-- If the custodial parent remarries or lives with a partner of for at least "X" years, support payments from non-custodial parent should be greatly reduced/eliminated. There is now a second parental figure in the child's home, and two parents is in the best interest of the child. This will alleviate the financial burden on the non-custodial parent.

Does this sound fair?

XenoSapien

No. Both parents are equally responsible for the well being of said child. Regardless of the custodial parent's marital status. Once you become a parent - you are ALWAYS responsible for that child.

-- If the custodial parent remarries or lives with a partner of for at least "X" years, support payments from non-custodial parent should be greatly reduced/eliminated. There is now a second parental figure in the child's home, and two parents is in the best interest of the child. This will alleviate the financial burden on the non-custodial parent.

Does this sound fair?

XenoSapien
No... the second parental figure is a step-parent. The common law requires that the step parents do not have support obligations to their step children.

Ok. Right. This is why I am PROPOSING that that changes. Here is my rationale:



This amendment will help alleviate financial persecution on the parent paying support. They will not be forced into poverty because they have a child, yet are no longer with the mother.

This amendment doesn't mean that the stepparent is court-ordered to be financially responsible for the child. I'm just saying it should be more/less a sense of obligation of the stepparent to do his/her share of all avenues of care; including financing. Here is why I believe this, and ladies, help me out here:

I have heard many women say, "It's part of the package. If you're going to love me, you're going to have to accept/love my child", or something along those lines. A real man should understand, and if he does love the mother and wants to be with her, the child is every bit of the deal.

I think this encourages a stronger family unit for the child, despite the child not being with both biological parents, and gives the child a better outlook on the idea of love and marriage. The stepparent is "stepping up", and operating in the best interest of the child.

With this amendment being law, it will also alleviate to some degree the parent paying support from feeling oppressed, bitter or hateful. Henceforth, encourage a better approach themselves to the whole situation by the parent, and hence, an over-all happier child.


XenoSapien

Sorry, no, I don't think it's a good idea. Especially since I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think that the non-custodial parent should visit less, or have less say in the child's life, right? Since you seem to be thinking that the non-custodial parent is the father (which, let's face it, is generally true), I'm just going to start using "he", to make this easier. Dad is still that child's father, even if he is not living with the kid. It's his responsibility to help support the child that he brought in to the world. Allowing him to have all the "fun" parts of parenting without having to provide support would seriously skew the relationship between the two parents, and not be in the child's best interest.

Also, I'm pretty sure it would lead to even more guys getting out of child support, and thus encourage them to have even more kids that they could duck out of supporting.

Bitter and hateful? For paying child support? Why do non custodial parents always have to see it as paying the ex money instead of what it is... giving money to your child! If you want to say well mom is remarried so I shouldn't have to pay as much child support then when you remarry she should say well you can now pay more support because you have more money! You want to "make" the step parent "pay" their share of accepting "the whole package" by marrying then you would need to also give them the full legal rights and responsibilities that the biological parents have.

I say stop whining about providing money for your children that in all reality is no where near actually paying for half of what it really costs to raise a child and just pay your support! Stop trying to find ways out of it. If you can't afford to support your child then you certainly can't afford the credit card bills, the new car, the vacations, the nights out with friends, blah, blah, blah.

Your rationale is very faulty at best. Children are not unhappy because the non custodial parent is resentful about paying child support, the child is unhappy because the parents can't act like adults, deal with their own problems, and leave their poor children out it! Someone always has to make the child feel like they have to pick, like one more than the other, enjoying with one more than the other, etc. If you just make it a great thing that your child is with the other parent and loves them as much as you then your kids will be happier. And your children shouldn't know if the parent is paying the child support in full or on time, that is not their problem, but yet again... parents just can't seem to deal with their own stuff they have to dump it on the kids!

(Note I am using "you" in the general sense of the word this is not meant be personally aimed at you the OP).
p.s. I AM a non custodial parent (paying child support) and a woman!

Fact is that non custodial parents are MOSTLY men. I have a story, (look at my profile, as I cannot say more) about a woman from England who has told me that she has a lady friend who has purposely had children from so many men, that she no longer has to work; instead, collects checks for not just the kids, but herself as well, and lives quite well with just that, doing nothing for society.

It'd be nice if a non-custodial would get to know where the money goes, because there are many custodials that are using that money for their own purposes, and not the child.

As stated, I'm NOT saying the step-parent needs to be ordered to pay--it should be an OBLIGATION and an act of love not just for the child, but the person they married as well. Two parents for children is the very best interest for the child. Period.

I'm not trying to find a way out of it, tawny. The mother of my child is keeping me away from my child. She is threatening family members to, and indirectly, KILL me should I go near our daughter. You've got it wrong.

Children need two parents to be at their best. And as my foot note states, a persecuted parent (financial, psychological etc.) equals a persecuted child.

XenoSapien

Simply having to pay child support does not make a parent persecuted. I am very sorry to hear that you are being kept from your daughter. That is wrong on many levels! But has nothing to do with an issue of ordering lower child support to a remarried custodial parent.

The woman who decided to make her living on having children... disgusting. Sad and true but does happen, but it is not the norm. And I do have to add if the men don't want to give her the children whose child support that she can live off well then they shouldn't be having sex! She is not the only person at fault in that scenario. If she is such a useless parent then they should take her to court to obtain custody and order child support to be paid by her. But there is NO crime in being able to stay home and raise your children and not have to work outside of the home, leaving your children if you can avoid doing it with the child support income received. Obviously, of course, that is if you are any kind of a decent parent. I am not referring to the idiots who sit around, watching soaps all day, don't pay attention to the children or do drugs or whatever other stupid things people can come up with other than actually staying home for the purpose of being with, loving, caring for, teaching, instilling morals/values in your children, that makes being home with an "at home parent" better than being with a sitter so they can say they "earn" an income and not be brow beat by the NCP who likes to tell them they are "living off of the child support". In all reality when done right being home and raising your children is what is in the best interest of your children and just as/if not more important than stepping out of the house to work but far less appreciated or valued.

If people are misusing child support then it should be reviewed in court. The problem I find with the majority of opinions by the NCP (typically men, yes, but we woman are NCP's too) is that they seem to feel that the CP shouldn't ever be allowed to spend any money for/on themselves. Every dime spent is criticized and that is wrong. Well, the fact is if the child/children are not lacking in their basic needs and are healthy and provided for then she has every right to spend her money any way she chooses. Particularly for a CP who does also earn some of their own income who is to say whether that "wasted" money spent "for their own purposes" was out of their income or the child support specifically? The bottom line is it shouldn't matter as long as the child/children have what they need.

If there are legitimate reasons to suspect that a child is going without the necessities of life (not every toy they want or trip to Disneyland) and is suffering at the serious misuse of child support payments then I am all for taking that parent to court and requiring a full account every month to be submitted to THE COURT as to where and how the money is being spent.

There are bad apples in every case of every situation. I consider those the exceptions. For normal good parents we don't keep our children from their parent without valid legal reasons (non payment of child support is NOT one of them). We provide for our children, clothes, food, toys, housing, bills, medical care, and extras once in a while.

The fact is when you marry a woman with kids chances are realistically they (the step parent, and in particular men) are paying more out in their paycheck to financially provide then the NCP is paying in a month on child support. So they are providing support.

Odd thing is though is that in some states a new spouses income can be a factor when deciding child support. It is very uncommon but some states do consider it.

Wow. I have never heard any kind of rationale like this before.
So the step-parent marries into this. But, you and another person chose to bring this child into the world. Not the step parent. You and the OP are forever responsible for that child. Regardless if the OP remarries, wins the lottery - whatever.
Each parent is responsible for the child that they created. The support should go to pay for housing, clothing, food, etc. The needs of the child. That is the PARENT'S responsibility - not the step parent.

No. Both parents are equally responsible for the well being of said child. Regardless of the custodial parent's marital status. Once you become a parent - you are ALWAYS responsible for that child.In more cases than not, the stepparent has more interaction with the child than the biological parent. A guy I work with pays his support. He sees his son every other weekend and wednesdays. This visitation is far less interaction than the mother's new live in boyfriend has with the child.

"Allowing him to have all the "fun" parts of parenting without having to provide support would seriously skew the relationship between the two parents, and not be in the child's best interest."

If the stepparent is helping out financially, then there is no reason to fight over money.

XenoSapien

"Bitter and hateful? For paying child support? Why do non custodial parents always have to see it as paying the ex money instead of what it is...giving money to your child!"

--Support money does not always go for the child. You can't tell me that with the large amount of extra money women overwhelmingly get, that they all stay away from spoiling themselves by buying items that has nothing to do for the child; that's why the person paying support should have a right to know where that money is going.

"If you want to say well mom is remarried so I shouldn't have to pay as much child support then when you remarry she should say well you can now pay more support because you have more money!"

--If the father has custody, fine. If not, no.

"You want to "make" the step parent "pay" their share of accepting "the whole package" by marrying then you would need to also give them the full legal rights and responsibilities that the biological parents have."

-- Again, I'm not saying it should be court-ordered. And since they live with the child, they indirectly already have a lot of rights as well as creative control with the child.

"Your rationale is very faulty at best. Children are not unhappy because the non custodial parent is resentful about paying child support, the child is unhappy because the parents can't act like adults, deal with their own problems, and leave their poor children out it!"

--Financial woes is one of the top five reasons for depression. Taking most of one's paycheck a month can be psychologically damaging. It should be equal and fair, but mostly it is one-sided and in favor of the mother.

"The fact is when you marry a woman with kids chances are realistically they (the step parent, and in particular men) are paying more out in their paycheck to financially provide then the NCP is paying in a month on child support. So they are providing support."

--Great! All the better of a reason to reduce the NCP support payment.

XenoSapien

Wow. I have never heard any kind of rationale like this before.
so the step-parent marries into this. But, you and another person chose to bring this child into the world. Not the step parent. You and the OP are forever responsible for that child. Regardless if the OP remarries, wins the lottery - whatever.
Each parent is responsible for the child that they created. The support should go to pay for housing, clothing, food, etc. The needs of the child. That is the PARENT'S responsibilty - not the step parent.
Yes. Part of the package. Again, not saying a court-order, but simply saying that now that a CP lives with two sources of income as opposed to just one, NCP support should be reduced. The NCP will still be tending to his responsibilities as normal, it's just his financial obligligation gets lowered. Like I've mentioned, 9 times out of 10 the stepparent has more visitation than the NCP.

But to all readers, by all means keep shooting down my theories and pointing out holes; this will encourage me to get my wording correct sooner.

XenoSapien

This will be my last post on the subject because it has become clear that you are not interested in what is right/wrong regarding your "amendments" you are looking for a way to seek revenge for what your ex has done to you.

It is clear that you have no real concept of how child support amounts are arrived at. Your statements make little to no sense. Your reasoning gets more stupid with each post. You are an angry, bitter person who doesn't want to pay support for his child because you can't separate your anger for the ex with the responsibility you have for your child. You are one of those who says if I can't see the child I am not paying for the child. Sad, sad, sad for your child. God man she isn't a possession, she isn't a truck where you can say well if I can't have the car and drive it I am not making the paying on it. She is a human being, flesh and blood and you are responsible whether you like it or not.

Maybe you got a bad deal, maybe your ex took off and kept your child from you. I don't excuse those actions but you have an obligation to seek assistance from the court and make her uphold do the law, not punish your child by withholding support. If you didn't take her to court or report her for kidnapping that is your problem. You are a whiner. You are looking for every excuse in the book to get out of paying child support.

Fortunately your "amendments" will never come to pass.

I will agree, while at times the courts are not fair, but normally this is in custody and visitation issues, Child support is a matter of state law, based on income guidelines.

But yes, I would agree you are bitter about your case and in general need to get over it and move on in life.

This will be my last post on the subject because it has become clear that you are not interested in what is right/wrong regarding your "amendments" you are looking for a way to seek revenge for what your ex has done to you.

It is clear that you have no real concept of how child support amounts are arrived at. Your statements make little to no sense. Your reasoning gets more stupid with each post. You are an angry, bitter person who doesn't want to pay support for his child because you can't separate your anger for the ex with the responsibility you have for your child. You are one of those who says if I can't see the child I am not paying for the child. Sad, sad, sad for your child. God man she isn't a possession, she isn't a truck where you can say well if I can't have the car and drive it I am not making the paying on it. She is a human being, flesh and blood and you are responsible whether you like it or not.

Maybe you got a bad deal, maybe your ex took off and kept your child from you. I don't excuse those actions but you have an obligation to seek assistance from the court and make her uphold do the law, not punish your child by withholding support. If you didn't take her to court or report her for kidnapping that is your problem. You are a whiner. You are looking for every excuse in the book to get out of paying child support.

Fortunately your "amendments" will never come to pass.It's likely your last post on the subject because you cannot defeat my reasoning. You are on a fishing expedition with your belief of my feeling--the mother of my daughter has been forgiven.

My daughter has been on the planet for 157 days now, and I have not been able to even hold her. My situation breeds the idea, after over a YEAR of research, that custody laws are lobsided, geared to defend strictly the whims of the womb, and urinate on what a father wants.

My X made me believe my daughter was dead for two weeks, and told me she would send me an aborted fetus in the mail to prove it. Should that happen to you, tell me how you feel then, and how you would fight to change the prejudice custody laws. Until that happens, you can make no statement on why I'm doing as I am doing.

You are likely a feminist that is all about 'power to the vagina', and don't really care much that there are men that want to be fathers. I have been turned down by legal services, pro bono attorneys, am fighting this battle between two state lines.

You are also ignorant again of this mother--HER OWN MOTHER told me she suffers from bi-polar disease, sociopathic tendencies, psychotic episodes and an X stripper. She has three domestic battery charges, and people like you and Uncle Sam have no problem telling a father that he still doesn't have much rights.

I'm not trying to get out of support--I'm looking to change laws, and I have a lot of support in my corner, unbeknownst to you. Stop guessing so much.

XenoSapien

I will agree, while at times the courts are not fair, but normally this is in custody and visitation issues, Child support is a matter of state law, based on income guidlines.

But yes, I would agree you are bitter about your case and in general need to get over it and move on in life.Bitter? She's been forgiven, Fr_Chuck. How many times will I have to say it? I've moved on just fine, but I'm determined to change laws in many areas so that men of the future don't have to live through this hell like I have. There is already a child out there who is not allowed BY HER MOTHER to know her real father. Think it's fair to make that a standard? How about writing a passage from the 'Good Book' on that one, father. NO-ONE should be made to falsely believe their child is dead. Period.

XenoSapien

Yes. Part of the package. Again, not saying a court-order, but simply saying that now that a CP lives with two sources of income as opposed to just one, NCP support should be reduced. The NCP will still be tending to his responsibilities as normal, it's just his financial obligligation gets lowered. Like I've mentioned, 9 times out of 10 the stepparent has more visitation than the NCP.

But to all readers, by all means keep shooting down my theories and pointing out holes; this will encourage me to get my wording correct sooner.

XenoSapien

And what happens when the step-parent and mom have their own kids? Should the step-parent then be responsible for supporting the step-child on top of their own, when the bio dad isn't? And what if stepdad and mom get divorced... who then is responsible for paying child support, bio dad or step-dad?

And you say that the NCP will still be tending to his responsibilities, just not financial. What other responsibilities do you mean?

And more seriously... what you want is technically possible right now in the legal system. All you have to do is get the step-parent to adopt the kid, and the NCP is off the hook entirely. If you don't think that's fair, I am very interested in what rights you want the NCP to keep and what you think is an equitable exchange for not providing support.

Bitter? She's been forgiven, Fr_Chuck. How many times will I have to say it? I've moved on just fine, but I'm determined to change laws in many areas so that men of the future don't have to live through this hell like I have. There is already a child out there who is not allowed BY HER MOTHER to know her real father. Think it's fair to make that a standard? How about writing a passage from the 'Good Book' on that one, father. NO-ONE should be made to falsely believe their child is dead. Period.

XenoSapien

So you fight her in court, get mandated visitation, and take her to court every time she denies you that. What you are proposing is that, since she won't let you visit, you won't help support your child. So she misses out on that as well as you. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as much better.

And I have to say... you didn't know that she was a bipolar ex-stripper with sociopathic tendencies and domestic battery charges before you married her and made a baby with her? If you didn't take the time to get to know the woman you married and chose to be the mother of your child beforehand, who's fault is that?

So you fight her in court, get mandated visitation, and take her to court every time she denies you that. What you are proposing is that, since she won't let you visit, you won't help support your child. So she misses out on that as well as you. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as much better.

And I have to say... you didn't know that she was a bipolar ex-stripper with sociopathic tendencies and domestic battery charges before you married her and made a baby with her? If you didn't take the time to get to know the woman you married and chose to be the mother of your child beforehand, who's fault is that?I'm realizing that perhaps I shouldn't have placed these amendments here. There is far too much I have to explain in order for folks to see why I have written them. The amendments are placed somewhere else that has the explanations I speak of.

I cannot fight her in court. She an I were never married, and I knew that she was a little rough, but didn't realize she was that bad. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, and this time around, yah, I got burned.

In short, this mother, also in direct care of two more, is the type of person who will create false allegations against someone if she gets angry or doesn't have her way. If I were to have visitation with my daughter, it would only be a matter of time before she would tell the authorities that I molested my own daughter. She's that sick, and again, I knew she was bad, but never in my wildest ever believed that someone could be that sick.

XenoSapien

Look, you say she is forgiven, but it doesn't come across that way in what you write. What you are going through, possibly, is parental alienation. That is what you should try to change - not support.

I have a friend that is divorced from the father of the child and just remarried. I can assure you that she does not use her support payments for herself. I am sure there are women or parents that do that - and it's sad.
But, to put a blanket statement out there that ALL women do this - that is just wrong.
Child support should go for housing, clothing, food, medical needs, education, activities outside of school, etc. When you do the math, the payment that is typically set up by the court doesn't leave enough left over for a day at the spa!

You need to get a GREAT attorney and fight for your child. Do what you have to do to see her and be a part of her life. I am sorry for what you have been through to this point - it isn't fair and it isn't right. Don't get lost in trying to change the law until you have done what you need to do when it comes to your child.
Good Luck.

"Look, you say she is forgiven, but it doesn't come across that way in what you write."

Perhaps I haven't all the way; sometimes I do tend to get upset now and then, but I sincerely forgive her for how she is and has been: it's fact that she suffers from the diseases I listed previously, including being a chronic liar. Her mother said that all of that is in her medical files.

I cannot get that great attorney because I don't have anywhere near the funds to have one. And we're not talking about a local lawyer; I'd have to get one in her state.

I've decided that it's best to give up the fight for any custody or visitation or be in my daughter's life. I'm very serious about saying the mother will make up lies about what I am doing with my time with my daughter, I'll end up being arrested, losing jobs and labeled a sex offender the first time momma feels like being vindictive.

Not too mention the active threats from her family, including an uncle who just got out of prison for murder and a rap sheet a mile long. My family is mostly all college graduates; her family is mostly all correctional facility graduates. I can imagine one day driving 120 miles to pick up my daughter, and not coming back home.

Trust me, the best interest of my daughter is to give up; not on her, but her mother. Her mother, last I heard, will be marrying a 'sugar-daddy', so she will have a father around. My last focus now is to make sure that she cannot make demands for back-support ten years or so from now.

I meant to imply some of women do that, not all, so I apologize if that is what is sounds like I was saying. Anger has been quite a companion this past year, and even though I've gotten a lot of it out, it still stops by every now and then.

I am trying to figure out what to say next. It sounds like you are giving up on the situation and doing what is best for you. No one wants to put themselves in harms way, I get that. But this is the environement that your child is in. If you feel there is danger there - shouldn't you do what you can to get HER out of that?

Has this woman asked you for support? Are you listed on the birth certificate as the father? I am not 100% on this, but if there is not an order in place or if paternity isn't established, then I don't think she can come after you for back support. There is nothing in place to say that you HAVE to pay this amount each month - so what could the system order you to pay back?

And if her family is all bad - how are you getting information from her mother?

If you do not want to be a father to this child - then when she does marry the "sugar daddy" - maybe he could adopt this little girl and you would be "off the hook".

I think it is very sad that people let there emotional baggage get in the way when a child is involved. So, it didn't work out with you two, it happens. It is not the child's fault and she needs both parents doing what is necessary to provide her with a happy, stable life.

You both are going to miss out on so much. You won't have the joy of being a father and she won't have the joy of having you. It's sad.

I am trying to figure out what to say next. It sounds like you are giving up on the situation and doing what is best for you. No one wants to put themselves in harms way, I get that. But this is the environement that your child is in. If you feel there is danger there - shouldn't you do what you can to get HER out of that?

Has this woman asked you for support? Are you listed on the birth certificate as the father? I am not 100% on this, but if there is not an order in place or if paternity isn't established, then I don't think she can come after you for back support. There is nothing in place to say that you HAVE to pay this amount each month - so what could the system order you to pay back?

And if her family is all bad - how are you getting information from her mother?

If you do not want to be a father to this child - then when she does marry the "sugar daddy" - maybe he could adopt this little girl and you would be "off the hook".

I think it is very sad that people let there emotional baggage get in the way when a child is involved. So, it didn't work out with you two, it happens. It is not the child's fault and she needs both parents doing what is necessary to provide her with a happy, stable life.

You both are going to miss out on so much. You won't have the joy of being a father and she won't have the joy of having you. It's sad.I'm not doing what's best for me. Keeping a certain to be nasty, life-long situation between the mother and I from the child is the best thing for the child.

No, she hasn't asked me for support and no, I am not on the certificate.

All that has been done up to this point is that I have signed up for the putative father registry in two states. I have tried to convince her to let the hubby adopt so that I can be done with it all. I am trying to prevent her from coming back in some years, taking me to court, proving paternity and demanding thousands in back-support that I definitely don't and won't have.

All I wanted to do is be a father to my daughter Anna, and all the mother has done is keep me out of it for all the nine months, and the now five months after the birth. I'm burnt out, I'm tired, I do not have money, social services and pro-bono will not help me, and I want nothing ever again to do with the mother. I got the information from her mother shortly after the pregnancy was announced to me.

Take a look at my next post, which was one of the last emails I sent to the mother.

XenoSapien

Dear (Momma), March 1st, 2007

I wanted to tell you that I am happy about our conversation a week ago where you openly and finally told the truth about lying throughout our relationship. It was big of you to do so, and it is nice to see that you understand that it is in fact what you did to me, and the cause of a lot of unwarranted pain.

However, it has created a nasty side-effect. By you doing so, it has confirmed every complaint that I made throughout this entire time that we have known each other. It is like spending a lot of time, slowly putting something together, and finally finishing it. Your revelation has given me some peace now, but I'm afraid that it has also made me so astonishingly angry and hateful, that I cannot deal with you any longer.

I have never lied to you throughout our relationship, and I will not start now. So since you finally displayed courage in coming clean with the truth, I wish to do the same for you. I told you a while back that you will always be in my heart. This is an unchangeable fact, as I have told you that all women that are special to me are located there. Unfortunately in your case, you occupy the most nasty, black, hateful, angry and disgusting part of my heart. All of my anger, frustration, hatred, rage and boorishness now has a name--it is momma.

I cannot believe that you have had the courage to yet again say something so sickening. Admitting that you do wrong first, but by your own words, "eventually tell the truth". This is exactly what a sociopath does, momma. You have made me so extremely angry now, that I can no longer bring myself to communicating with you any longer. I am now wholly convinced that from here onward, no matter what comes out of your mouth, it is likely going to be a lie. I was so hopeful that you would escape that behavior, but after two years, you still do it. You are not as mature as you say you have become now.

Since my hatred for you is so overwhelming, here is what I want you to know and do: First, I suggest that you have your lawyer examine this document. Second, ask your lawyer how I can submit DNA without traveling to Illinois, for I am in fear that going there will be setting myself up to be beaten up by your hostile family members.

Third, request of your lawyer to send papers that will allow me to sign away all of my rights in regards to Anna. My anger is so total and definitive, that I wish to no longer even hear your voice, or know anything about you from here on to my own death. I find you totally repulsive, mentally unstable and untrustworthy, and I feel that you will be nothing but nasty towards me for the next 18 years.

I highly suggest that you accept my offer. You will have all the power over our child like you wanted. I am giving you what I know you want. If for any reason, you wish to contact me, you must do it only through email, as I will no longer accept phone calls from you. I am sick to death of you calling past 11pm, knowing full well that I go to sleep early. It is rude for you to do so, and I am tired of it. Many times in the past, I would call you very early in the morning, and it would piss you off. So please extend the same curtousey.

When this all started, all I wanted us to do was to work as a team, but teamwork is nothing you have ever cared for doing with me. You ultimately want everything done exactly your way, and I am now offering you this opportunity. So I must say clearly, that if you do not do these things, I will ask my father's attorney to make sure that this happens. Our daughter will be yours, and you will win. You will win, momma.

I am tired of waking up in the middle of the night, sick to death with worry about Anna, and hating her mother of whom I do not trust; and tired of only tears putting me back to sleep.

Remember when the X-hubby and I confronted you about lying about your marital status? Remember what I told you in my car, and occasionally throughout the rest of our relationship? That I did not have full trust in you, and that you needed to earn it back. Not only have you not earned it back, but you have proven to not care to even get any of it back, despite the serious issue of an innocent child being involved. I cannot request that this changes in you any longer. I no longer care.

I am not giving up on our daughter; I am giving up on you.

I think that you are an evil, vindictive, worthless piece of of which I couldn't care less if you get hit by a bus or choke on (new boyfriend's) . You must pat yourself on the back, because you are now my most hated person on the entire planet earth. I have irreversible damage done by you, and it will not go away. I am in fear that by you remaining in my life, I will never heal from this.

This is why I no longer want anything from you. I think you are sick, need a deep psychological investigation, and placed in a padded room. Not to be mean, but rather, to tell my true feelings and assessment of you. I think you are not human, and the first time I called your mother after you said you were pregnant, she supported me when I said that you showed signs of a sociopath, a psychotic, someone with borderline personality and bi-polarism. She told me that it was all in your medical files.

I no longer have a desire to withstand the same kind of psychological punishment you administered over this two-year period for the next 18 years. Congratulations, you are now entirely free to lie to yourself, others and even our daughter without any interference from me.

Having me believe Anna was dead for 12 days is terminally sickening. You can lie to yourself all you wish that you didn't mean it in a sickening manner, when in fact the records will show that you did. Regardless, this is a classic sociopathic statement and purely evil.

I now have also realized that I told you the truth that I'm really not mad at you for what you have admitted to doing to me throughout our relationship. You have confirmed that you are a very sick person who only deserves my utter hatred. And it is sad that you will use a baby as a bargaining tool, a whip, and most importantly, as a weapon.

I also recall a time when you questioned "what have I done" with regards to your pregnancy. Since you initially demanded to keep me out of it all, I put together a plan. I saved my money for a nice computer. I finally had the lay-a-way paid completely off in 1.5 months, and took my computer home. I went officially online in mid-to-late September of 2006.

After 'plinking' around for about a week or so, I found a blogger site program. I signed up, and started writing blogs. While I wrote my blogs, I also did the following:

What I Have Done For Nine Months...
(no particular order)


1) Made contact with Illinois Legal Services. Was told that they do not help those that are not Illinois citizens.

2) Made contact with Indiana Legal Services. Was initially ignored. Then told that they do not have jurisdiction.

3) Made contact with Illinois Pro-Bono Services. Ignored.

4) Made contact with Indiana Pro-Bono Services. Told that Indiana does not have jurisdiction.

5) Made contact with Indiana Attorney General's Office. Responded to within two weeks. Told that they could do nothing because of jurisdiction, but offered ideas.

6) Made contact with Illinois Attorney General's Office. Initially ignored. Then after about five months and after Anna's birth, sent by snail-mail, a list of people who may help, but they are people who have already ignored me, or have told me that I am not an Illinois citizen.

7) Made contact with Community Legal via online. Signed up, and was told they would help me. They never made me a client and took my money for no services rendered. They were fired.

8) Made multiple attempts for online free legal advice; most of which were returned as unanswered.

9) Contacted by phone and fax, Maury Povich. Was told to get a public defender, then was hung up on.

10) Sent letter to local newspaper to the "Dear Annie" section. Ignored and never responded to or printed.

11) Sent letter to Pastor John Hagee about my situation. Responded to with helpful prayers and hope.

12) Sent mass emails to multiple custody attorney's in Illinois. Three out of twenty responded. Only one offered help at 500$ as a retainer. Have not re-contacted the only one who offered this help. Cannot afford services.

13) Spent countless hours on research of the Illinois custody laws in pursuit of self-representation and the Illinois law.

14) Spent countless hours on research of the Indiana custody laws in pursuit of self-representation and the Indiana law.

15) Signed up for the Illinois Putative Father Registry; in fear, as stated by you, that you would allow boyfriend to adopt our child.

16) Signed up for the Indiana Putative Father Registry; in fear, as stated by you, that you would allow boyfriend to adopt our child.

17) Contacted National Brotherhood of Father's Rights. Received mass emails about possible options and helpful tools. Could not afford actual services, but thankful about options.

18) Contacted private investigator to check into whether mother was pregnant. Could not afford services.

19) Contacted the law offices of Cordell and Cordell. Had one-hour counsiltation with attorney. Could not afford services.

20) Created blogsite:

21) Created Website:

22) Paid friend to draw the following picture:
[See main picture above]




Lastly, I must inform you that if you and your lawyer submit this email to any judge, it could be unwise, as you will be admitting all of these things as fact, and this could lead to many nasty outcomes on your end.

If this email has made you angry to the point where you wish to take the law in your own hands, like you have already threatened to do, and send family members after me for a "beating", please let them know the following:

There are two befriended Sherriff's where I live. One of whom has been briefed on my situation, and lives in the very next building to mine. He is only one phone call away, and usually home.

Let who you send to do your dirty work (of which you have a history of making people do, including your own daughters) know that my County jail is one of the worst county jails in the entire country. And from what I've been told, a bullet in the head is far more preferred by those who have spent time there.

Also, let who you send know that I have a military friend who has many friends who materialize out of thin air, and their revenge will be guaranteed swift and decisive.

Also, make sure that you are aware that you have active harassment charges on you here in Indiana Sherriff's Department, September twenty-first, 2006.



Momma
-Legal History Overview-
1997-2006

[ Momma's criminal record can be found on here in the article starting with, "I realize that it has been a while since I've written a new post."]



Plans I Made:

Plan A Make an appeal to do all of this as a team.

Plan B Fight for full-custody.

Plan C Prove her unfit; fight for full-custody.

Plan D Prove her unfit; fight to put child up for adoption.

Plan E Sign away all of my rights.






The final bottom line is this, momma, mother to our daughter Anna: I'm not interested in the opinion of the Court of Man; for I will be vindicated in the Court of God.

Wow. I am speechless. The anger and hatred just pours off this.

The first thing I thought of - and I am going to be completely honest - was - there is no way I would send my kid to a man that hated me that much. I just wouldn't.

This situation just stinks! For you and for your daughter! SHE is the victim here.

One day she is going to knock on your door (probably after years of being lied to) and want to know why you didn't want anything to do with her. I would advise you to start a journal to your daughter. So when that day comes - you can hand it to her and show her how you have felt - her entire life. It could be like a book of letters to her, because I am sure that your ex won't give her any correspondance.

Like I said, the only one that is losing here is Anna.

You are right! You are right, you are right! Anna is the one who will lose on this. And my sapient responder NowWhat, I have 100,000 words waiting for Anna when she comes. I have been very careful to keep my anger out of it ( I wrote it while she was just a fetus).

This was the anger I carried for the nine months, and as folks here have pointed out, perhaps some, but not all the hatred and anger for what the mother has done is completely gone. I'm working on it, as I have met a wonderful woman who treats me very well, and is the exact opposite of this mess.

As a side note, I'm almost convinced that momma will tell her lies about me, as momma already told me that she would tell Anna that I am dead or in prison for life. See my other amendment post that will show you momma's and my criminal record. All I've tried to do is the right thing. I may have a funny way of doing things, but I always come out OK.

XenoSapien

Oh, I think you are still angry and probably always will be. I would be too. You are being forced away from what should be the greatest experience of your life - fatherhood.
I'm a mother - I would die if my child was taken away. I would also fight until my last breath to get my child in my life.

I keep wanting to write "you have to do what you think is best" and I keep deleting it, because I am not convinced that walking away is the best thing. It may be the safest thing. THis situation is very complex and I would hate to be in your shoes. It's just that my mind keeps seeing a baby girl without her Daddy and it makes me very sad.
I wish the best for you and your daughter and I hope it all works out for everyone involved.
Just be diligent in your letters to Anna. Because, we both know that day - that knock, will come. And you will have a mountain of lies to overcome. Be ready. It may be all you have to offer her.

I have read your entire blog. Here are the simple facts:

You claim: Babies As Weapons
Fact: it's your daughter who has the right to a relationship with you
Fact: it's your daughter who has a right to financial support from you
Mom is withholding the relationship from Dad to get back at him for whatever reason.
Dad is withholding the financial support to get back at mom for whatever she did to him.
You are both withholding the rights of your child to punish the other parent. You are both using that baby as a weapon!

You're sharp, but I don't owe her a dime at this point; she is not being punished.

XenoSapien

"Look, you say she is forgiven, but it doesn't come across that way in what you write."

Perhaps I haven't all the way; sometimes I do tend to get upset now and then, but I sincerely forgive her for how she is and has been: it's fact that she suffers from the diseases I listed previously, including being a chronic liar. Her mother said that all of that is in her medical files.

I cannot get that great attorney because I don't have anywhere near the funds to have one. And we're not talking about a local lawyer; I'd have to get one in her state.

I've decided that it's best to give up the fight for any custody or visitation or be in my daughter's life. I'm very serious about saying the mother will make up lies about what I am doing with my time with my daughter, I'll end up being arrested, losing jobs and labled a sex offender the first time momma feels like being vindictive.

Not too mention the active threats from her family, including an uncle who just got out of prison for murder and a rap sheet a mile long. My family is mostly all college graduates; her family is mostly all correctional facility graduates. I can imagine one day driving 120 miles to pick up my daughter, and not coming back home.

Trust me, the best interest of my daughter is to give up; not on her, but her mother. Her mother, last I heard, will be marrying a 'sugar-daddy', so she will have a father around. My last focus now is to make sure that she cannot make demands for back-support ten years or so from now.

I meant to imply some of women do that, not all, so I apologize if that is what is sounds like I was saying. Anger has been quite a companion this past year, and even though I've gotten a lot of it out, it still stops by every now and then.

You know, I can't believe that you are just going to abandon your daughter to live with this family. If they are as bad as you say... FIGHT for your daughter! Or do you really want her to grow up thinking that this is how life should be, and how she should act and treat people? Because that's what's going to happen.

And according to you, you have not legally established your paternity so as you put it: "...I don't believe he has any 'legal' rights if paternity hasn't been established..." and "...Shouldn't matter. He isn't on the certificate, and paternity has not been established. Since women have great leverage in the courts, do nothing, and make him fight for his rights. It's the only option a man has with today's court. You have the power..."

So, your ex is legally denying you nothing. According to you, you have no rights. You don't even know for a fact that the little girl is yours and since it is your own advice to a "womb", as you like to put it, "make him fight for his rights" how can you complain when your ex is doing just that?

So you aren't being punished either.

You're right with what you're saying, but see, this is why I've stated that I shouldn't have put these 'amendments' up here in the first place. I have decided the best thing is to walk away, and not fight for those rights.

I am not complaining. I know what I've said, and it still remains, unless a lawyer tells me it's incorrect--women DO have all the power, and men can DO nothing if paternity has not been established.

In my particular situation, yes, I haven't been able to prove paternity. But, I have been worn to the point to where I no longer wish to fight for it. See, too much to explain.

XenoSapien

-- If the custodial parent remarries or lives with a partner of for at least "X" years, support payments from non-custodial parent should be greatly reduced/eliminated. There is now a second parental figure in the child's home, and two parents is in the best interest of the child. This will alleviate the financial burden on the non-custodial parent.

Does this sound fair?

XenoSapien
In a recent Second District Illinois Appellate Court decision, which holds "a trial court may equitably consider the income of a parent's current spouse in determining an appropriate award of child support...In general, a new or subsequent spouse's income is not supposed to be included in figuring child support calculations. Doing so will almost always raise the support amount for the non-custodial parent. Even though it's not supposed to be included, judges and attorneys will often attempt to add it in one way or another It's not uncommon for your spouse's financial data to be requested by either the court or opposing counsel as part of a child support modification. Typically they'll want you to provide your spouse's tax returns, bank statements, and pay stubs, although often just the income tax return will be enough for them to draw a figure from.However, because couples are likely to pool their resources, thereby possibly increasing the resources available to the supporting parent, the employment or income status of the supporting parent's new spouse is relevant to the issue of the parent's "available means" where marriage to a spouse earning a substantial income results in the parent having more disposable income available since remarriage

One of opinions;

I won't give you a reddie George. But I vehemently disagree! Though it can not be denied there are women out there that do that, it is a disgusting, untrue, blanket statement and stereotype!

OK- In my opinion we all came out of the main post.
Xeno asked a question,"If the custodial parent remarries or lives with a partner of for at least "X" years, support payments from non-custodial parent should be greatly reduced/eliminated. There is now a second parental figure in the child's home, and two parents is in the best interest of the child. This will alleviate the financial burden on the non-custodial parent.Does this sound fair?"

Here I agree with NowWhat who wrote,"Both parents are equally responsible for the well being of said child. Regardless of the custodial parent's marital status. Once you become a parent - you are ALWAYS responsible for that child.
Each parent is responsible for the child that they created. The support should go to pay for housing, clothing, food, etc. The needs of the child. That is the PARENT'S responsibilty - not the step parent."
... and I agree with Fr_Chuck,"Child support is a matter of state law, based on income guidelines."

Well,Let me describe a hypothetical situation.The first parent is a primary caretaker.The second one has support duty and has visitation.The custodial parent lived in a rented apartment/house... /When the child support was calculated . The income of the custodial parent was reduced because she/he had to pay rent.OK?After that the custodial parent remarried and moved out with child/ren/ to the home of her/his new spouse.What are consequences?The custodial parent will have more resources i.e. the income of the custodial parent would increase.As follows by court practice to increase the child support paid by non-custodial parent including his/her new spouseincome/the non-custodial parent has more resources/why it sounds impossible that the child support may be reduced if the custodial parent is re-married?

The second example./Tawny-forgive me but it is the same as the picture which I posted and I know-you like this picture the most... /The man has as his own a house .He got divorced,the court ordered him to leave the house, to pay forty per cent of his income as child support and twenty per cent more as alimony.Ok-he earns $2,000 a month-and NowWhat -he has to pay $1,200 as support/alimony,he has to pay taxes/not all is tax reduced/,he has to rent a room... and all has to be done with $800./There is no question is it fair or not/.After that the woman begins to live with her new lover in the same house.No comment-guess alone.

Well,Let me describe a hypothetical situation.The first parent is a primary caretaker.The second one has support duty and has visitation.The custodial parent lived in a rented apartment/house.../When the child support was calculated . The income of the custodial parent was reduced because she/he had to pay rent.OK?After that the custodial parent remarried and moved out with child/ren/ to the home of her/his new spouse.What are consequences?The custodial parent will have more resources i.e. the income of the custodial parent would increase.
I don't know about in any other states but I know here in California your bills do not lower your income for child support calculations. They don't care if I pay $1600/mo or $300/mo in rent or anything else it doesn't lower my income. Only a "special hardship deduction for the expenses of the other minor children living with me" was counted in lowering my income.


As follows by court practice to increase the child support paid by non-custodial parent including his/her new spouse income/the non-custodial parent has more resources/why it sounds impossible that the child support may be reduced if the custodial parent is re-married?
Again, it isn't court practice to increase the support paid by a non-custodial parent who has remarried here. They don't count the new spouses income for either the NCP or the CP. In California it is court practice to only include mom and dads income in the calculation.

California?Tawny,remember what you sent me as a PM:D :D :D
By the way I have a lot of examples.Here is what I think is the best:)

The second example./Tawny-forgive me but it is the same as the picture which I posted and I know-you like this picture the most.../The man has as his own a house .He got divorced,the court ordered him to leave the house, to pay forty per cent of his income as child support and twenty per cent more as alimony.Ok-he earns $2,000 a month-and NowWhat -he has to pay $1,200 as support/alimony,he has to pay taxes/not all is tax reduced/,he has to rent a room...and all has to be done with $800./There is no question is it fair or not/.After that the woman begins to live with her new lover in the same house.No comment-guess alone.

Well it all depends on the specifics of the case. Why he moved out of the house? Did she have to buy him out of the house? Was he abusive and the judge ordered him out? Was it a trade off for other marital assets, account, pensions? Typically though it is court practice to award the family home to the parent who retains custody of the children so as to cause the least amount of disruption and the most stability for them and that parent buys the other out. If neither parent can afford to buy the other out and can not work out a trade off then both are ordered to sell the property and split any proceeds. Forty percent or 5 per of his pay in child support... whatever the amount it is based on the amount of time the child/children spend in each parents physical custody and the incomes of both parents. Support amounts are a very specific calculation of factors based on fair terms. How many children was it for? Alimony isn't awarded in every case so what was the basis for awarding it? Was she a stay at home mom, how many years were they married? Both legit reasons to award alimony. (there are others, those are only 2)...

It depends on a lot of things and without knowing I couldn't say if it was fair or not. Maybe it is, maybe not.

California?Tawny,remember what you sent me as a PM:D :D :D
By the way I have a lot of examples.Here is what I think is the best:)

Yuppers, I remember.
And I totally agree.

in a recent Second District Illinois Appellate Court decision, which holds "a trial court may equitably consider the income of a parent's current spouse in determining an appropriate award of child support...In general, a new or subsequent spouse's income is not supposed to be included in figuring child support calculations. Doing so will almost always raise the support amount for the non-custodial parent. Even though it's not supposed to be included, judges and attorneys will often attempt to add it in one way or another It's not uncommon for your spouse's financial data to be requested by either the court or opposing counsel as part of a child support modification. Typically they'll want you to provide your spouse's tax returns, bank statements, and pay stubs, although often just the income tax return will be enough for them to draw a figure from.However, because couples are likely to pool their resources, thereby possibly increasing the resources available to the supporting parent, the employment or income status of the supporting parent's new spouse is relevant to the issue of the parent's "available means" where marriage to a spouse earning a substantial income results in the parent having more disposable income available since remarriage

They only considered a portion of the new spouse's income. Only the portions/custodial parents share of the household bills that were paid for on behalf of the custodial parent by the new spouse were used to calculate the amount. And it was considered a contribution or gift, adding to the income of the custodial parent but not specifically considered as the custodial parents income.

You know, there is an awful lot of talk about women taking men for all they are worth when it comes to support. What about the men that take NO responsibility for their kids? It must be more of a problem because there are special agencies put in place just for them - the Dead Beat Dads?
I actually know more men that run away from their responsibilties than women who take a man for all he's worth (actually I don't know any women like this).

I still say - when you (mother and father) became parents - you BOTH are FOREVER responsible for them. Financially, physically, emotionally. Period!

When a quesiton about support and custody is put all of women desire to transfer this question to gender question and the explanation usually is,"We,women are victims and men are dead beat pigs..." I am a victim of fraud of this sort of women which are interested in MONEY only.It is not a gender question.It is a common question but I suppose you feel comfortable yourselves when crying that only you are victims.

I personally do not believe all women are victims and men are dead beat pigs. I believe there is a fair share of evil amongst the genders and that there are a good number of reasonable good trying to be fair also.

Well it all depends on the specifics of the case. Why he moved out of the house? Did she have to buy him out of the house? Was he abusive and the judge ordered him out? Was it a trade off for other marital assets, account, pensions? Typically though it is court practice to award the family home to the parent who retains custody of the children so as to cause the least amount of disruption and the most stability for them and that parent buys the other out. If neither parent can afford to buy the other out and can not work out a trade off then both are ordered to sell the property and split any proceeds. Forty percent or 5 per of his pay in child support...whatever the amount it is based on the amount of time the child/children spend in each parents physical custody and the incomes of both parents. Support amounts are a very specific calculation of factors based on fair terms. How many children was it for? Alimony isn't awarded in every case so what was the basis for awarding it? Was she a stay at home mom, how many years were they married? Both legit reasons to award alimony. (there are others, those are only 2).....

It depends on a lot of things and without knowing I couldn't say if it was fair or not. maybe it is, maybe not.
GV70 didn't said it was a real story.But it happens .

Sure, but it also happens in the reverse. My mistake, thought GV was asking if it was fair or not.

Whether it sounds fair is a matter of opinion. Some may consider it fair and some not. But, fairness notwithstanding, it is not legal. That being said, the presence of another stepparent-type figure in the child(ren's) life has no bearing whatsoever on the paying of child support.

... with $800./There is no question is it fair or not/.After that the woman begins to live with her new lover in the same house.No comment-guess alone.
Where I put the question about is it fair or is it not fair...

Whether or not it sounds fair is a matter of opinion. Some may consider it fair and some not. But, fairness notwithstanding, it is not legal. That being said, the presence of another stepparent-type figure in the child(ren's) life has no bearing whatsoever on the paying of child support.
Directly-no but indirect-yes.

I don't think women turn this into a gender issue. 9 times out of 10 a child will remain in the custody of its mother. So, when an x has to pay the child's mother - he gets mad and says that the woman is evil and will miss use the money.
Is that a woman turning it into a gender issue?

Actually... question for Xeno. If the non-custodial parent gets married/lives with someone, should they have to pay more child support to the custodial parent? After all, they now have more resources at the disposal to aid their child.

Actually... question for Xeno. If the non-custodial parent gets married/lives with someone, should they have to pay more child support to the custodial parent? After all, they now have more resources at the disposal to aid their child.
Good angle :). But I'd say no, because they are the non-custodial.

XenoSapien

The only reason you are starting to believe that you shouldn't have posted your amendments here is because you are finding that if put to a broad general public you are not going to get the support you are hoping for because they simply have to many holes in them and are aimed at being gender biased.

When you actually aim your goals at truly bettering the position of the child and not specifically just one parent or the other you will find some support.

No, I'd say this is not correct. As an example that I have to explain more, froggy7 wouldn't have made a wild guess that I was married, and was just 'trying to get out of it'.

You say 'many holes'. My proposal is only so long, and I'm afraid that I don't see as many holes as you do. And if you look at the original question, I'm only asking on here as to whether it is fair or not. I'm saying nothing about promoting support.

The current system is gender biased in favor of the woman and you know this. So a few rights for the men overrides the courts current prejudice against men, and makes a balance.

XenoSapien

You should ask WHY the system leans towards the mother instead of the father. What are the reasons for it? Is the mother more nurturing? Does the child benefit more from having the mother as the constant?

And, if you are having children with people that are not a spouse - shouldn't you really think about if you want to be tied to this person forever (through the child) before you have sex and create that child? I mean, people are having kids with people they barely know. If you really thought about things BEFORE you had sex and made the child - would you be in this predicament? I am sure when you had sex - the last thing you were thinking about was a future child and support and all the things that go along with children. Now you know that the consequences of sex run a lot deeper than satisfaction at the end of the night.
Just a thought.

And "you" is used in a general term.

Let this thread to be closеd. I think we have already said all.

Not being persecuted huh? I guess your on the receiving end of the money like all you other women? Ive been paying child support for 25 years with 5 years to go, my entire adult life! Im 45. Let me spell it out for you honey.

Lose your job and try and pay these outragous payments and after a few months your 5000 dollars behind, you are now a FELON! The courts won't lower your payments if your laid off your job! NOW

As you struggle to try and pay your own bills, mortgage, car note they then take your drivers license away from you so you can't get a job and lock you up if they catch you driving without it.

All the while these outragous payments start adding up to ridiculous amounts of money, fee's, interest, etc

Then if you can't get a decent paying job they just knock on your door, handcuff you and haul you to jail all the while your payments are stacking up. NOW WHAT! Now your freedom is gone! This is what happens when you lose your job in the UNITED STATES!

If you do get a job usually because you can't take the time to get a good paying job equal to your skills due to the pressure from the state and MOM sitting there with her hand out you take a job that pays much less and still have to pay the outragous amount of money.

End of the year and now all your income tax returns are confiscated and given to good ol MOM!

I could go on and on. All that crap about being responsible is a joke! You want to be fair about then set the child support at a 1000 a month an let the mother be responsible for her end of it. 500 a month, half just like dad pays and let her lose her job and see how she likes it! If both parents are responsible then why is only the FATHER drug into court every year and ordered to bring in all his income receipts to see how much more money HE ONLY gets screwed out of. Where the hell is MOTHERS financial responsibility!! She has NONE, she just takes! And if she wants more drags the DAD back into court and squeazes all she can out of him.

Ill tell you what its like living with a child support order, I have 25 years experience and counting! Its like being owned by your X-girlfriend who wields the power of the state and federal government to stomp on your legal right to privacy and just about all your constitutional rights. I can't even take a lower paying job to move back to the small town I lived in to be by my grown children because Ill end up in JAIL! Im owned by my X girlfriend. Its called involuntary servitude when the state forces you to work then takes your money from your forcibly and with the threat of taking your freedom to be thrown in jail and beaten and gang raped if you don't pay the ransom, the amount of money they want you to pay, not what is reasonable or fair, or an amount you can actuall afford to pay! With all this, the MOTHER has ZERO financial responsibility and also gets every single tax deduction there is for herself, the FATHER gets absolutely NOTHING! He also has to pay all the income tax on the money MOM gets. Hell I could go on and on!

Don't TELL ME WE ARE NOT PERSECUTED!! You live on the other side of the fence for a while and tell me how you like it over there. Ive been drug into court by X wives and girlfriends more times than Charles Manson! And every time its "MORE MONEY"

Being a father in this county and then losing them to failed relationship is a curse, an absolute nightmare that never ends. Im making damn sure my son has no kids until the laws start protecting fathers. Its easy for women to sit back with 90% of them getting custody, the house, the money, the alimony, the car, full custody, the tax breaks. Basically EVERYTHING! And dad gets all the bills and a payment coupon book the size of the yellow pages and threatened for 18 years! What does a woman have to lose? NOTHING!

What do you have to say about that? We are not persecuted? Yeah Right!

Bitter?
If you can't take care of the kids - don't have them.

Notice the responses from women most likely scorned. I agree 100% with you Xeno, and I am a woman with a child. Imagine a man has a one night stand. The woman is equally responsible for her actions. The man did not hold a gun to her head and make her smoke pot and spread her legs open and get pregnant no more than she made him take it out and put it in. It takes two to tango so to speak. That is why everything should be equal. Equal amounts of money paid and equal amounts of time spent with the child... agreed? That is what I thought. For some reason women seem to think the men owe them something because... well because men are evil bastards and should pay for their sins. Let's talk about how the mother had abortions prior to getting pregnant when she was 18. When are women ever going to be made to take responsibility for their actions. Let's say a man pays 500 dollars a month for a child for 18 years. Now, the woman pays an equal amount of 500. You really expect me to believe that a 6-year-old child needs 1000 dollars a month to survive? You really expect me to believe that mother won't use the money on herself? YOU are delusional. Meanwhile, she remarries and is still receiving 500 a month while having a supplemental income from her husband, and subsequently my child, who lives with me and her father, is out 500 dollars a month and we have to sell our house... fair... hardly!