Yep, they advertise but can't find it in themselves to discover if the payments are fair. Heck, some payments are collected from guys who aren't even the father, just becuase they didn't objsct in the proper timeframe!

And before you whiners say he should have shown up to court, here's a game women play - mail the notice to their own address, because it is the "last known address" of the boyfriend. Then when he doesn't show up to court, he is automatically selected as the father! Ah, how nice!

And the state has NO incentive to hear the truth, they just want their money.

It's not really a kickback. The Federal monies were intended to cover the state's costs of actually collecting of the money from the parent involved.

The laws, however, changed in October. If a parent needs the services of the government to help in the collecting from a deadbeat, he/she will be assessed $25 for collections of $500 or more...about $2 per month. This user fee was created to save the taxpayers the 1.6 billion paid by the Fed to the States over the next five years.

It is a kickback when you consider that the amount recieved is based on the amount collected and not the actual cost of doing business. There is a alot of profit there.

In addition, if the state can't find the mother then they keep the money, they do not return it to the father.

I have already read about the fee being charged to save taxpayer money but the fee is charged to the parent that is paying (ie, dad) not to the the recipient.

What we need to be doing is having a presumption of true joint custody. No money changes hands and the parents pay for the child while the child is in their care. You would find alot more willing fathers that way and also alot less mothers who withhold children from daddy.

States that have presumed joint custody (though not true joint custody) have a lower divorce rate. Since women file most divorces and since women get custody most of the time, it stands to reason that presumed joint custody (even with child alimony) is less appealling to women in these states than in other states.

This site deals with keeping marriages alive. People on this site must begin to understand what role the state plays in divorce.

I looked it up...

The fee was created as part of 2005 The Deficit Reduction Act but is only recently being enforced...(the fiscal year began in Oct.) States have the option of paying the costs, charging the custodial parent, or charging the non-custodial parent.
Two states (Fla and West Virgina) are covering the fee themselves and charging no one. The majority of States simply charge a $25 application fee for state help in getting child support. Some will pass then pass the fee or part of the fee onto the non-custodial parent when and if they can be located.

We shall see how it plays out but surely you can see the potential for abuse in the system.

Surely you can see the incentives the state gives to mom when it offers mom default custody (dads have to fight the system, moms just win by default). Even when dads have the money to fight for custody, it takes alot for dad to win (mom has to be a proven loser). With custody comes alot of other things. Revenge is easy for mom to obtain.

If you don't see these motivations then it would be hard to understand why divorce rates are so high and therefore hard to pin down why marriages are failing.

As I have noted, joint custody states have lower divorce rates, there is a reason for that.

Garak has it right. The interworkings of a specific collection vehicle are unimportant. This IS a marriage builders site, ALL parents should be concerned about efforts that support that. Giving one side authority over the other will do no good. Each side should have equality, then divorce rates would fall and you would have more involved fathers.

Isn't that what we all want? If not, e=what are you doing here, and what are you supporting?

I have two older children from my previous marriage. We had 50/50 custody when we first got divorced. Although he threatened to sue for full custody (the lawyers really love to make promises- not concerned about your children's lives), I never tried to exclude him from his childrens' lives. After a few years we found it to be just too disruptive for the kids to be spending 6 months here 6 months there. So we changed to every other weeekend at their Father's and most of the summer. He was an OK father for our daughter but he ended up kicking my son out of his house 6 years ago (for being too rebellious-Son was only 14)(imagine a 14 year old boy being rebellious!). Now that my daughter is older she gets into alot of conflict with her father because he is very self-involved. It was rough tolerating my ex-husband at times but I always made an effort to get along with him for my children's sake. I never bad mouthed their father and tried to be supportive of their relationships with their father. Now that they are older, they can make their own judements about the characters of both their parents. They are much closer to me than their father. They always come to me to talk because they know I will listen.

I know that I am rambling but I am geting to the point. Set-me-free, in his very caustic way, is right. I have never regretted sharing custody of my children with their father and giving them a chance to have a relationship with their father. What he made of it was his choice, but my children had a right to have that relationship! He is their father- for better or worse. I don't think it is a matter of your rights, it is a matter of your children's rights. Unless the situation is truly abusive, then you should give your children the right to have their father. If you are a consistently, loving mother then they will not turn into their father. If my children had not been allowed to see their father there would have always been an empty, unfulfilled spot in their life. They would always wonder what it could have been like if they had been able to see their father.

Thank you, Houston. Maybe I'm caustic becuase I'm a bit jaded, I'll try to work on that. You have done your children a great service.

Sometimes I get tired of people on here acting all good when their motives are bad for their children. If there was an easier way for them to see that, I am all for it.

My true concern is for the kids - mine and others.

Can't imagine a 14 yr old boy being rebellious. I went to live with my dad at 13, but, me, rebellious? Nah!

I can see by your responses that you are quite bitter. You are guilty of making generalizations just as you acuse others of making. Not all women are out for child support. I took the minimum child support-too proud. I was struggling in a small 2 bedroom apartment while my ex-husband was remarried, living in a nice big house with a pool, driving a new suburban, etc.. And since he was paying child support he felt like he should not have to ever buy the children clothes shoes, etc. So his step children were always getting more than he gave his own children. In the end, I got the best end of the deal by far. My children and I struggled through together and are strong. No regrets.

Houston,

People who lose their children, home, car and money because of their gender from a corrupt, unnaccountable family court system have a right to be bitter.

Don't you agree?

Garak - bitterness doesn't resolve anything - it continues the pain and passes it on. I blocked SYF's posts because his bitterness is something seemingly nurtured, seeking company.

I have a brother who lost access to his children when his wife moved in with the local drug dealer and then moved out of state. When he did have visitation, he had to face his X-FIL who once pulled a gun on him in front of his children, threatening and preventing him from taking his children. The courts did nothing to help my brother.

Eventually, his xw grew up and realized that children do better with a father and a mother. Had my brother nurtured his bitterness against the unfairness and evilness of the family courts, he wouldn't have been emotionally ready to enjoy his children when he did have them.

Life isn't fair. But fathers who don't provide for their children are every bit as evil as the family courts who deny good fathers access to their children. And men who advocate that visitation and child support are not connected haven't seen the inequities of the system on the other side of the gender fence - and it appears - they don't want to.

The law is biased against men for the simple reason that too many dodge their responsibilities for the lives they helped create. And it goes too far, impoverishing good men who genuinely want to provide for their children.

Fathers would do well to band together with women who see and understand the inequities instead of alienating them. to change laws, both genders are needed.

Houston, I'm sorry to hear of your suffering. Sadly, you are in the minority where it comes to demanding excessive CS. Yes, court ordered and "legal" can be excessive. I do make some generalizations, but that doesn't make them false. Most people speed - that is a fact, and a generalization.

As for KaylaAndy, yes, I am PISSED at a court system that has ripped my children from a loving father. I have every right to be. When I do get to see my children, we ALL have a wonderful time. I am completely "emotionally ready" to be with my kids. Anyone who truly knows me or sees us together cannot understand why the court decided the way it did.

The law is not biased against men because men shirk their responsibilities. That sounds like a false generalization to me. I believe the law is biased because feminists and liberals have gained access to too many judgeships and fail to follow the laws as they are written. Judges are supposed to follow the law, not legislate from the bench. But, maybe that's just my opinion. I doubt it.

A good fact to follow is to see how many men, when they are given the position of power, "stick it" to the mom. Those instances are few and far between. Women, generally, have proven themselves by how they act when they are given unfair authority.

Remember, with great authority comes great responsibility. I can't tell others how to handle it; I can only do my best when I am given that great responsibility. Are you all doing your best? I had several opportunities to take my kids from their mom, and chose not to. I believe kids need both parents. Yes, there are some exceptions, but that just enforces the rule, it doesn't negate it. You can't make rules based on the exceptions.

Seems Houston is doing her best with the responsibility. I can not yet bring myself to say the same about others who unfairly take the kids and too much $$.

Kayla, you claim what is needed is for both genders to band together to change an unfair system. How about if, instead of just blocking me because you don't like how I say something, you follow your suggestion? I'm not seeking company for bitterness; I am trying to make changes, one man at a time. Are you willing to do that too? It may be time to put your money where your mouth is.

SYF, I think people would be more open to your message if it weren't delivered with such vehemence and/or anger. Logic sways me; raw emotion does not.

That said, I have to differ with this:
The law is 'biased' against men in terms of setting up garnishment of wages because it is the norm that the man earns the lion's share of the family's income in most cases, often the only share, as the wife stayed home to raise the kids. Therefore, the man is legally responsible for helping to pay for those kids he fathered's upbringing. Therefore, after tens of thousands of women across the country went to courts and politicians asking for some way to help them get their ex-husbands to help shoulder the expenses, those same courts and politicians enacted rules and penalties to entice the men to uphold their end of the bargain they made when they helped make babies.

You can argue about the 'good guys' getting stuck all you want, but the historical data show that a preponderance of men shirked their duty and walked away. The issue wouldn't have become an issue, laws wouldn't have become laws, if it was isolated instances.

If you want to blame someone, blame all the other men before you who walked away from their kids.

And this: First, 'sticking it' to someone can hardly be called anything close to a fact; try producing relevant data instead of using inflammatory begrudgements, and I will listen. Second, men, traditionally, haven't been sticking it to the women because it was the women who are generally left trying to cover the expenses of a household - physical and emotional - while the men go out and start new lives. Argue all you want, you cannot deny that in 90% of divorces, it is the husband who leaves.

I'm sorry you've had a bad experience, but your own generalizations are obviously personally based and don't stand up to historical scrutiny. You're welcome to express them, of course, but your method of delivery will keep many people from listening.

Further, I would love to see your data on how Houston is in the 'minority' in demanding excessive CS.

Cat, it isn't just me. Do you own research on this site. Find me a man who is as bitter as the preponderance of women who advocate taking children from fathers here , who demands excessive money and insists on restrictions on the woman's visitation, with no more evidence than, "She cheated on me, and is mean, and has a boyfriend, so I need to keep the kids away from that!" If that isn't enough for you, go sit in on family court and do the same research.

Facts are facts. Men aren't taking children away from women. Woman, generally, ARE doing it to men. Yes, there are many women here and other places that are not doing it. And I'm sure there are some men who are. But facts are facts - it's GENERALLY the women who are acting like spoiled brats.

I'm sorry if the facts offend you. If you truly are upset, work to change those facts, not my opinion.

I can understand the offended spouse's emotions. I can't understand them taking it out on the kids. Yes, that's exactly what it is.

I believe that most of the women on this site who are bitter, judging from the size of the Infidelity thread, are bitter because their man stepped outside the marriage and screwed another woman. Which begets the man leaving the family to be with the OW. That does not constitute a wife taking her kids away from her husband, but rather the husband choosing sex over being with his kids.

What is your opinion of excessive money?

It's ok to be upset that your man (or woman) cheated on you. Heck, if you're not than you must not be human! What's not ok is taking it out on the kids. The cheater has caused the family enough problems, the cheatee should not compound them by demanding unreasonable or restrictive visitation schedules or CS.

And, it isn't just cheating that causes the bitterness and lies. My ex was fine until I got a new girlfriend, then the poop hit the fan. I have found that's more common than we all know.

Do you think it's ok to let one's bitterness rule them to the point they do unethical things in court and to their own children?

As for excessive money, that would be dependent upon the facts in each case. $1,000/month is not excessive for some guy making a million/year, but is excessive to some poor guy working two jobs just to make ends meet while the woman chooses not to work but lives high off the hog, for whatever reason. Not my situation, just an example. I realize those are pretty extreme.

In my case the ex and I were both happy with the money split, until I got a new girlfriend. That's where the bitterness hurt (and is hurting) the kids.

I guess what is bothering me here is the holier than thou attitude espoused by many of the women here. The "I'm the mom and dad gets what I say he gets" attitude where a woman with a superiority complex belives she is the only parent, or at least the only smart one. If that's what a woman wants, she should just have a child without a dad. If women would drop that lousy attitude, I'd bet the majority of problems, including disappearing dads, would go away. Maybe women don't realize how they drive men away. Just a thought.

Also, just because a guy chooses to stick his **** in another woman doesn't make him a bad dad. That specific act is obviously a poor decision, but not one that affects his whole decision making process. If it was, the guys would all lose their jobs, too.

I have noticed how everyone knows that the family courts are biased but refuse to hold them accountable, instead fathers are blamed.

Statistics show that percentagewise there are more deadbeat mothers than deadbeat fathers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html

So, folks, tell me again, why are fathers to blame for biased family courts?

Being bitter is useful as it helps to raise awareness and bring change. Change is needed. A father should be able to walk into a US Courtroom and be treated equally. That isn't currently the case.

Most fathers keep their mouth shut to avoid being called bitter but that won't bring about needed change.

It seems to me that you ladies don't want things to change. You like the bias in the family courts and want it to remain. Why else would you call fathers who speak out against the biased family courts bitter and/or put them on ignore?

Oh and apparently it is ok to be bitter if you are female and you get cheated on but a male being bitter is not acceptable.

How many men were cheated, then got raped by the family courts? Happens every day but of course, they should be ignored for being bitter.

I believe that most of the women on this site who are bitter, judging from the size of the Infidelity thread, are bitter because their man stepped outside the marriage and screwed another woman. Which begets the man leaving the family to be with the OW. That does not constitute a wife taking her kids away from her husband, but rather the husband choosing sex over being with his kids.
********************************

"****** hath no fury like a woman scorned".

Now, i know there are some bad women out there...I know of a few....but, on THIS site....I have to agree w/ cat.

nia, what do you agree with, that's it's ok to be bitter and take it out on the kids by removing the father from their lives?

Yes, ****** hath no fury, but, are you saying that makes it right?

To be frank, that's what you and Cat sound like. That course of action is one a junior high girl, not an adult, would take. And please don't say, "He didn't act like an adult either," - that's just more reason for the other spouse to act like an adult.

This isn't junior high, people! It's our kids lives! Stop acting like wounded whiny puppies! DO THE RIGHT THING!!!!

*********************************

I am not saying I agree with it...I probably should have just kept my mouth shut because I do not have much experience W/ child custody issues (Thank God).
I just get the impression when I read this site that child custody wouldn't be much of a issue if spouses (men and women) didn't cheat on eachother.