Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 8/23/2017 3:23:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2017 6:48:21 PM EST by DaringRaider]
I work with a dude that had a kid with his wife, left on his third deployment, then came home to her fucking someone else. California had him paying spousal support, and child support for $2600 a month as an E6!

Talk about getting fucked lol.

I had a similar experience. I put my ex through college for 8 years. We split, she hasn't worked at all on the books, so I get hammered while she milks the system. Anyway, I doubt anything would ever change just because it's a huge bloated clusterfuck.

But anyway, here it is if you wanna sign- I guess it needs 150 sigs before they list it on their site, so share the link if you guys want.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-disproportionately-overcharging-men-child-support-cases

Link To Petition
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 4:02:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/24/2017 10:25:07 AM EST by Combat_Jack]
The federal government shouldn't be involved in the issue.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 4:04:09 PM EST
How about we stop welfare for paying for 18 years of kids with no parents.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 4:10:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2017 4:11:31 PM EST by spartacus2002]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
The federal government isn't and shouldn't be involved in the issue.
View Quote
Actually, the federal government has been involved in child support for a while. Years ago, in many states the judges had complete discretion to set child support without any guidelines. Mothers believed they weren't getting their "fair share," so Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress to "do something about it!" So, Congress told the states, "enact laws creating standardized child support guidelines and require family court judges to follow them, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states implemented standard guidelines within their state for the judges to abide by.

Next, mothers didn't like that a man could have a pay cut and ask the court to reduce his child support accordingly. The Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress further. So, Congress told the states, "enact laws preventing child support from being reduced retroactively back to the date the dad got his pay cut, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states did that, and now judges can only reduce child support going forward from the date the judge enters the order. If mom can delay, delay, delay that court hearing for months, she continues to get the higher child support during that time.

There is more, a lot more, but I'm not researching it right now.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 4:53:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By spartacus2002:


Actually, the federal government has been involved in child support for a while. Years ago, in many states the judges had complete discretion to set child support without any guidelines. Mothers believed they weren't getting their "fair share," so Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress to "do something about it!" So, Congress told the states, "enact laws creating standardized child support guidelines and require family court judges to follow them, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states implemented standard guidelines within their state for the judges to abide by.

Next, mothers didn't like that a man could have a pay cut and ask the court to reduce his child support accordingly. The Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress further. So, Congress told the states, "enact laws preventing child support from being reduced retroactively back to the date the dad got his pay cut, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states did that, and now judges can only reduce child support going forward from the date the judge enters the order. If mom can delay, delay, delay that court hearing for months, she continues to get the higher child support during that time.

There is more, a lot more, but I'm not researching it right now.
View Quote
I guess there might be more father's rights groups if they weren't all busy slaving away to make their extortion payments.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 4:54:54 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By whiskerz:
How about we stop welfare for paying for 18 years of kids with no parents.
View Quote
How about a girl with 3 college degrees getting $2k a month in support from the poor fuck that married her, not working, and still getting welfare for having one child?
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 4:56:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 4:57:18 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:
I guess there might be more father's rights groups if they weren't all busy slaving away to make their extortion payments.
View Quote
That is part of it. The rest of the story is that taking a position of "the child support is too damn high" does not get much sympathy, and so the fathers rights groups focus their energy on joint custody issues.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:07:40 PM EST
End child support for all children born out of wed lock.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:10:27 PM EST
The whole system is f**ked.....totally f**ked. 

Really makes you think long and hard about getting married or even laid for that matter.  
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:10:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2017 5:21:30 PM EST by Veracity]
"Child support" is welfare for women.

If it was not, there WOULD be accountability.

Imagine instead of "child" support, fathers had to pay "coffee" support. They had to pay for their ex-wive's coffee.

Coffee costs a certain amount....regardless of who the father is.

However, some fathers have to pay a lot more for their coffee support than other fathers. Why? Because those fathers HAVE more money.

Do those fathers get receipts showing that their ex-wives are guzzling 28 cups of Starbucks everyday?

No.

The amount of coffee and the price of the coffee consumed is completely irrelevant.

Because as far as the court system, the government, feminists, society at large, and even the average woman are concerned, "child" support is as arbitrary as "coffee" support. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything except how much money can and will be transferred to women.

If what I've typed was incorrect, there would be accountability. The government, feminists, society at large, and even the average woman would expect it.

But there is no accountability nor will there ever be.

Because child/coffee support is welfare for women.

And way down deep inside, everybody knows it.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:28:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By spartacus2002:


Actually, the federal government has been involved in child support for a while. Years ago, in many states the judges had complete discretion to set child support without any guidelines. Mothers believed they weren't getting their "fair share," so Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress to "do something about it!" So, Congress told the states, "enact laws creating standardized child support guidelines and require family court judges to follow them, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states implemented standard guidelines within their state for the judges to abide by.

Next, mothers didn't like that a man could have a pay cut and ask the court to reduce his child support accordingly. The Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress further. So, Congress told the states, "enact laws preventing child support from being reduced retroactively back to the date the dad got his pay cut, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states did that, and now judges can only reduce child support going forward from the date the judge enters the order. If mom can delay, delay, delay that court hearing for months, she continues to get the higher child support during that time.

There is more, a lot more, but I'm not researching it right now.
View Quote
CS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction.

Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:35:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2017 5:37:04 PM EST by DaringRaider]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:


CS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction.

Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed.
View Quote
Thanks for your service. A real hero.

Ever audited a woman receiving support? Let me guess...
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:36:50 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By djsmiles:
There is zero accountability for what happens with a child support check. That is my biggest gripe.
View Quote
This
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:45:27 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:


CS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction.

Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed.
View Quote
I won't say anything specifically about you because, well... you make your own choices in life.

But if I were ever to find myself doing something like what you described, I would consider myself the absolute worst of the scum that comprises the scummiest part of the overall legal system. But that's just me. Thankfully, I never have to worry about that level of self-loathing because in my long life, I have always aspired to more noble, meaningful callings, rather than participate in evil & destructive things like being a serial rapist, abortion doctor, or child support agent.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:50:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2017 5:51:35 PM EST by Drumbic]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History



CS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction.

Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed.
View Quote
Ever audited a woman receiving support?
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:50:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:


Thanks for your service. A real hero.

Ever audited a woman receiving support? Let me guess...
View Quote
No hero. When a support order is based on a payor earning $50,000/yr and I learn more than 5 years later that he had been earning over $130,000 and he was under an affirmative duty to report changes in income and failed to do that, then I have an obligation as a court officer and a person who conducts himself with honor to go retro to when the significant increase in income began - sorry if you can't see the ethical implications there.

No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:50:55 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
CS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
Originally Posted By spartacus2002:


Actually, the federal government has been involved in child support for a while. Years ago, in many states the judges had complete discretion to set child support without any guidelines. Mothers believed they weren't getting their "fair share," so Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress to "do something about it!" So, Congress told the states, "enact laws creating standardized child support guidelines and require family court judges to follow them, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states implemented standard guidelines within their state for the judges to abide by.

Next, mothers didn't like that a man could have a pay cut and ask the court to reduce his child support accordingly. The Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress further. So, Congress told the states, "enact laws preventing child support from being reduced retroactively back to the date the dad got his pay cut, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states did that, and now judges can only reduce child support going forward from the date the judge enters the order. If mom can delay, delay, delay that court hearing for months, she continues to get the higher child support during that time.

There is more, a lot more, but I'm not researching it right now.
CS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction.
Just to be clear, I never said Congress made the guidelines. I said Congress told the states to establish their own guidelines in each state.


Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed.
I don't have much sympathy for the guy since he was under order to disclose. Did he really believe nobody would ever find out and gig his ass for it?
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:52:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse.
View Quote
that pisses me off. I'd like to see a system in which both sides pay child support into a joint account from which they each pay necessary bills for the child. Yeah, it would take some major revamping of other laws to make that happen, but it would be worth it.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:55:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2017 5:58:25 PM EST by DaringRaider]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:


No hero. When a support order is based on a payor earning $50,000/yr and I learn more than 5 years later that he had been earning over $130,000 and he was under an affirmative duty to report changes in income and failed to do that, then I have an obligation as a court officer and a person who conducts himself with honor to go retro to when the significant increase in income began - sorry if you can't see the ethical implications there.

No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse.
View Quote
I'm talking about auditing whether they are working or not. Reporting their earnings or not. Accurately reporting their own income or not. Have you ever looked at their bank accounts for big deposits? Have you ever attached shit to their social security numbers so you can spy on every penny? No. You haven't. Because the one making money is automatically the defendant.

Funny you'll happily fuck the guy over for progressing on in life and making more, but not give a second look to whether she was EVER accurately reporting income.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 5:57:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2017 6:05:18 PM EST by RenegadeJack]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:
I guess there might be more father's rights groups if they weren't all busy slaving away to make their extortion payments.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:
Originally Posted By spartacus2002:


Actually, the federal government has been involved in child support for a while. Years ago, in many states the judges had complete discretion to set child support without any guidelines. Mothers believed they weren't getting their "fair share," so Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress to "do something about it!" So, Congress told the states, "enact laws creating standardized child support guidelines and require family court judges to follow them, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states implemented standard guidelines within their state for the judges to abide by.

Next, mothers didn't like that a man could have a pay cut and ask the court to reduce his child support accordingly. The Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress further. So, Congress told the states, "enact laws preventing child support from being reduced retroactively back to the date the dad got his pay cut, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states did that, and now judges can only reduce child support going forward from the date the judge enters the order. If mom can delay, delay, delay that court hearing for months, she continues to get the higher child support during that time.

There is more, a lot more, but I'm not researching it right now.
I guess there might be more father's rights groups if they weren't all busy slaving away to make their extortion payments.
Women outnumber men and vote more reliably, good luck finding many that want to change the current system. Even if they aren't benefitting now they want to keep it this way just in case. Add on to them the standard pussy white knights who would cut their own balls off if a woman asked them to and there's no realistic prospect of fixing the family courts.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:02:52 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:

Women outnumber men and vote more reliably, good luck finding many that want to change the current system. Even if they aren't benefitting now they want to keep it this way just in case. Add on to them the standard pussy white knights who would cut their own balls off if a woman asked them to and there's no realistic prospect of fixing the family courts.
View Quote
True. It's all about equality until it's time to pay the check.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:05:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2017 6:06:08 PM EST by RenegadeJack]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:
True. It's all about equality until it's time to pay the check.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:
Women outnumber men and vote more reliably, good luck finding many that want to change the current system. Even if they aren't benefitting now they want to keep it this way just in case. Add on to them the standard pussy white knights who would cut their own balls off if a woman asked them to and there's no realistic prospect of fixing the family courts.
True. It's all about equality until it's time to pay the check.
When you look at all of the welfare and various wealth redistribution schemes at a societal level, it all basically boils down to taking money from men and giving it to single women. Women as a demographic aren't even net taxpayers, there are so many women on the dole that it wipes out all of the taxes that working women pay and then some.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:12:48 PM EST
The power a woman has over a man when kids are involved is so out of control it isnt even funny.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:17:32 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Veracity:
"Child support" is welfare for women.

If it was not, there WOULD be accountability.

Imagine instead of "child" support, fathers had to pay "coffee" support. They had to pay for their ex-wive's coffee.

Coffee costs a certain amount....regardless of who the father is.

However, some fathers have to pay a lot more for their coffee support than other fathers. Why? Because those fathers HAVE more money.

Do those fathers get receipts showing that their ex-wives are guzzling 28 cups of Starbucks everyday?

No.

The amount of coffee and the price of the coffee consumed is completely irrelevant.

Because as far as the court system, the government, feminists, society at large, and even the average woman are concerned, "child" support is as arbitrary as "coffee" support. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything except how much money can and will be transferred to women.

If what I've typed was incorrect, there would be accountability. The government, feminists, society at large, and even the average woman would expect it.

But there is no accountability nor will there ever be.

Because child/coffee support is welfare for women.

And way down deep inside, everybody knows it.
View Quote
all per design

it is an ingenious control mechanism incremently put in place over the last 30 years by .gov

the state is using marriage and children to put men into a form of indentured servitude

many many men live in absolute denial of this fact because to admit otherwise is to admit you are a slave
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:19:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mike_Miller:


all per design

it is an ingenious control mechanism incremently put in place over the last 30 years by .gov

the state is using marriage and children to put men into a form of indentured servitude

many many men live in absolute denial of this fact because to admit otherwise is to admit you are a slave
View Quote
Why are so many Millennials unmarried, and not seeking marriage? Its a goddamned mystery, I'll tell ya!
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:23:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:
When you look at all of the welfare and various wealth redistribution schemes at a societal level, it all basically boils down to taking money from men and giving it to single women. Women as a demographic aren't even net taxpayers, there are so many women on the dole that it wipes out all of the taxes that working women pay and then some.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:
Women outnumber men and vote more reliably, good luck finding many that want to change the current system. Even if they aren't benefitting now they want to keep it this way just in case. Add on to them the standard pussy white knights who would cut their own balls off if a woman asked them to and there's no realistic prospect of fixing the family courts.
True. It's all about equality until it's time to pay the check.
When you look at all of the welfare and various wealth redistribution schemes at a societal level, it all basically boils down to taking money from men and giving it to single women. Women as a demographic aren't even net taxpayers, there are so many women on the dole that it wipes out all of the taxes that working women pay and then some.
It is a system designed to materially incentivize the self-destruction of the two parent family and generate popular dependence on the State for basic existence.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:23:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2017 6:35:17 PM EST by BTccw]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
The federal government isn't and shouldn't be involved in the issue.
View Quote
BigFed.gov is up to it's smelly crotch in CS issues. It's not about CS it's about control.....and there is nothing BigFed.gov likes more than control.

BigFed.gov "awards" states for CS collections. The "better" the states do with collection the more money from BigFed they get.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:25:30 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By whiskerz:
How about we stop welfare for paying for 18 years of kids with no parents.
View Quote
All for it, I did not choose t ohave those kids, why should I pay
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:27:06 PM EST
Poor life choices often have costly consequences. The federal government should not be involved in protecting people from those consequences.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:31:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:


No hero. When a support order is based on a payor earning $50,000/yr and I learn more than 5 years later that he had been earning over $130,000 and he was under an affirmative duty to report changes in income and failed to do that, then I have an obligation as a court officer and a person who conducts himself with honor to go retro to when the significant increase in income began - sorry if you can't see the ethical implications there.

No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse.
View Quote
Same kind of person who turns a blind eye to a woman who runs a business but reports no job or income to fuck over a guy. Because as a gov't drone it's not "my job" to check and see what is on the paperwork is true.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:33:13 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:


Thanks for your service. A real hero.

Ever audited a woman receiving support? Let me guess...
View Quote
LOL
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:33:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
No hero. When a support order is based on a payor earning $50,000/yr and I learn more than 5 years later that he had been earning over $130,000 and he was under an affirmative duty to report changes in income and failed to do that, then I have an obligation as a court officer and a person who conducts himself with honor to go retro to when the significant increase in income began - sorry if you can't see the ethical implications there.

No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:


Thanks for your service. A real hero.

Ever audited a woman receiving support? Let me guess...
No hero. When a support order is based on a payor earning $50,000/yr and I learn more than 5 years later that he had been earning over $130,000 and he was under an affirmative duty to report changes in income and failed to do that, then I have an obligation as a court officer and a person who conducts himself with honor to go retro to when the significant increase in income began - sorry if you can't see the ethical implications there.

No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse.
Wtaf? I'm not sure that word honor means what you think it means. You are right about not being a hero through.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:36:39 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Loremsk:
It is a system designed to materially incentivize the self-destruction of the two parent family and generate popular dependence on the State for basic existence.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Loremsk:
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:
Women outnumber men and vote more reliably, good luck finding many that want to change the current system. Even if they aren't benefitting now they want to keep it this way just in case. Add on to them the standard pussy white knights who would cut their own balls off if a woman asked them to and there's no realistic prospect of fixing the family courts.
True. It's all about equality until it's time to pay the check.
When you look at all of the welfare and various wealth redistribution schemes at a societal level, it all basically boils down to taking money from men and giving it to single women. Women as a demographic aren't even net taxpayers, there are so many women on the dole that it wipes out all of the taxes that working women pay and then some.
It is a system designed to materially incentivize the self-destruction of the two parent family and generate popular dependence on the State for basic existence.
It really is brilliant, marxists are evil as shit but the ones at the top who are engineering it all are dangerously smart and adept manipulators of human nature.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:38:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:


True. It's all about equality until it's time to pay the check.
View Quote
Yep.  And the corrupt system wouldn't function if there weren't people willing to *follow orders*, no matter how unjust they were.  <ahem... cough... cough... must have a hornet stuck in my throat>
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:40:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2017 6:43:14 PM EST by FREEFALLE7]
My wife left for another guy

I got the house and the kid,
told her she could hire a attorney but it's not gonna help her as I wasn't gonna comply.

She took her shit and left

she didn't bring anything to the marriage so she left with nothing 
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:42:21 PM EST
My niece is married to a worthless fuck and they have 2 kids. He is now into this polyamorous shit and told her she either agreed to it or he was kicking her out of the house and he and his new girlfriend were keeping the kids. Dickhead needs to be paying for full support of his children and the house as well.

Screw this crap of so called studs thinking they can walk away from their kids because they have other pussy to chase. Over and over again, GD harps about fathers being absent from their child rearing duties being the cause of violence and ignorance. Suck it up and act like men instead of hamsters.

It's about personal responsibility. If the man can keep the kids, raise them, and have the mother pay child support, then they should go that way as well. Actions have consequences.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:44:18 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By djsmiles:
There is zero accountability for what happens with a child support check. That is my biggest gripe.
View Quote
This, too.

And it has to be cash. School supplies, food, clothes, baby shitt, everything kids need that costs a shit ton of money? Doesn't count towards child support. But mommy can blow all that money on booze, cigarettes, drugs, hotels, clothes for HER, and all sorts of assorted stupid shit.

How the fuck does that make sense?
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:50:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2017 6:52:52 PM EST by Sundowner08L]
This problem will disappear when they perfect sex bots. And by "perfect" I mean a design which is physically very realistic, but with no ability for procreation, and no female drive for revenge or exploitation.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:52:55 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By IronMedic:
Same kind of person who turns a blind eye to a woman who runs a business but reports no job or income to fuck over a guy. Because as a gov't drone it's not "my job" to check and see what is on the paperwork is true.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By IronMedic:
Originally Posted By Hornet22:


No hero. When a support order is based on a payor earning $50,000/yr and I learn more than 5 years later that he had been earning over $130,000 and he was under an affirmative duty to report changes in income and failed to do that, then I have an obligation as a court officer and a person who conducts himself with honor to go retro to when the significant increase in income began - sorry if you can't see the ethical implications there.

No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse.
Same kind of person who turns a blind eye to a woman who runs a business but reports no job or income to fuck over a guy. Because as a gov't drone it's not "my job" to check and see what is on the paperwork is true.
No it was his job to check. For the father. Mom could have won 10 million from the lottery and the father would still have to pay.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 6:58:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By IronMedic:


Same kind of person who turns a blind eye to a woman who runs a business but reports no job or income to fuck over a guy. Because as a gov't drone it's not "my job" to check and see what is on the paperwork is true.
View Quote
Sorry to hear about your personal problems Perhaps you should have hired a PI.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 7:02:32 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BTccw:


Wtaf? I'm not sure that word honor means what you think it means. You are right about not being a hero through.
View Quote
So intentionally violating a court order in order to cheat your dependent children out of support funds is alright by you?
Thanks for playing!
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 7:04:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
So intentionally violating a court order in order to cheat your dependent children out of support funds is alright by you?
Thanks for playing!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
Originally Posted By BTccw:


Wtaf? I'm not sure that word honor means what you think it means. You are right about not being a hero through.
So intentionally violating a court order in order to cheat your dependent children out of support funds is alright by you?
Thanks for playing!
Lol, was the child going hungry or something?

That extra cash usually goes into the mom's fun money account, maybe buys her some new tits so she go whore it up with the local scum bags.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 7:07:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Piratepast40:
My niece is married to a worthless fuck and they have 2 kids. He is now into this polyamorous shit and told her she either agreed to it or he was kicking her out of the house and he and his new girlfriend were keeping the kids. Dickhead needs to be paying for full support of his children and the house as well.

Screw this crap of so called studs thinking they can walk away from their kids because they have other pussy to chase. Over and over again, GD harps about fathers being absent from their child rearing duties being the cause of violence and ignorance. Suck it up and act like men instead of hamsters.

It's about personal responsibility. If the man can keep the kids, raise them, and have the mother pay child support, then they should go that way as well. Actions have consequences.
View Quote
Tell your niece that all she has to do is write this on a police report:

I am in fear for my life, i am in fear of my kid's lives, and i believe my husband is molesting my children.

Thats all it takes for the state to award full custody to the mother. She'll get a massive CS payment, and the guy above will make damn sure of it. And she will have uncontested time with the kids to make sure they tell their case workers, forensic psychologists, and social works everything they need to hear.

If the guy can afford the high powered attorney needed he might be able to see his kids 8 or 9 months after he is servered with the initial restraining order. But he will still have a year or more before his rights are restored.

Best part is, even after everything is proven false, mom just laughs it off. No charges for her. Here is your check.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 7:07:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:


Sorry to hear about your personal problems Perhaps you should have hired a PI.
View Quote
Your fellow shitbirds say it doesn't matter what she does. I have turned in copies of her business license, health department license, rental agreement for the office and copy of her entire website with what she charges. Guess what it is conveniently not their job at that moment to look into things and falsification of documents. And why should I pay someone else to do a job some shitheel gov't employee is supposed to be doing.....oh that's right it's only their job if you are a guy.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 7:12:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:


CS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction.

Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed.
View Quote
Yeah, that pisses me off.

How can you live with yourself? I'd bury myself out of pure shame.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 7:13:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:

Lol, was the child going hungry or something?

That extra cash usually goes into the mom's fun money account, maybe buys her some new tits so she go whore it up with the local scum bags.
View Quote
Actually in this case it's quite likely all funds were saved for college because in some jurisdiction there is no such thing as college support nad given the character of the payor involved, it's unlikely he would help with college. That's another thing I've seen for all of you who have a deep seated hatred of women, many men who are no longer obligated to pay support after age 18 will not help with college expenses and it becomes, by default, the mothers responsibily to help the kids get through college.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 7:14:58 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:
It really is brilliant, marxists are evil as shit but the ones at the top who are engineering it all are dangerously smart and adept manipulators of human nature.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:
Originally Posted By Loremsk:
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:
Originally Posted By DaringRaider:
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:
Women outnumber men and vote more reliably, good luck finding many that want to change the current system. Even if they aren't benefitting now they want to keep it this way just in case. Add on to them the standard pussy white knights who would cut their own balls off if a woman asked them to and there's no realistic prospect of fixing the family courts.
True. It's all about equality until it's time to pay the check.
When you look at all of the welfare and various wealth redistribution schemes at a societal level, it all basically boils down to taking money from men and giving it to single women. Women as a demographic aren't even net taxpayers, there are so many women on the dole that it wipes out all of the taxes that working women pay and then some.
It is a system designed to materially incentivize the self-destruction of the two parent family and generate popular dependence on the State for basic existence.
It really is brilliant, marxists are evil as shit but the ones at the top who are engineering it all are dangerously smart and adept manipulators of human nature.
The inoculation against the false promises of socialism/globalism is a well rounded honest education, so naturally our education apparatus was targeted first in typical socialist fashion; monopolized by leftists in the central government and then gradually corrupted into an indoctrination camp that does the opposite of what it should.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 7:20:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:


Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed.
View Quote
how do you people rationalize that shit on a personal level, i was just doing my job

injustice exists in many forms
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 7:20:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
Actually in this case it's quite likely all funds were saved for college because in some jurisdiction there is no such thing as college support nad given the character of the payor involved, it's unlikely he would help with college. That's another thing I've seen for all of you who have a deep seated hatred of women, many men who are no longer obligated to pay support after age 18 will not help with college expenses and it becomes, by default, the mothers responsibily to help the kids get through college.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:

Lol, was the child going hungry or something?

That extra cash usually goes into the mom's fun money account, maybe buys her some new tits so she go whore it up with the local scum bags.
Actually in this case it's quite likely all funds were saved for college because in some jurisdiction there is no such thing as college support nad given the character of the payor involved, it's unlikely he would help with college. That's another thing I've seen for all of you who have a deep seated hatred of women, many men who are no longer obligated to pay support after age 18 will not help with college expenses and it becomes, by default, the mothers responsibily to help the kids get through college.
Yes, if you think the family court system is anything other than perfectly fair and equitable it means you hate women.

You are a perfect example of the stereotypical family court worker.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 7:23:49 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
Actually in this case it's quite likely all funds were saved for college because in some jurisdiction there is no such thing as college support nad given the character of the payor involved, it's unlikely he would help with college. That's another thing I've seen for all of you who have a deep seated hatred of women, many men who are no longer obligated to pay support after age 18 will not help with college expenses and it becomes, by default, the mothers responsibily to help the kids get through college.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
Originally Posted By RenegadeJack:

Lol, was the child going hungry or something?

That extra cash usually goes into the mom's fun money account, maybe buys her some new tits so she go whore it up with the local scum bags.
Actually in this case it's quite likely all funds were saved for college because in some jurisdiction there is no such thing as college support nad given the character of the payor involved, it's unlikely he would help with college. That's another thing I've seen for all of you who have a deep seated hatred of women, many men who are no longer obligated to pay support after age 18 will not help with college expenses and it becomes, by default, the mothers responsibily to help the kids get through college.
Won't somebody think of the [adult aged, voting in elections] children!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top