and place him subject to crimminal punishment?

Lets have a lesson on our ammendments shall we??? The 14th ammendment states nothing about being secure in person that is the 4th ammendment and you can't cut and paste the ammendment to make it apply to your cause. The 4th ammendment state secure in person because it is about SEARCH AND SEZUIRE what does this have to do with a man's finances, future etc.. when it comes to custody and support??? It is about legal search and sezuires not custodial rights!!!!!!!!!!

CausmicEye apparently has realized this fact about none of the ammendments being violated by Roe vs. Wade because he has backed down. once again, smh I will remind you that you are speaking of the 14th ammendment but using the context of the 4th you might want to get these straight if you are really arguing equal rights with you congressmen!

This is the only thing that I am arguing about, no one is treated equal in this world but if you want to prove it and back it up with a legal basis get that basis straight!!

Does anyone understand what I am saying??? Tigger and Grace do you guys get this because apparently smh and causmic don't.

 

[CMSC]

I sure wish IAAL would respond to some of this, come on, you know you are sitting their rolling your eyes and "chewing your arm" give us some input!!!!!

 

[Grace_Adler]

LOL!! Yeah ryry's mom we are totally on the same page!! When it says secure in your persons it means secure about the search and siezure thing. That's all. Like ryry's mom said..you can't pick the thing apart and rearrange it to suit what you want it to for your own purposes. And you have to think about when it was written. That has alot to do with what was meant and how it is supposed to be applied. It was written a certain way for a reason. Not to disect it and put it back together like a jigsaw puzzle. Besides how many amendments were written in the 20th century anyway? You need to think about time frame here that has alot to do with interpretation.

 

[tigger22472]

I'm totally with the two of you on this one.

 

[smh33]

This is my opinion,not an opinion about anyone else:

The 4th states...right of people to be secure in thier persons,houses,papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures...no warrants...except with oath or affirmation of probable cause....describe....
Everyone is still entitled to due process.....automatic DL revoking is hardly due process,garnishing paychecks is unreasonable seizure(remember it is mandatory many places) no probable cause,no due process..just seized...state assuming one won't pay. Revoking business lis., no due process...if your behind, your behind....and we could go on and on about the many ways the custody/support system violates some constitutional rights. Where else do we have a system, law that applies to only one group of people who are linked because they share 1 thing in common...being the 2nd parent? That is the definition of discrimination. If taxes change, they change for all...voting age, changes for all,etc... Due process/equal protection under the law...the state represents a cs reciever,free..to prosecute the payor...because it is state case, now state can take action without the receiver having to do anything...if cs receiver had to use lawyer just as payor...think it would be that way? No life's not fair but we are not talking about life, we are talking about the law,government and our right to live our unfair lives.
I know some of you got shortchanged,problems with support,etc...but you can't assume everyone is like your ex. Child support is for a child's living needs...anything extra,movies,toys is between you and your ex...it is not the state's place to mandate/force a parent to provide funds for movies,dance classes,toys,etc...if your ex doesn't choose to contribute those extras, well thats who you made the baby with,what you got and hey life isn't fair right? I wish some of you would atleast consider how the laws being unfair contribute to your problems...if the laws were fair and reasonable more payors would just pay it.
I know this is long, sorry but I have heard your sides, I'd like to share another.....The cs payor is not automatically the one responsible for a split. Regardless of that....when two adults with one life for any length of time become two it is emotional for both people, even if wanted. It is a huge life change, especially for the person who leaves the home. If also leaving children...only you know your ex's, u'r past,if they care,etc...but if they care/love even 1 tiny bit.....it is not easy no matter if you ever see it in ex or not...people deal differently. The gov. labels people 'deadbeat parent'...now that's got to be in CBI's to catch his parent on a poster or t.v.ad, I mean really!The system works against the payor instead of with the payor.

 

[tigger22472]

Ok... I'm a bitter person tonight so I will comment and no offence intended to anyone here. Although I totally TOTALLY agree that child support laws are unfair I don't really believe that everything is AGAINST the payor. Two people go into court and an amount is set for child support. Now, if circumstances change at any time they are able to simply file the paperwork on their own for modification. However in my case I have an ex husband who would rather spend his life on the run from house to house, job to job then be caught to have to pay child support. If he would of kept his job in the beginning over two years ago and paid his $113 a week then there would be no problem. However he decided to quit that job and move to another state where he didn't work for over eight months. He then returned to his state AND county and REFUSED to let anyone know where he was working but let it be known he was. Eventually almost a year later the state found him working at this SAME job and 3 weeks after support was taken out he was fired for not showing up at work and has been quoted as saying that it wasn't worth working because I took all his money. Now, I get informed tonight, the day before he was to appear in court to answer to why he was $11,677.73 behind in support, that he wasn't found in order to be served for court. He can walk away from all responsibilities and do so then later come back and try to use it against me. I have an 11 year old boy who told me the other day to lie to the court about knowing who his real father is so he can get his name changed to my boyfriends name because even though this man does not support his children nor see them, or contact them unless the state finds him by some miricle there are things I have to have his PERMISSION for. I know this isn't the case in every NCP because I know there are several out there that pay their support, take their responsibilities and in turn have an ass for an ex that treats them like crap but it seems others can just walk away without a care in the world. And in the end it isn't the MEN OR THE WOMEN that get the shaft, it's the kids. I'm done ranting for now.

Oh yeah I do agree that even if a split is wanted it's still very emotional. I wanted my divorce but I threw up for three days after I told him so. Someone asked me if I was so ate up about it why did I want it.... It didn't matter it still got to me. And my divorce is the best thing I ever did for my kids.

 

[smh33]

Not arguing Tigger just counterpoint....A payor cannot just petition for modification anytime....and when they can petition for such, they must pay court/legals and even if the support worksheet figures a lower payment, they are not guarenteed to get it...it is up to the judge and they do refuse them unjustly.
I am not saying there should be no support system, just a fair,reasonable and realistic one. It doesn't belong in a courtroom.

 

[Illinois Parent]

I can resist no longer...

Consider this a response to the original post (rant).

First, the Constitutional argument has been correctly answered. You have your amendments at best misunderstood, at worst, misapplied.

Second, the majority of your post centers on the issue of abortion, so I'll address that first. Your argument includes constant reference to abortion as murder, and I take serious offense to that, both emotionally and intellectually.

So there can be no misunderstanding, let's first get the rest of semantics out of the way. Your supposition requires the belief that life begins at conception. By life, we can safely assume you infer 'human life'. While it is true that 'life' itself may be argued to begin at conception because both the sperm and the egg are 'alive' in that they consist of living cells, that does not define 'human life'.

'Human life' is defined by those things that are uniquely human. Scientifically and biologically, human life requires self-awareness and consciousness. Two things that the 'human' brain are required to accomplish.

Instead of making the same old arguments, let's look at this from the other end of the human experience. When a person is said to be 'brain dead', it is meant that there is no electrical activity in the brain capable of supporting life without mechanical or outside assistance. In other words, we already have a definition of 'human life', medically, socially and legally. Once a person has no electrical activity outside of the brain stem, also referred to as the 'reptilian brain', they are eligible for removal from artificial life support.

The other two parts of the brain are referred to as the 'mammalian' and 'human' (or sometimes 'primate'). Until the 6th month of gestation, the 'human' part of the brain does not even develop. Being both a female and a mother, I hate to make this analogy, but it is appropriate. A womb is, in essence, a life support machine. I'll go no future with that one.

The point is, why is it murder to end a life that does not have a functioning brain before birth, but it is not murder to end a life that has no functioning brain after birth? If you grant one, then logically, you must grant the other.

If your arguments infer that there is a soul involved, you are then making arguments of faith. I then refer you to the Constitution, specifically, separation of Church and State.

As far as the issue of men's rights, I do concede you have a couple of points. I agree that men who were 'tricked' into fatherhood should be able to waive both their rights as well as their obligations. But, I do believe that the vast majority of the idea of 'tricking' a man into fatherhood is a myth. Men, just like women, have the option of not participating in behaviors that could possibly result in pregnancy. In the event an 'accident' happens, it should be the man's responsibility to 'prove' he was actively trying to avoid pregnancy, i.e., use of a condom. Yes, it would probably come down to her word vs. his and the state would probably usually side with the woman.

This is simply because of the number of women with children on state aid. It is in the government's interest to hold an individual man responsible over holding 'the people' responsible. Let's face facts, it is our tax dollars that pay when an individual man does not. Yes, this means there will be men that are held financially responsible unfairly, but laws are made to cover the majority, not the minority. Politics are dictated by minority interests, laws are and must continue to be about the majority interests.

There. Now I've had my rant.

 

[i8maliki]

Illinois Parent I must say that was WELL SAID!!!!