Sad story - probably BH - went wacko over CS.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002342677_grenade21m.html

OK guys, let's not do this, OK?

Get a grip. Pay the infidel, if you have do. There are better ways to deal with this stuff - better means of political action, if you feel like political action.

-AD

Huh? Were the children born of immaculate conception?

He doesn't think that he should have to support kids that he created just because he doesn't see them everyday?? Unreal...

Well, from my POV, the issue was not whether or not he should pay CS. The more important issue is how can a person constructively deal with a situation which he/she feels is unfair.

"Child Support", as we all know, is not paid to children, but in most cases, to their mothers, who are not required to have any accountabilty in how they spend that money. That's the aspect which is unfair. If a woman cheats on her H, divorces him - he is forced to pay CS - and she can take it to the dog track - or give it to her BF to buy liquor or do anything at all with it. There is no accountability. I think recipients of CS should have to file some kind of financial form detailing expenditures on the children (or partially attributable to the children - such as rent etc.) with the court which ordered the CS. That would a reasonable thing. An irritating thing if you're not used to record-keeping, but not a particulary heavy burden.

But this guy's sad failure... is in assuming that anybody cares whether he thinks it's fair or unfair or unconstitutional or illegal - or that anybody cares if he lives in a homeless shelter to protest having his wages garneshed. Nobody cares. He had to work within the system if he wanted to get any change.

If he had paid, promptly and fully every month (under protest) - while at the same time showing up for every public hearing, every government committee meeting - every chance to influence public policy, wearing a suit and a controlled demeanor - with all his charts, facts and figures, being polite and respectful to everyone involved, he might have made a difference. But, instead, he threw away his life, and probably made his kids ashamed of him.

-AD

I absolutely agree with your POV regarding accountability AD. Especially when the custodial parent requests a change in CS amount. My WH has been paying CS for his 2 children to his XW that she flatly refuses to let him see or speak to over the phone. He has had no contact with them for over 2 years. He did manage to reach his son one afternoon and it was heartbreaking to have his son tell him he didn't want to talk to him because he didn't think his father cared anymore since he never calls, writes, etc. (which is NOT true, we have the call records and certified letter receipts and the shipping tags, etc.) WH was patient and they ended up talking for close to an hour before the XW got home I guess. They haven't spoken since.

Since we live on the opposite side of the country it makes it very difficult to enforce the divorce court order. Sherriff's do nothing. I cannot tell you how many times we've tried. WH has attempted to get school records for his children and the school is denying him that.

With so many biological parents out there that don't care, I would think having one that does would be such a blessing. Apparently it's just easier for some to use it a weapon of mass destruction.

.... I might add...

I don't think my W is going to take the CS to the dog track or anything irresponsible like that, but she's not going to spend it all on our daughter either. Even if you attribute half the rent and groceries to the child, there's no way my W is going to spend that much on the child in a month. And she expects me to pay for "music school". <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

AD:

The man was clearly obsessed. What's $600? or even $8000 in back payments due?

2 me, it would be have been a far better life 2 keep a good job and pay the CS.

No mention of whether he was a BH or his xW was a WW at all. For all we know, she DV'd him because he was 2 mangos shy of a chutney a long time ago.

-ol' 2long

You may be right 2Long. It's likely that he didn't just start going off the deep end after the D.

This kind of stuff really ticks me off. Its been my experience that there seems to usually be one parent, after divorce, who typically either tries to use children as weapons against the other parent or who seem to wash their hands of the children.

I don't understand it and probably never will. Why can't these people see that the children are the innocent ones in divorce? They are the ones who need the most support from BOTH parents. Yet they are usually the ones who get hurt the most.

I wouldn't care if my XH never paid a penny of CS, if he would just get his head out of his a** and be a real Dad to his kids.

Along with accountability on where CS is being spent, I think both parents should be required to take parenting classes that deal specifically with divorce issues for kids. And not just one or two that hit the highlights, but an entire course.

Alot of ministers require MC before they will marry a couple. I don't see why a judge can't require parenting classes before he'll/she'll divorce a couple with children.

Just my .02

Tama

I wonder if this was really anything to do with child support but rather just mental instability unleashed when he was forced to pay the state. His arguments make no sense. Why not just sue for custody instead of rambling lawsuits?

A friend of mine's step daughter told her that her Mom was mad at her because she turned 18 and CS would stop. She said, "It's your fault we have to sell this house."

No all people should be parents but we can't control those who are incapable. It's sad that we can't get through to young people the importance of wisdom in choosing the parent of their children. I know I did a lousy job of choosing but stepped up to the plate to compensate for her lack of a decent human being of a father. I shudder to think what would have become of her if I hadn't. At least he's taught her what to look out for when considering a spouse.

I agree with 2long..no evidence here of adultery or the real reason for the demise of the marriage. It seems the man had many other problems than the CS issue.

Where to begin on this one.

Let me start by saying I do not know the entire details, but it seems that I know more than the article in the paper.

Let me also say that I do not endorse Perry Manley's solution to his situation.

I also agree with the principle of Child support but not the method in which it is appropriated and collected.

Perry Manley has been fighting his cause for 15 years. He did not have a problem with giving his KIDS child support, he did not agree that the state should mandate and force him to pay it to someone else to take care of his children when he was able to, but due to the way that mothers are deemed more capable to raise kids, he was denied custody. He had a good job, no law trouble, mentally stable but was unable to get custody. He was not even able to see them as much as he wanted due to ex W.

He has been to court hundreds of times trying to do things the right way, but to no avail.

He had been an advocate for noncustodial parents for years and is closely involved in THE OTHER PARENT organization.

His fight was not just about child support as the media and his Ex wife might lead you to believe. He had petitioned the court several times on grounds he found to be unconstitutional, which, agreed by several judges to be correct, but when pushed, none of the judges would follow the law.

When Mr. Manly actually filed a lawsuit against one of the judges, that same judge dismissed the suit against himself.
Now you tell me if that sounds right. I am under the impression that judges are not allowed to do this. but it was done. That same judge sent the FBI to the mans house and entered without a warrent of any kind and told him to stop with the lawsuits or he will be arrested for harrassing the judge and used a phrase that he said in court that said could be constued as a threat to the judges life. That phrase was "That judge should be charged for treason, the penalty for treason is death" This is the truth. it is not a threat. This is the penalty for treason. This comment was taken out of context for this purpose.

He has petitioned, written letters to everyone all the way up to the President of the United States, with no help from anyone. and has protested peacefully for years at the courthouse at which the police have escorted him out for just standing holding a sign in a peaceful protest. Last I checked this was still legal. He had gotten all the permits needed for his cause.

Now I can go on about what he stood for, but, I am sure for some it will not make a difference. What is believed to be the thing that threw him over the line and made him feel this was all he could do to get some attention to this is by dying, is that his ex W would not let him walk his daughter (23) down the aisle at her wedding. He did not go as not to cause a scene at her wedding. and all this coincided with fathers day at which she would not let his kids be with him on this day. After constantly being degrated by his xw to his kids he was unable to do anything, no court would help him. all they/she wanted was money.

His cause was about parental rights. NOT just child support.

I encourage you to actually research the real Perry Manley and make your decision to judge him on the facts rather than a newspaper article that did not look for the whole story.

I know this from a radio station that he called in to all the time. straight from his mouth.
When he died, he was trying to get some papers to the proper people. The judge in question actually said that the papers will get to who he intended to get them to. With all the witnesses, he had no choice.

It is a shame that someone has to go to this extent to get heard.

The injustice was in the judicial system and to some point the exW. It should never have had to come to this.

I will be looking for a notice of resignation from the judge in question now that this has been brought to the public's eye's.

Again, I do not condone what he did. and I believe that children should be taken care of. by 2 parents. If a father wants to be involved, than he should have that right. It should not be up to a bitter exw on whether he can see his kids or not. Are there exceptions, yes, any type of proven abuse. not just someone saying he is abusive just to get back at someone. It is way to easy to just accuse someone of this.

There should be a set figure on what it takes to help raise a child. Not based on ones earnings but on what it cost to actually raise a child based on his needs not on how the mother wants to live. after all, it is about the child not the mother. That would be alimony, not Child Support.

So please, although Mr. Manly DID NOT do the right thing, don't judge him on this one action. He did not go there to hurt anybody but himself. just to bring attention to a subject he felt was worth dying for.

He was a bright man, not insane or with mental problems. just a man at the end of his rope.

It won't happen, nor should it.


He was the one who tied the rope 'round his own neck. And I think it was by simple old-fashioned pig-headedness. He refused to recognize that he is neither the one to make the law, nor to interpret it.

This is a nation of laws - and the law works by procedure. Judges play a critical role in the interpretation of that law. Just because a man decides that he has a constitutional (or other) legal theory that something should or should not be done a certain way doesn't make it his right to defy the law - nor to defy the system by which the law is administered.

In short, Mr. Manley was not the judge. We all have to submit to the law - and to the legal procedure. Sometimes the law is "wrong". But if each person takes upon himself to decide that the law is wrong, society will collapse. I suspect that most of Mr. Manley's court appearances failed to get the result he desired because of two reasons : 1) His theory of the law was incorrect, and/or 2) His approach to the legal struggle was naive and arrogant.

It is very easy to fall into this trap. We constantly are barraged with political pundits - radio talk hosts and columnists who ridicule the law, the courts, the legislature, the governor, president, any government official with which they disagree - and the system of justice.

To the receptive mind, exposure to this kind of political talk may lead to the likes of the Oklahoma city bombing - and Mr. Manley, although fortunately less destructive, was part of the same continuum.

Being "right" is not enough. One has to submit, with humility, to the system by which the "right" makes it's slow way to becoming policy. Trying to shortcut that process is arrogant. Trying to shortcut that process is disrespectful to the years of struggle that have gone into establishing the best system of law that our predecessors have managed to come up with. Believing that, just because you think you are right, things should be done your way is, in the hands of the powerful, a recipe for tyrany, and in the hands of the weak, self-destructive.

Just my opinion.

-AD

AD,

I agree with most of what you say, however, I do not believe that judges should be above the law, and by dismissing a case against yourself is corrupt.

Mr. Manly's claims, were proven to be correct, but the judges have told him, that untill he is forced to, he will not abide by that law, and that is not for him to decide.
Mr. Manly just wanted a judgement, and one was not given.

And please do not think that I agree with his methods, I DO NOT!!! I was just trying to point out that it was not just about child support. and that he did try to follow the laws, and in doing so was not heard by a corrupt system.

Although the laws seem to favor the women in these cases, I, if put in this situation, would do what was dictated by the courts.

There is a whole lot more to this story than probably will ever be told.

I know a local tv station has gotten access to some emails and radio clips today and will be following up on this.

I believe Mr. Manly just wanted this to become public and felt this is the only way, however wrong. But not being in that position, I can't judge without going through what he has gone through.

Based on your post's, I think we have the same views on CS and accountability. It is a system that is broken and needs to be fixed, espesially for the children affected.

This affects alot of people.

Check out www.toprights.org

This is something we will never see.

I pay CS for my DD. In my state that equals 17% of my income. Regardless of what it realistically costs to raise a child in my state AND regardless of my income, I will pay 17%.

If I earn a million dollars a year I will pay 17%.
If I earn 30,000 dollars a year I will pay 17%.

My DD is subjected to the confines of my income. If I suffer financially, so will she. If I prosper financially, so should she.

When I first processed that info in my mind it was a little hard to swallow but I do believe that my DD should absolutely be allowed by law to benefit from an increase in each of her parents income throughout her childhood, just as she would suffer the consequences of a decrease.

If the X's lifestyle happens to benefit from the fallout of my CS payments TOGETHER with my DD's lifestyle...so be it. I am not going to lose sleep over it.

If the X uses it as play money, I don't think the court really cares. If she can support my DD on her income alone then have at it. If I find however, that my DD is being neglected, then I have a custody matter to take up with the court...not an appropriation of CS matter.

JMO

From my observation, children (at home) cost you all you've got.

17% for a child away from home doesn't seem too bad. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

On the other hand, if you produce 10 more children after losing custody of that one, that one will still get his/her 17% and the other 10 will have to share (with you, your w, the taxman etc) the remaining 83%.

The only adjustment to this (in my state) is if you have other children not living with you to who's mother you are required to pay CS. The children you have at home are not counted in any way.

AD

I don't disagree that there isn't room for reform. The system isn't designed to anticipate future families that I may create and the fair distribution of my income especially should a second divorce occur. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the law to cover the myriad of possible scenarios.

As you posted earlier, we cannot disobey the laws set forth. We can lobby to have them changed but until then we have to suck it up and work with what is provided...even under protest.

edited to add:

I know what I'm working with if I want to start a new family. The laws are in place. If I choose to go on and sire 10 more kids on the remainder of my income then that is MY problem to deal with.

There should be a set figure on what it takes to help raise a child
There are plenty of figures available for this.

"What Does It Cost to Raise a Child?
In 1960, a moderate-income family spent about $146,800 (in 2000 dollars) to raise a child to age 18. A similar family in 2000 spent about $165,600—a 13 percent real increase. Expenses include housing, food, transportation, clothing, health care, education/childcare, and other miscellaneous expenses (personal care items, recreation expenses, etc). Costs do not include college expenses or indirect costs (such as a parent taking work leave to raise the child)."

"Raising your quarter-million dollar baby
the figures for lower-income families are just as unsettling: $184,320 for families earning $41,700 to $70,200 and $134,370 for families making less than that.}

Keep in mind that these figures probably assume a child or children living in a single household.

When divorce occurs, there are two households to run which duplicate many of the child rearing expenses.

A similar family in 2000 spent about $165,600—a 13 percent real increase.
____________________________________________________________

This works out to be roughly $384 a month. based on 1 child. I know someone who is paying $832 a month for 1 child. The exW quit her $55,000 job to work a lessor job(same if not more hours) and then petitioned to make his CS higher.

The child should be able to live with the parent more capable of providing for the child. Mother or Father! Not to have to depend on CS to live a life that one person can't afford.

Contrary to what Susan (calhoun) says. Perry Manley was not permitted to see his kids because of her. This is not right.
A father has just as much right to his children as the Mother. Granted there are some fathers that don't just as not all Mothers play these games of control.

There needs to be a check and balance of some sort to help both parents. The State should be concerned about the Child, and the Child alone. IMO, the state oversteppes its bounds.

This is what Perry Manley was fighting for. Had he not done this, the country would not be having these dapates.
AGAIN, I DO NOT support his choice. But, if it helps bring these issues to light, then his suicide by police will not go invain.

Just for the record, My W recieves CS, and I still feel this way. But she does not try to gouge him. He Pays the same amount he did when D was 2 as he does at 17. He can see her anytime he wants or whenever she wants. can call anytime. He chooses to not see her much but, he has the option. We do not base our life on his CS. Alot of people do.
If a parent is not allowed free acess to their children then CS should be adjusted accordingly. If no visitation, no CS. Again, this scenerio is based on a parent wanting their rights as a parent.

I hope this issue does not die.

Bitterness does not help the children.

Just a perspective on the other end of this CS discussion. I agree there is alot of room for change and improvement in our judicial system. And I have alot of empathy for noncustodial parents (I've known fathers and mothers) who get the short end of the stick. I also have empathy for custodial parents who can't get any CS at all, no matter what the courts have ruled.

I'm one of the minority I imagine that it is the "middle" of the road on this, for lack of a better term.

I currently have temporary custody of my kids, because their BF decided to "take" them from me, and since we had "joint" custody, it was legal for him to move them to a different town and change their schools in a matter of 3 days, when he chose not to bring them home after his weekend visitation. So, I had to petition the court to try to get my kids back. We had to go for a temporary "quick" hearing to get the kids back in the school they had been in , because the trauma of all this had affected them to the point they went from AB Honor roll students (all 3 of them) to 1 of them, who had been A honor roll all along, to b-cs and the other 2 failing - within 3 wks.

Before this happened, I didn't care about CS. As long as he was good to his kids. My H and I were fine with financially supporting them on our own. If he gave something, fine, if not, fine. If something came up, and we couldn't afford it completely (medical) I would ask for help. But that's it.

However, he started keeping the kids clothes I sent with them. He started keeping the stuff they took with them (cd players, etc.). We had to buy more to replace what he wouldn't let them bring home. When he took them, he actually asked me to send ALL their clothes. (never lost his sense of humor) In a nutshell, he felt I OWED him, no matter where the kids were living or visiting. In his mind, it was up to me to provide for them in BOTH my house and his for OUR kids.

I did (and do) resent this. So, our temp. hearing. This time I'm not going to be nice and request his CS be the absolute minimum possible (which is what I did before). I'm not going to request or say anything. I left that up to the judge to determine, and let the cards fall where they may. We have a minimum % in this state as well, I forget what it is off hand.

However, the judge decides to base his CS pmts off what MY income was the last time I was employed. Why? Because based on my former income (I'm now a SAHM) he pays $400 a month for 3 kids. He makes AT LEAST (he was allowed to hedge this question) $8 to $10 more an hour than I did.

I'm fine with this. Considering the judge didn't want to give us temp cust anyway (long story), I feel we've been given the golden goblet, because we got the kids back, AND now I can afford to replace anything he doesn't send back home. He continues to keep their clothes. Only I have gotten smart enough that I don't send more than what is on their person and don't let them take anything else with them, unless its not very expensive to replace. He's changed tactics as well, he still keeps their "new and good" clothes and sends them home in worn out handmedowns.

But I just smile when he gives me CS, go down and replace what he kept. At least now, he's buying what he's keeping.

I just wrote this so that some of you that are discouraged will know that there are some "good" XWs out there, who don't try to gouge the father, and sometimes even the custodial parent, who tries to do things right, takes it in the butt, too.