What’s wrong with men having equal custody so they can avoid child support?

by W.F. Price on July 3, 2013

I gave an interview today, and while giving some suggestions for making marriage work for the 80 or so percent of the US population that is not part of the SWPL overeducated elite, I brought up the matter of equal custody. I said that people will often accuse men of wanting custody so they don’t have to pay child support, but instead of saying “that’s not true,” I said “so what if it is?”

Most fathers really do love their children, so it’s an unfair accusation and a low blow in most cases, but not wanting to pay child support is indeed a motivating factor in custody battles. Likewise, receiving child support motivates women quite a bit, and has been found to contribute directly to likelihood of divorce. Money matters.

But think about this: if taking care of one’s child and being an involved father is a good thing, then isn’t it good that men would rather take care of their kids than cut a check every month? Is there anything wrong with them preferring parenting over being an ATM?

Only if the mother has a problem with it, and that’s exactly what’s wrong with the current system of mother custody combined with state enforced child support. If anyone cares to know why fatherlessness became endemic in the black population, and now the Hispanic and white working class, it’s just this refusal to allow men to act on this incentive to raise their kids. If the state were truly interested in reducing fatherlessness, fathers would be allowed to avoid child support by taking care of their kids half the time. If parents don’t want their kids, then fine — have them pay CS. Otherwise, let them do their part and raise their own kids.

Such a policy could only have a positive social effect. Men with children behave better, boys with fathers around tend to stay out of jail, and girls are less likely to get knocked up. Furthermore, it would encourage those who don’t want to raise their own kids to be more careful about getting women pregnant just the same as child support enforcement. Maybe even more. Seeing one’s friends stuck at home or having to arrange a babysitter to get out tends to have an edifying effect on players who might otherwise think little about the consequences of fathering a child.

Would it be more dangerous for children? Not at all. Children are even safer with their biological fathers than with their mothers. When with dad, the kids’ clothing might not be as well-ironed, or their hair as well-combed, but they’d have full bellies, they’d get to bed on time, and they’d feel safe and confident with daddy keeping an eye out for them, and they’d still have half time with their mother.

So what’s stopping this? Basically, women on child support or welfare. Well, too bad for them. It would be better for the rest of us – including other women – if for once they didn’t get their way.

{ 74 comments… read them below or add one }

MKP July 3, 2013 at 17:08

To whom did you give this interview?

Killer news. You got a press agent?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2
Pugs Fugly July 3, 2013 at 18:34

I can say from experience that this arrangement works, and I honestly don’t know why it isn’t a given option in divorce settlements; apart from the money, I mean. You can’t reason with spite.

The thing about child support is that it isn’t always paid, regardless of which parent is supposed to be cutting a check. My ex-wife is currently 10 months behind, and in fact, hasn’t paid a dime since the court orders were finalized. How? It’s simple.

1) Contract labor
2) Manipulate your taxes so that you break even.

I get along just fine without it, but there is a principle or two involved, not to mention the knowledge that I’d be hanging out to dry by now if our arrangement were reversed. Nothing I can do about it, either way.

But I can say that my daughter was happier when she was getting equal time with both of us.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 3
vinayak July 3, 2013 at 19:00

* One person has to pay another (man pay woman) for the middle man, the lawyer, the broker, whoever to make a cut and / or survive.

* The “system” lives because you fight and you litigate and your wife and kid and …. “needs” protection.

* Your plan, kills fights, stops payments and will kill the “system” …. and so your plan would be summarily rejected and killed by the system !

————
Regards

Vinayak

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2
GS Jockey July 3, 2013 at 19:07

Bill, that just makes too much sense. Therefore it will never fly. Here is the argument you are gonna get: women will claim their ex-husband will win 50% custody, but when it comes time for Dad to pick up the kids for visitation he never shows up.

Of course this argument falls flat, because if Big Government can enforce child support, it can obviously enforce visitation or else change custody. But women don’t want to hear that because it interferes with their have-cake-and-eat it too mindset.

GS Jockey

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price July 3, 2013 at 19:16

@MKP

Oh, it was no big deal. Another online magazine. I don’t think I’ll need a press agent soon (I hope not in any event). :)

GT66 July 3, 2013 at 19:27

ugh… Child support ISN’T actually child support. It’s supplementary alimony. That’s why women are made to account for how it’s spent. That would blow the lid off the entire scam.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 1
AmStrat July 3, 2013 at 19:54

Default joint custody would go a long way to solving a lot of problems, I’d wager the divorce rate would drastically fall too (and by “wager” I mean, I’m fairly certain judging by the data that women are more likely divorce if they are “rewarded” for it).

If it were implemented, we would also need to consider anything that would try to put us back where we are, default-mother-custody. One thing that would do this is lying about abuse, drug possession or “domestic violence”. Either we would need to make it default custody no matter the circumstances, or have a hard requirement of proof-positive evidence of any sort of abuse.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
Ken July 3, 2013 at 19:56

If a woman gets 80% custody, she should be 80% responsible for the bills, i.e., she is entitled to exactly $0 in child support. If she cannot afford to support her child for 80% of the time, she is unfit to have custody for 80% of the time.

And yes, I agree with the thrust of the post. When men want a greater percentage of custody of children, there is no benefit of doubt. These men are merely assumed to be only monetarily greedy, wanting greater child custody only to not have to pay child support. However, when women want greater child custody, there is no mention that these women might very well be just motivated by the potential for a greater rent to be extracted from her former husband, and they may in fact have no concern for the well being of the children the went to court to get custody of after breaking the marriage up to begin with.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 0
Nemo July 3, 2013 at 20:13

That would be TRUE, 50/50, equality between the sexes. Feminism is all about ensuring that women get at least 50% of all of the GOOD things in life but are never obligated to do 50% of the BAD things.

Bad things are, by default, left to men – those 19 “firefighters” who just died in Arizona were all fireMEN, which just highlights how the MSM has a subtle but sinister habit of redefining the English language to minimize the contributions of men to society.

Men are simply not allowed to demand, say 50% of all admissions to college (it’s currently 57/43 female/male) because even though the laws are written to be carefully gender-neutral, their enforcement is ALWAYS selective.

Women will get most of the good things in life, men will get most of the bad things, and anyone who complains will be publically lambasted as a Paleolithic wimp who has a small penis.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 2
GraniteSoldier July 3, 2013 at 21:16

Of course it’s about $$. Take a good look at some of the CS tables in the more liberal states. You pay only 20% more for a second child in Masschusetts for example. If you have only one child what’s the extra 80% for? So mommy can cover the other guys child and so the state can bribe her into staying off welfare (with daddy’s money of course).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
GraniteSoldier July 3, 2013 at 21:17

Damn I meant why are you covering 80% of the child #2 that isn’t yours.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Gentocrat July 3, 2013 at 22:15

Why should a capable father pay to have his children parented badly when he is himself quite able, and has for millennia parented his own children quite well himself.

That the stinking dog of a mother alongside stinking dogs in authority seek to extract market rents, service contracts, paid jobs and create self-justifications, should have no bearing on a capable fathers parenting of his children.

I tell you this: It is more for the pursuit of rents by these stinking women and these stinking authorities, that reasons, justifications, excuses and rationalizations are manufactured for bastardy and fatherlessness than anything else. These human swine know there is no real quality control nor accountability for outcomes to children for whom they claim and extract so much.

The fact is that no matter how bad and reckless a job these stinking dogs of mothers and vile authorities do in maladjusting, damaging and limiting children, they will continue to seek to blame and absent fatherhood they themselves created for consequences. No one else will be made responsible other than the injured fathers and violated children.

I feel zero sense of humanity for any of these people whom commit the above crimes and abominations merely for free cash and property advances, political or service careers, feelings of self importance, hubris type vanity or sheer spite.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 3
Nick Langford July 3, 2013 at 22:45

The reality is that fathers who are able to spend substantial time with their children or who have shared care actually spend more money on their children than they save in child support. Avoidance of paying for their children and taking financial responsibility thus is not an incentive for wanting shared custody, though these fathers can ensure that the money is spent on the children and not on their ex wives.

The opposite remains true – the receipt of child support is an incentive for mothers to block shared custody and reduce fathers’ time spent with their children to a minimum.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 4
Gentocrat July 3, 2013 at 22:48

Topical Note !

Check out this drug and alcohol abusing idiot of an old man insinuating an official duty on his part, as family court Judge, to separate other peoples children from their parents on grounds of drug abuse and alcoholism.

What this disgusting bastard of a man, patronizing socialist, political commissar and pretend Judge doesn’t say, as our local friend and part-time Judge Opus doesn’t say is what their own interest is in other peoples children.

Here is their interest: “ADMINISTRATIVE-RENTS”, the creation and collection of which is made perpetual and official, by the perpetual and official manufacture of broken homes, fatherless children, bastardy, domestic conflict, relationship acrimony, divorce-circumstances and more !

Why should such dubious men and other state staff-workers masquerading as respectable officials continue to endlessly draw state borrowed pay, wages and emoluments, which the broken and debased society they create can’t sustain? Consequences of the random, violent, indebted and insecure society they themselves create should be visited on them and their own families.

Bad men pretending to be acting on behalf of the bad State must not enjoy the proceeds of their badness in peace and tranquility, should they?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
oddsock July 4, 2013 at 02:19

Interesting.

Mr Price. If your suggestions were ever put into practice, just imagine the huge and I do mean feckin huge job and revenue loss.

Does anyone honestly think it is in the best interest of ANY government to solve these problems? Really ? It aint ever ever going to happen not unless there is some sort of major global reset.

But hey, I am only a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nut.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
GraniteSoldier July 4, 2013 at 02:22

@Gentocrat

Great points. Nevermind the greedy women. If it were just them things could be changed. It’s the Bar Associations which haved turned into nothing but unions for lawyers. The Boston Bar Association being one of the most corrupt. Tell me why a Child Support Task Force is put together is made up of mostly lawyers. MA had one in 2008 that had 9 lawyers (2 from BBA), 1 economist, 1 Fathers and Families Rep, and 1 MSW. There were one or two others. Does this make any sense? Yes yes if you are trying to game the system it does. CT did something similar this year.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
DW3 July 4, 2013 at 02:41

The way I see it, anyone who opposes default equal custody can’t call themselves a feminist. Supporting the current model of bias in favor of mother custody puts the lie to the idea that men and women are equal. If women are naturally better parents who should raise the kids, then there should be no suggestion that there’s anything to the equality business.

I think that shared parenting reforms would put thousands of cops, social workers, probation officers, lawyers and assorted other scumbags out of work, which is why it hasn’t happened. Too many powerful interests have a lot riding on the current dysfunctional system.

Great essay though Price. One that I’ve printed out and will be sharing around. Thank you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Grant July 4, 2013 at 03:33

Bill, will these interviews you have been doing be published anywhere? If so, will you please give us the links?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
AF July 4, 2013 at 05:37

I completely agree with this, and only an idiot wouldn’t.

The problem is, the world is awash with idiots… Only the other day I saw some men advising a guy with two very small children (under two) to get the kids into daycare and the mother into work so she could “earn her keep”, even though the guy earned a good salary and said they didn’t need extra money – not to mention the groaning amount of evidence that for the under-3s, daycare is disastrous and they are always better at home with a parent or other relative.

This is because our society is obsessed with money over everything else, even above the good of our own children. People will happily put their six-week-old babies into horrendous “daycares” which terrify them half to death so they can go back to work to earn money they don’t need so they can buy more consumer crap they don’t need either.

So “child support” will always trump “childcare” for the majority, simply because too many people care about money more than children,

The attitude is that looking after your children in lazy and parasitic (look at the venom directed at stay-at-home moms and even more at SAH dads), and not real work, because the only thing that really matters is making money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
AF July 4, 2013 at 05:42

@ oddsock

You’re completely right. Never forget the divorce industry is indeed an “industry”, and an exceptionally lucrative one at that.

Has anyone here ever read “Taken Into Custody” by Dr. Stephen Baskerville?

If not, and you’re at all interested in the state of the modern family and status of fathers, I can’t recommend it highly enough.

http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer July 4, 2013 at 06:44

This really offends me. A stupid chick crawling on a billiard table. Is nothing sacred?

Equinox Gym Under Fire Over ‘Sexist’ Billboard

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
oddsock July 4, 2013 at 06:59

Uncle Elmer

You are showing your age old bean. Tis a pool table. Billiard tables are from the era of pubs/bars that had spitoons and sawdust on the floor and women were not allowed in unless with a man. I once seen one many moons ago, even had a game but sadly the rules to me are as confusing as American football

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
joeb July 4, 2013 at 07:22

This is a great message this is also a great argument. I wish 12 years ago I could have gotten over the shame of having the kids taken and presented a better argument .
I ask for shared custody . The meaning varies from state to state and can be Totally ambiguous not what you asked for and even the opposite of what you asked for .
Some state and better yet some counties use ambiguous terms a choice of three situations none that would lead to A man having any rights to the children that would eliminate support .
As long as the Government treats support as an extension of welfare. A system you already support as a payroll tax ,The first of double and triple hits .They will dictate the terms in favor of the state not the child
If child support is an extension of welfare: and it is , then the debt is already paid in payroll tax .
The only decision that is real needed to by the courts is time shared with the children .
The Government is generating poverty as a jobs program . More poverty more Government jobs .
Poverty in this country would be reduced by 30% by giving fathers custody and we can dismantle a system of slavery non violently .
But , The truth is the government knows this and are willing to fight and force men into slavery . Most people would call that Tyrannically equal to King Georges rule .
The pivotal part of the argument is simply not being diverted or shamed into subservience .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Mr. J July 4, 2013 at 07:28

Families destroyed and no justice because of 50 years of men having their heads full of shit, being preoccupied with everything but their rights…..Now those rights are gone…..Whose fault?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6
Remo July 4, 2013 at 07:31

Child support gives the state enormous power over working men, it is not nor has it ever been about providing money for children. If it was, and this was a priority, then the spouse with the highest income would receive defacto custody. Such a solution takes the state out of the picture and removes the coercive sword of government. With the woman almost always getting custody the state ensures that the lower earning spouse will always have an excuse to need the “support” from the higher earning party. And since threats of violence are needed to enforce a man working against his own best interests this further creates the need for a massive government bureaucracy, lawyers, etc. Everyone in the system suddenly has a reason to work, creating a whole new niche for a very successful class of parasite. You nail the female vote because if you promise someone power and money they’ll vote for you, while at the same time greatly rewarding the worst traits in women and government on the whole.

It is a prescription for evil nothing else and trying to figure out why shared custody wouldn’t be considered cannot be done if you start with the premise that those who thought this up were trying to do good. The ones with the power to change the system know exactly what is happening and what would likely happen when they started this. They determined that enriching themselves and their cronies was more important than healthy families with less conflict.

Start with this premise: which of these solutions – shared custody or vicious child support enforcement – produces the most wealth for a few and is the most evil solution… then you have the answer as to why we have the system we have now.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
joeb July 4, 2013 at 08:10

Uncle elmer
That is a clear violation of all the rules of pool hall etiquette.
1- money breaks
2-no betting
3-winner takes next game
4-losers buys beer
5 -No filthy whores on the table .
6- Set drink on appropriate holders .
7-My hall, my rules .
They have no good sense .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
3DShooter July 4, 2013 at 08:15

@Welmer

It should never be overlooked in any discussion of C$, that there is a third party with a money interest involved – the State. If the state reduces the number and amounts of C$ awards then that is less money coming into state coffers. The state and these baby-momma’s both have their snouts buried deep in the CS trough and will squeal mightily if the trough run’s dry.

Your point is well made though, there is absolutely nothing wrong with men having more custody for ANY reason not the least of which is avoiding the C$ scam.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Thos July 4, 2013 at 08:34
geographybeefinalisthimself July 4, 2013 at 09:33

“So what’s stopping this? Basically, women on child support or welfare. Well, too bad for them. It would be better for the rest of us – including other women– if for once they didn’t get their way.”

I agree with you here, but I still think that if a woman gets a supermajority of the custody she should not be entitled to much, if any money from the father. If a father has no custody at all, he should not have to contribute anything to his children’s support.

I also do not see any woman not getting her way until the whole system collapses, and I hope it does collapse soon. The child support racket is yet another reason why men should go their own way.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader July 4, 2013 at 09:52

It needs restating that what is “wrong” with equal custody is the Female Imperativve does not like or want that. It is no secret that some number of women come to a point in their divorce where the punishment, and even torment, of the man they are divorcing becomes the primary goal of the exercise. Severing the connection he has with his children is part of that.

But the real reason, as Dalrock has demonstrated, is money. Child support payments are tax-free to the custodial parent. To have custody is to get free money that while putatively for the upkep of the children, need not be spent on them at all. Thus custody and divorce are the “neutron bomb” of the married woman – remove his presence from the house, while retaining access to his resources.

So it is all about revenge and money, not exactly a noble or even pretty motive. The Female Imperative isn’t necessarily pretty, either…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Prof. Woland July 4, 2013 at 13:25

A woman who is child free for 50% of her time cannot hide behind her children to collect alimony forever. With shared equal custody, the woman is able to resume a career where she left off. This means that within a relatively short time frame, she could and should be self supporting; not to mention paying half of the cost of the child she brought into the world. Of course women don’t like this but they don’t have to.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
oddsock July 4, 2013 at 13:27

From the great angryharry website.

“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel [Civil] war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the flower of American youth has been freely offered upon our country’s altar that the nation might live. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.”

“As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.” —

President Abraham Lincoln to his friend Colonel William F. Elkins (Letter dated November 21, 1864.)

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

Carl Sagan, ‘The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Tam the Bam July 4, 2013 at 13:46

“A stupid chick crawling on a billiard table. Is nothing sacred?”
It’s the Fourth of July, have you people learned nothing in the last 237 years? In these situations only a proper British royal can cope. Send for Prince Harry!
He’d be in there like a rat up a drain. Pot black, or sink the white?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Ethical July 4, 2013 at 13:48

Another well laid out and logical argument in a refreshing article. Feminists may own access to big media and may try to shut down any dissension with ridicule, but the comments section of just about every article they write shows the red pill is inoculating more and more men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
keyster July 4, 2013 at 14:43

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 22
realist July 4, 2013 at 14:48

“Equal custody would be radical and the result of some extreme circumstance, like the mother requesting it or the father contesting the court’s decision and winning (expensive and time consuming).”

In some places in Europe it works out just fine. It is not considered “extreme” at all. Sure, logistically it might be a bit hard, but in many cases it works well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
MRA July 4, 2013 at 16:21

I said that people will often accuse men of wanting custody so they don’t have to pay child support, but instead of saying “that’s not true,” I said “so what if it is?”

Or women do not want to lost custody so they do not lose the child support money.

That is the answers I give to people who came with that bullclrap

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Omnipitron July 4, 2013 at 16:29

A very good argument Mr. Price, but I think many are getting lost in the ‘details’ so to speak. Yes it is about money, yes it is about how the State wants to maintain the status quo, but the reality is much simpler than this. Namely…what do women LOSE with what has been proposed? I ask you all this, especially since I’m Canadian and the Stanley Cup has just been won, ever wonder why the Toronto Maple Leafs are such a woeful hockey team despite being the most profitable team in the NHL?

BECAUSE they are the most profitable team in the NHL, whether they produce or not is irrelevant. Simply put, winning and losing is paramount to pro sports teams. Winning doesn’t mean filling stadium seats and purchased concessions, however losing does indeed mean that chances are, no butts are filling your costly stadium and spending money on food, booze, and expensive merchandise. The reality, most pro teams focus on winning simply to avoid losing. However, this isn’t the case with the Toronto Maple Laffs…I mean Leafs. You could put any 6 guys on this forum (wouldn’t even matter if none of them could skate worth a damn much less play hockey), dress them up in the ‘sacred’ blue and white…and the Air Canada Centre would be filled to the brim EVERY NIGHT!!

Many Leaf’s fans clamor about how a more competitive product should exist in Toronto, however with the owners coffers are being filled to the brim, what incentive do they have to change? They lose nothing, let me say that again, THEY LOSE NOTHING, so as long as the Leafs faithful continue to blindly follow, the Maple Leafs can (and will) continue on their merry way with full pockets and grandiose (but empty) plans for the future.

At the end of the day, so long as women lose little to nothing while they wage their war against men, our arguments fall on deaf ears. Sure what Price has suggested makes perfect sense, but this would mean so many women would lose their cash cow. “What’s best for the children” is simply a smokescreen, used to further their own ends and cement at least their lifestyle while leaving their estranged husbands to the ever changing whims of fate.

I have no idea which post it was on this site, however a while ago someone had commented why it was that women in backwoods, 3rd world countries seemed to have a better bead on their market/marriage/fertility value than women in developed nations. The reason is just as I had stated above. In lesser-developed nations, a woman’s economic survival greatly depended on what sort of man she committed herself too. If she chose wrong, the consequences would be very serious indeed, possibly terminal. In developed nations what do we have?

How often do we see it gentlemen? A woman chooses career over matrimony, ‘Mr. Right Now’ over ‘Mr. Right’, or EPL’s Mr. Right and a good portion of the time her survival isn’t negatively affected too seriously. Namely put guys, what women LOSE when ignoring men and their motivations isn’t too severe compared to her 3rd world dwelling sister. This is exactly why Western Women are so ‘clueless’ and even why Price’s logical assertion will be completely ignored.

Until women lose big time and see that they could, they have no inclination to ever change their ways.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Grant July 4, 2013 at 17:22

Ethical wrote:

“Feminists may own access to big media and may try to shut down any dissension with ridicule, but the comments section of just about every article they write shows the red pill is inoculating more and more men.”

That is what gives me hope. Just a few short years ago you almost never saw any critical comments attached to those mainstream feminist articles. There was no push back whatsoever; men had been scared or shamed into gritting their teeth and taking it in silence. But now the opposing voices are getting so loud that the feminists have taken notice, and you can tell it is making them very nervous. I only discovered the manosphere myself because someone posted the acronym MGTOW in a comment on a YouTube video.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
continent July 4, 2013 at 21:33

Maryland feminist argued for years that the courts did not have authority to grant joint custody because the General Aesembly had not authorized it. After years of opposition it was passed and signed into law by the governor in 1986. In previous session it passed the House of Delegates but a feminists Senator had asked the Senate Judicial Proceedingd Committee Chair to vote so late that that full senate would not have time to vote on it before the legislative session ended.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Que ? July 4, 2013 at 21:41

OT:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23182523

Hikikomori: Why are so many Japanese men refusing to leave their rooms ? [By William Kremer and Claudia Hammond BBC World Service]

As many as a million young people in Japan are thought to remain holed up in their homes – sometimes for decades at a time. Why?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
3DShooter July 4, 2013 at 23:16

@Keyster

“The Family Court’s mission is to do what’s best for the child or children. Equal custody would not be a “stable environment” for a child, because he’d be constantly shuttled back and forth between homes. It’s best if they go with the mother. Mother’s tend to make sure the children eat right, clean house, do laundry and other basic domestic needs. Fathers will probably have a “bachelor pad”, with beer cans everywhere, food rotting in the refrigerator and bringing home strange women all the time.”

I certainly hope this was posted sarcastically, but on the off chance it wasn’t . . . The purpose of the the kangaroo family kourt is using children to extort money from parents. And as far as cleaning the house, cooking and other child care duties go, in the words of my youngest “why is you house always clean and smells good dad?”. And he thinks I am a chef, though I’m not even close to being that good (he’s a tweenie, but he knows a good meal when he gets one). Oh yes, their clothes are always laundered and packed neatly when they have to leave. Frankly, most women are slobs (speaking as one who was married to one for 24 years).

I truly hope your comment was sarcasm . . .

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
X July 5, 2013 at 01:27

THE INSTANT YOU ALLOW THESE POLITICAL SWINE AND COMMISSARS ANY SLIGHTEST AUTHORITY OVER YOU IS THE INSTANT YOU ACQUIESCE IN YOUR OWN ENSLAVEMENT AND SERVITUDE !

[KEEP YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARMS BROS, SUCH THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO SHOOT RIGHT BACK AT THESE DISGUSTING TYPES WHEN THEY DEEM TO SHOT AT YOU!]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm
LAS VEGAS (CN) – Henderson police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.
Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson, its Police Chief Jutta Chambers, Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley, and City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister, in Federal Court.
Henderson, pop. 257,000, is a suburb of Las Vegas.
The Mitchell family’s claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States. The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in citizens’ homes in times of peace without the consent of the owner.
“On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor’s residence,” the Mitchells say in the complaint.
It continues: “At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.
Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then “conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use.” (Waller is identified as a defendant in the body of the complaint, but not in the heading of it.)
The complaint continues: “Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants’ plan in his official report: ‘It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.’”
At a few minutes before noon, at least five defendant officers “arrayed themselves in front of plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s house and prepared to execute their plan,” the complaint states.
It continues: “The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.
“Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.
“Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.
“As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor.
“Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.
“Addressing plaintiff as ‘asshole’, officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to ‘crawl’ toward the officers.
“Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.
“Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple ‘pepperball’ rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain.” (Parentheses in complaint.)
Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint.
He says they also hurt his pet dog for no reason whatsoever: “Plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s pet, a female dog named ‘Sam,’ was cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door. Although the terrified animal posed no threat to officers, they gratuitously shot it with one or more pepperball rounds. The panicked animal howled in fear and pain and fled from the residence. Sam was subsequently left trapped outside in a fenced alcove without access to water, food, or shelter from the sun for much of the day, while temperatures outside soared to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.”
Anthony and his parents live in separate houses, close to one another on the same street. He claims that police treated his parents the same way.
“Meanwhile, starting at approximately 10:45 a.m., police officers entered the back yard of plaintiffs Michael Mitchell and Linda Mitchell’s residence at 362 Eveningside Avenue. The officers asked plaintiff Michael Mitchell if he would be willing to vacate his residence and accompany them to their ‘command center’ under the guise that the officers wanted Michael Mitchell’s assistance in negotiating the surrender of the neighboring suspect at 363 Eveningside Avenue. Plaintiff Michael Mitchell reluctantly agreed to follow the officers from his back yard to the HPD command center, which was approximately one quarter mile away,” the complaint states.
“When plaintiff Michael Mitchell arrived at the HPD command center, he was informed that the suspect was ‘not taking any calls’ and that plaintiff Michael Mitchell would not be permitted to call the suspect neighbor from his own phone. At that time, Mr. Mitchell realized that the request to accompany officers to the HPD command center was a tactic to remove him from his house. He waited approximately ten minutes at the HPD command center and was told he could not return to his home.
“Plaintiff Michael Mitchell then left HPD command center and walked down Mauve Street toward the exit of the neighborhood. After walking for less than five minutes, an HPD car pulled up next to him. He was told that his wife, Linda Mitchell, had ‘left the house’ and would meet him at the HPD command center. Michael Mitchell then walked back up Mauve Street to the HPD command center. He called his son, James Mitchell, to pick him up at the HPD command center. When plaintiff Michael Mitchell attempted to leave the HPD command center to meet James, he was arrested, handcuffed and placed in the back of a marked police car.
“Officers had no reasonable grounds to detain plaintiff Michael Mitchell, nor probable
cause to suspect him of committing any crime.
“At approximately 1:45 p.m., a group of officers entered the backyard of plaintiffs Michael Mitchell and Linda Mitchell’s residence at 362 Eveningside Avenue. They banged on the back door of the house and demanded that plaintiff Linda Mitchell open the door.
“Plaintiff Linda Mitchell complied and opened the door to her home. When she told officers that they could not enter her home without a warrant, the officers ignored her. One officer, defendant Doe 1, seized her by the arm, and other officers entered her home without permission.
“Defendant Doe 1 then forcibly pulled plaintiff Linda Mitchell out of her house.
“Another unidentified officer, defendant Doe 2, then seized plaintiff Linda Mitchell’s purse and began rummaging through it, without permission, consent, or a warrant.
“Defendant Doe 1 then escorted Linda Mitchell at a brisk pace through her yard and
up the hill toward the ‘Command Post’ while maintaining a firm grip on her upper arm. Plaintiff Linda Mitchell is physically frail and had difficulty breathing due to the heat and the swift pace. However, Doe 1 ignored her pleas to be released or to at least slow down, and refused to provide any explanation for why she was being treated in such a manner.
“In the meantime, the officers searched and occupied plaintiffs Michael Mitchell and
Linda Mitchell’s house. When plaintiff Linda Mitchell returned to her home, the cabinets and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about. Water had been consumed from their water dispenser. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar and mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor.”
Police took Anthony and Michael Mitchell to jail and booked them for obstructing an officer. They were jailed for at least nine hours before they bailed out, they say in the complaint. All criminals charged were dismissed with prejudice. They claim the defendants filed the baseless criminal charges “to provide cover for defendants’ wrongful actions, to frustrate and impede plaintiffs’ ability to seek relief for those actions, and to further intimidate and retaliate against plaintiffs.”
None of the officers were ever subjected to official discipline or even inquiry, the complaint states.
The Mitchells seek punitive damages for violations of the third, fourth and 14th Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Darryl X July 5, 2013 at 05:50

Time for an update of my twenty-nine points.

Feminism is the primary mechanism by which working men are enslaved, responsible men are impoverished, innocent men are imprisoned, infirm men are denied health care, potential scholars are denied educations, persecuted men are denied passports, free men are killed and children are denied their fathers

1/29 States, family courts and their officers, representatives of the Divorce Industry, child protective services case workers, feminists and others encourage mothers and other women to make false allegations of domestic violence, rape and child abuse against men and then divorce them

2/29 During the past forty-five years, more than forty-million children have been forcibly separated from more than twenty-five-million fathers, many instances rationalized by false allegations of domestic violence, rape and child abuse against the men

3/29 After fathers and children have been separated, states award custody to mothers, order fathers to pay child support exceeding cost of raising children by many multiples and that which fathers should pay by many multiples more and then exchange the child support and federal subsidies attached to laws like VAWA and CAPTA with mothers, women and feminists for votes and absolute power

4/29 Feminists use absolute power and lie that they have greater need for health care even though science and facts show otherwise (ie more women die and die earlier than men of cardiovascular disease and more women are victims of domestic violence than men even though more men die earlier of cardiovascular disease and more men are victims of domestic violence)

5/29 With those lies, women and feminists coerce legislators to appropriate more financial resources to their life-style choices, giving them more access to health care at the preclusion of access for men to much needed and critical health care resources

6/29 Legislators oblige women and feminists with budgets for health care which exceed that of men by many multiples (ie federal budget for women’s health exceeded that for men by a multiple of fifteen), stealing funds from men to pay for it and precluding men from access to needed health care

7/29 As a result of this dynamic, women live seven years longer than men and have higher standards of living

8/29 The US incarcerates more men per capita than almost any other country in the history of the world and women represent less than five-percent of inmates

9/29 Women are responsible for most domestic violence and child abuse and many other crimes but receive shorter sentences for the same crimes if they are sentenced at all

10/29 Many innocent men are in prison because they were accused falsely by women of crimes like rape and domestic violence

11/29 More than fifty-thousand men are in prison for child support arrears

12/29 In direct response to persecution by family courts and child support enforcement, associated false allegations, imposition and oppression, more than 250,000 fathers have committed suicide in the US during the past forty-five years

13/29 An additional 850,000 men have committed suicide and many of these instances likely concern persecution too or false allegations but reasons are undocumented

14/29 Almost none of these men suffer any chronic mental illness but were denied any benefits of living in society and suicide was their best if not only choice

15/29 Incidence of suicide among women is approximately one-quarter that among men and almost no instances are or ever have been in response to divorce, child support, family law or persecution by the government

16/29 In fact, imposition of family law, child support and the government upon women in any way throughout history of the US has never even come close to imposition upon men, including imprisonment, suspension of passports and driver licenses, and denial of public assistance

17/29 Because of child support and Title IX and other developments concerning restriction on due process rights for men, men have no incentive to pursue and are precluded from educations and the ratio of men to women at university presently approximates 2:3

18/29 Approximately ten-percent of children in public schools are prescribed drugs like methylphenidate for treatment of ADHD even though they suffer no mental illness but are just frightened of being bullied by their mothers and the government

19/29 More than two-thirds of these children are boys and the governments and the pharmaceutical industry pay teachers (almost all women) and mothers for referring these children to therapists who prescribe the drugs

20/29 Also because they don’t live as long and owe child support, men do not benefit from programs concerning public assistance to which they contributed disproportionately more than women and feminists

21/29 Approximately 95% of homeless are men and more than 50% of those in poverty are men

22/29 Adjusted for hazard, hours worked, tenure, education, child support, taxes and many other variables, men are paid considerably less than women

23/29 Women are paid more and consume approximately eighty-five-percent (85%) of resources as concluded by many marketing and government studies and men are sent to die in endless wars to satisfy that excessive consumption

24/29 The government wants women fighting in combat because it knows they can be more easily manipulated than men to kill their own citizens and even men in their own ranks (just look at how good the government has been at destroying families and fathers and children by paying mothers, other women and feminists to do it)

25/29 Men don’t live as long, are imprisoned at alarming incidence, are denied educations to improve themselves and are denied their right to due process so women and feminists who comprise a growing majority of the population and electorate vote themselves more entitlements with no responsibility and at the further expense of men and children

26/29 The feminist police state metastasizes, our political, legal, social and financial infrastructure falls apart, and the economy collapses but to create the illusion of recovery, the feminist police state promotes and executes the involuntary sacrifice of men and the transfer of their wealth to women and feminists

27/29 A growing number of men are denied passports with which to escape their persecutors

28/29 Women have always been the most privileged demographic in the US but now they are predatory, opportunistic and parasitic, enslaving men to their solipsism, chronic victimhood and lies

29/29 Feminism is a hate movement which can be stopped only by force

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Jensen July 5, 2013 at 08:36

“Money and Revenge”: exactly.

How I got half custody: said to my divorcing wife:

“You have a crack in your head the size of the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel (midtown NYC), one can fly a small airplane through it, so you are not getting full custody. If you continue to insist on full custody, I will spend all of the marital property fighting it, and will go a quarter of million dollars in debt. Regardless of outcome, I will make the money back, you will not.”

Bingo! Shared custody agreement within 36 hours.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Shlomo July 5, 2013 at 09:40

> Mr. J wrote: “Families destroyed and no justice because of 50 years of men having their heads full of shit, being preoccupied with everything but their rights…..Now those rights are gone…..Whose fault?”

Perfect question!

Guys complain about anti-male laws as if legislatures descend from Mars at night. Sorry, but men felt no need to unite and fight. Ergo, when feminists united and presented bills, nothing opposed them. So of COURSE misandric laws were passed .

There’s no mystery about it. If you fail to brush and floss, your teeth WILL rot.

So the guys who chose not to unite and fight got individually snared by the new laws. Then, and ONLY then, did they cry out for help.

Of course there was no help because too many guys, like themselves pre-snaring, were more interested in football and beer than protecting their families-kids-jobs.

Plus it’s not as if, 5 decades under feminism, guys didn’t know their rights were under attack. They knew. They just didn’t care enough to fight back.

They’re like a country where each guy thinks he can…and must… protect himself. And only himself. Such a nation of stand-alone males is no match for a united invading army of seasoned regulars. It’d be like living in New York where, instead of a police force, you had unarmed “neighborhood watch” groups with flashlights and whistles.

Guys, raised to never hit women (even when hit!) were easy targets for feminists. Plus any man who tried to fight back was met by manginas and white knights who hoped that by being traitors to other men they’d get a little “trim” from the “little ladies.”

Unless and until men unite-and-fight things will worsen.

It’s like the Civil War. McClellan was a great trainer and supplier. He just refused to fight. Finally Lincoln replaced him with Grant. Soldiers knew things were different when Ulysses kept pushing them through The Wilderness. McClellan would have stopped. Grant pressed on. However, the key thing is the soldiers pressed on, too, despite suffering horribly. Because they finally got that they’d suffer any way. They decided it was better to sacrifice to win than be killed by the status quo.

Men have yet to “get” that they will suffer when opposing feminism, but that fighting back will lead to ultimate victory. Doing nothing assures they will be picked off by a gradually worsening status quo. And ever-vaguer, ever-expanding definitions of crimes. What turn-of-the-century coal-miner ever thought his great-grandsons would lose a job because his “male stare” made a special snowflake feel “scared” at work?

The real questions are: WILL guys unite and fight? If/when they do, will it be too late?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Rumour July 5, 2013 at 11:42

The argument that men only want 50% to get our of child support is insidious because of the “only”, therefore insinuating that a father’s motivation is money and not to be able to have some semblance of a parental relationship with his children.

Those who designed, work in, support, or use the system all know that the system has no logical or moral leg to stand on. They know it. But they are not trying to be logical or moral; they are after power and money.

The ex used this same argument in a hearing with a referee. He looked over at me with disgust as if the veracity of her statement was demonstrated simply by her saying it. It was then I realized what kind of people I was dealing with … criminals.

There is no legitimate authority in the “family” court system; just force. No man has any moral obligation to obey. But they have our kids and they know we DO love them. The very fact that we continue to allow them to steal the fruit of our labor and show up for the pittance of time with our children that they grant us gives the lie to anyone who uses or accepts the argument that men only want to get out of child support.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Rumour July 5, 2013 at 11:44

@3D Shooter

“he’s a tweenie, but he knows a good meal when he gets one”

my son is about the same age … he enjoys coming over because he doesn’t have to make his own meals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
TFH July 5, 2013 at 11:47

. Just a few short years ago you almost never saw any critical comments attached to those mainstream feminist articles.

WE, the androsphere, have had a lot to do with that.

I will say that the URLs @ Urinals campaign scattered many thousands of red pills across the landscape. The rise in pushback against misandry in comment sections of media articles coincides with when the flyer campaign started on 1/1/2011. It had a small part to play.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
keyster July 5, 2013 at 12:18

I certainly hope this was posted sarcastically, but on the off chance it wasn’t . . .

I was expressing the psychology behind what one is against to change the system. There’s a bias toward favoring mothers that can’t be changed regardless of women now dominating the workforce. The man is expected to provide. It’s a Patriarchal concept feminists don’t seem to mind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
Thos July 5, 2013 at 13:23
oddsock July 5, 2013 at 15:33

Thos

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20130705/NEWS12/307050034/Joanna-Weatherford-break-in?sf14692686=1&nclick_check=1

Charles. I think I have found another real classy bint for you .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Kevin Thompson July 5, 2013 at 16:37
Digger July 6, 2013 at 19:16

@ Keyster
“The Family Court’s mission is to do what’s best for the child or children. Equal custody would not be a “stable environment” for a child……..
“I (am) expressing the psychology behind what one is against to change the system. There’s a bias toward favoring mothers……”

Joint custody only works if the mother agrees, is co-operative. If she is hostile it doesn’t, and the courts play it this way.

Children of both genders do better if the father/ men are present in their lives, at home, at school. Evidence is that girls do marginally better with a (good) male teacher. This is definitely so in primary schools for boys. Majority of female teachers of young boys are not sympathetic, boys require more effort to teach, to get their interest.

18/29 Approximately ten-percent of children in public schools are prescribed drugs like methylphenidate for treatment of ADHD even though they suffer no mental illness but are just frightened of being bullied by their mothers and the government

19/29 More than two-thirds of these children are boys and the governments and the pharmaceutical industry pay teachers (almost all women) and mothers for referring these children to therapists who prescribe the drugs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire July 6, 2013 at 21:03

females saying “you just don’t want to pay child support” when men say they want custody (i.e. want to take care of the kid) is already an admission of guilt by the female

it easily translates as “i know perfectly well that parenting is cheaper than child support but i want you to pay child support anyway so i can spend the extra money on myself”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire July 6, 2013 at 23:56

Shlomo

There’s no mystery about it. If you fail to brush and floss, your teeth WILL rot.
——————-
like that line

“Guys, raised to never hit women (even when hit!) were easy targets for feminists. Plus any man who tried to fight back was met by manginas and white knights who hoped that by being traitors to other men they’d get a little “trim” from the “little ladies.”

Unless and until men unite-and-fight things will worsen.”
—————————-
men will NEVER unite against females the way they have against us

the way it worked in the past was this:

white men were once much more violent than they are today

while the majority of this violence was always male on male there was always just enough of it going around to cramp the female’s style (a kind of ‘spillover violence’)

in particular sexual jealousy motivated hitting of females

the frequency of this (very individual and NON COLLECTIVE) behavior acted to discourage female collective action against them

getting hit once dis-emboldened fledgling grrrrll power preventing it from ever getting off the ground

it didn’t matter that it was individual men acting out of their own individual interests and never some united bloc of solidarity against females as most feminists believe
(in fact the whole ‘patriarchy’ narrative is, unsurprisingly, a projection of female collectivist ways)

but when white men became civilized this all started to change

this chock under the snowball on the hillside was removed

nowadays you get thrown in jail just for yelling at a female

why?

because violence against females is so rare nowadays that laws like vawa are practical enough to enforce
(in the past it would have been like handing out speeding tickets to everyone who drove a little over the limit. the paperwork would clog up the system)

my point is that solutions to this problem will have to be ‘out of the box’ and will not include men ‘uniting’ (as they were never united to begin with)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Tam the Bam July 7, 2013 at 07:21

white men were once much more violent than they are today
while the majority of this violence was always male on male there was always just enough of it going around to cramp the female’s style (a kind of ‘spillover violence’)
in particular sexual jealousy motivated hitting of females”

LOL true dat. I’m wearing a 1/1/2″ wide leather belt with a 3/8″ thick brass buckle. Just like my (coalminer) great-grandad. Difference is I just have it to keep my jeans up, don’t wear braces (suspenders, on your world) as well.
Took me many, many years to figure out why him and his mates would do that … and why their missuses were so .. non-bitchy.
Just assumed it was a generational/religious manners thing that we’ve let slip.
Now I know better!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Wyrd July 17, 2013 at 18:11

I am a 32 year old and just got out of a 5 year relationship that was nearing marriage. I am so glad I got out of that!

I saw some articles when I was distressed about the loss of my personal life and realized that I’d be screwed for the rest of my life if I allowed the government to be involved with my personal, intimate and sexual relationships.

Screw the system and the everyone that supports it. I’m never getting married, the current system sucks and if anyone doesn’t like it they can go jump in a lake like my WW2 veteran grandpa says.

I hope that someone who got screwed by the system takes heart knowing that, men and women are listening.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
doublea August 15, 2013 at 08:28

My fiance just lost in court. He wanted equal custody of his son who has a terminal illness and will probably not live more than5-7 years. He has never been a deadbeat dad, always paid child support and spousal support and exercised his visitation, even asking the mom if he could have then extra. The Judge denied the equal custody and even made my fiance pay half of his ex’s attorney fees saying the lawsuit was frivilous. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE. Fathers who love their children and want to be a part of their lives should NOT be penalized for all the deadbeat dads…especially fathers who have DYING children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bitch September 7, 2013 at 21:19

Sure. He can have custody. Oh, let me see though…that would mean he would have to pull his head out of his ass and see his kids since he’s married another woman and taking care of hers~ and just had another baby and adopting two of her kids.

Next.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
joislack September 16, 2013 at 07:39

The problem with getting your kids to avoid child support is becausethe desire to actively raise a child is driven by a dollar..if he didnt have time to be there for them because he was setting himself up to be financially stable that leaves a woman with the bulk of the inflexibility to make enough money to take care of herself…he didnt care about how hard it is for her to earn money because he feels that she gets government assistance which isnt always the case or that she has help which isnt true either..WOMEN STRUGGLE TO WEAR MANY HATS..while a lot of fathers put their job first because in theirmind tjey already feel we eant their money instead of our own..they feel that its our responsibility to keep the children but its a shared commitment and we dont always have their support as far ad time is concerned unless it comes down to their money but when a women needs help with him to get his kids or find someone he xan trust to get his kids we have to hear…I HAVE TO GO TO WORK…UH EXCUSE ME WE HAVE TO GO TO WORK TOO….so yes its a huge problem to expect someone to not be successful on account of you being successful and we sit back and get bread crumbs for A RIDICULOUS AMIUNT OF TIME SPENT WITH CHILDREN WE MAFE WITH SOMEONE…i understand that men dont get much help but that is because they are not always in the position to NEED HELP..tbey wont allow themselves to be committed to there children to the point whete tbey make little to no money…its not faur across the board…dont wsit until YOUR income is at risk to understand how someone else feels about creating THEIR OWN INCOME….RESPECT HER TIME BECAUSE UTS MONEY AND SHE WILL RESPECT YOURS…AND THIS IS COMING FROM A MOTHER EHO SHARES CHILDREN UNLESS TBEIR SAFETY IS AT RISK…SO MANY FATHERS I KNOW PERSONALLY REFUSE TO TAKE ON ATLEAST 50% OF THE TIME AND ENERGY IT TAKES TO BE THERE PHYSICALLY…..SERIOUSLY HOW.MANY MEN BABYSIT THEIR OWN KIDS INSTEAD OF HAVING THRM…HOW MANY MEN MAKE SURE THEY GO TO WORK AND SOCIALIZE THEN GET THE KIDS…THEY FIT THEIR KIDS IN WHILE WOMEN PLAN AROUND THEIR KIDS…IF TBEY WANT RIGHTS STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND EARN THEM BECAUSE THE LAST I CHECK YOU CANT GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING….EXCUSE THE TYPOS..WELL EDUCATED BUT SOME SIMPLETON WILL FOCUS ON SPELL CHECK INSTEAD OF THE MESSAGE…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Anonymous September 20, 2013 at 22:47

Your comments are absolutely heartless because you are not taking into consideration young children’s need for their mothers. I am a teacher and I witness every day how screwed up the kids are that are being raised by their fathers who did not want to pay child support. Fathers used to take into consideration the very strong psychological attachment young children have to their mother. A father today is more concerned about money than their children. My father thought that paying child support was absolutely the only responsible thing to do. Today fathers seem to be trying to get out of their obligations and in the process they are damaging our society by creating children that have reactive attachment disorder, because the strong bond that they once had with the mother is broken…the children survive but they do not thrive. Fathers like you are destroying women and their children’s lives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Anonymous September 24, 2013 at 06:02

Interesting role reversal commentary there anon. At least I hope that’s the case. The way it’s worded makes me suspicious though. Suspicious you may have not noticed the anti delinquency effect fathers have on their children.

I don’t recall where I saw the recent research. It was something to the effect of; there is evidence that children do just as well if the parents are separated. So long as they live in close proximity to each other and have something close to joint custody.

There is proof to support your position here price.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous October 25, 2013 at 17:45

The fact so many men hate women so much, as evidenced by most of the posts above, shows why children should at least not be given to THOSE men. How can men who think like this ever have an proper influence on a FEMALE child?

Also, maybe women wouldn’t have to rely on taking money from their partners if they got paid an appropriate amount for their work not dependent on their gender. No more child support, no more alimony! If sexual harassment doesn’t ruin any opportunity women have for going into male-dominated jobs and getting that extra money. Again, when this dismissed when it happens to men in female-dominated jobs, does not make it right as well. But just as people complain about feminists only looking out for women, you can’t just look out for men. It has to be equal rights for everyone! Because rather than trying to improve men’s lives, so everyone is happy with good, EQUAL rights, MRA’s would rather women suffer MORE. Men’s lives don’t improve, but at least women are suffering more, how does that really help men?!

I mean, is this all being done for the benefit of children (who btw come in female versions as well), or is this argument for the benefit of MEN, and how does it make it better than when women only care about themselves?! My point is simple. Child custody should be all about children and benefitting them. Period. Alimony should only exist for a short period of time until the person can support themselves. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be for women, I like how people are forgetting that many men suffered job losses since they tended to go into less stable careers like construction. So it could easily be a man who needs support.

I think plenty of women actually want equal custody. As some have mentioned, there is a system in place to make money off of this not happening. So rather than blaming women…. We could recognize that many of the leeches are in fact MEN (lawyers, judges, politicians) as well!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
Anonymous November 1, 2013 at 22:01

Here’s a complicated one:

A woman is 8 weeks pregnant. She found out at about 8 weeks. She was dating a man who was about 18 years older than him for about three years for sanity reasons mostly and because she felt that was the best she could get and went with the Universe’s guidances. He is in love with everything about her. She is not in love with him and spends her spare time unwittingly daydreaming about younger guys who she finds more attractive to the highest part of herself. This man is obsessed with her. It could be an unhealthy relationship in the future. He was sex from her more than food on his plate. She finds it repulsive. She has sex with him for 3 years. During part of the time, he gets her pregnant. Three months later (long story short), she aborts it, falls into depression and sickness, inherits Thyroid disease and mental breakdown. She continues dating him, and another year goes by and he gets her pregnant again. The second time was completely NONCONSENTUAL. She’s angry this time. The relationship has been going downhill for awhile since her first abortion. He still wants to marry her, and wants sex all the time from her and her baby with her. Is it unfair for this 25 year old who is hardly working part-time to ask for full Child Support until 18 under the circumstances described? Under her health conditions, it’s hardly manageable that she can even conceive a baby. Should she abort it again, or keep the baby and receive as much benefits as she can (so as long as she stays strong, healthy and persistent in her 9 months pregnancy). ??? Need advice. Thanks!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Anonymous November 17, 2013 at 23:01

Well said, annon 10/23. I believe 50/50 mandatory custody is a recipe for disaster. So, you believe that custody should basically be in the best interests of the parents then? That is exactly what it would be. Children still need to be kept in a schedule that is consistent with what they’re used to. One parent stays in the home after divorce, the kids stay in their own residence. Come on people. You’d expect a 12 year old (or 6 or 15, whatever the age) to suddenly up and have to be displaced half the time because of some mandatory custody order? That is hardly the best interest of a child.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Jennifer November 18, 2013 at 13:01

My soon to be ex stated that he wanted shared custody. From April 12 – sept. 13, 2013 he has come once a month for a couple hours to see his kids. Since sept. 13 he comes once a week for 2 hours. He said that arrangement we have now can remain the same and I can still make all the decisions. But he can claim them on income as on paper he will have them for six moths out of year. Also he will not have to pay the 1000 dollar a month child support for our kids. Tell me sir how fair is this to me or my kids. There are men out there that are pigs and only think of themselves. It disgust me that he thinks that little of his children. I am fighting him because my children are the world to me and deserve the very best from me no matter what the circumstance. It is a same that their father does not feel the same.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Clayton Craddock November 20, 2013 at 18:27

Well, you are certainly preaching to the choir on this topic. I REFUSED to pay child support. It would be wise for everyone reading this to do your best to starve the beast. It ain’t going away until we do:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/fathers/why-i-refuse-to-pay-child-support/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Stranger December 5, 2013 at 15:58

Child support is rarely used for it’s purposes. Half of the women I know are selfish and heartless. In fact I was involved in an affair with a woman who didn’t spend a dime of her child support money on her kids. She bought beer and cigarettes and even gave some to me. She stayed with me for 7 months and did not contribute a dime to her kids.

The ex husband is fighting for full custody now and they dismissed his child support payments until a decision is made.

Now Im on the verge of a divorce. I was being threatened with child support whenever my ex wife didn’t get her way. As if I cared because I’d take care of my children. But the system is in fact unfair.

Why should a honest, hardworking, and faithful man have to pay child support to a worthless, lazy, and unfaithful spouse? These men cant even afford to live because they are busting their asses paying child support that the women aren’t even using on the kids.

I experimented with what may happen if I paid child support. I gave my ex wife 200 dollars to buy my kids clothes, shoes, and school supplies. Plenty enough. My son got no shoes. My daughter no shoes. And barely no new clothes. They showed up to my house a few weeks later with shoes that their grandmother bought.

Some women surely deserve child support. Others don’t. Each case should be carefully considered. I nor any man should have to pay child support for an unfaithful spouse. Why should I have to come out of my pocket because my ex likes to come out of her panties? You mean I have to suffer twice over because my wife is a whore?

My mother was a hell of a woman. She busted her ass to take care of us and we were never without a meal. We experienced hard times growing up in the inner city. But she even worked 2 jobs sometimes to get us christmas clothes. My mother deserved child support. She got it for my one sister and my other sister’s father was deceased. However she didn’t get a dime from my dad. A true deadbeat. He wouldn’t get a job.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
HOLLANDER January 8, 2014 at 08:29

3-13-13
Dear Ken ,

It’s been more than a year since the letter of 2/12/12 and the apparent subsequent closing shortly thereafter of Glass Family Law. I understand he is now not promoting himself as uniquely blended in Psychology and Law but is at another firm doing probate work. Interestingly enough his resume at FMBK Law has claims of credentials I understand you believe are false based upon you direct written response from organizations Mr. Glass claims to be a member or associated with. Who does that reflect upon him or the diligence and propriety of the firm which now employs him?
It occurred to me that the complete contrast in our cases is almost deafening in the way it shouts hypocrisy, maleficent practices, and flat out perjuries within statements written under penalty of perjury and oral statements within hearings and written statements within submitted briefs screams of the manipulation of parents. This IMHO by attorney’s, the bench and minor’s councils within the family court system in CA at least. Given I was asked to waive my Fifth Amendment Rights in family court? And did so .The issuance of restraining orders on both of us within 3 weeks of my letter of the 12 of February under quote Justice Convey in your instance (“by the slimmest of margins”)one has to wonder at the coincidence…Right? Of course I was judged as having stalked by proxy because I hired a PI to prove my daughter was being housed with a felon (cultivating under a Federal Indictment),,, and the mother knew it.
Indeed in your instance you were falsely accused of molestation by the mother of your son seven ( 7) times and then of stalking (8th)when the child was too old to falsely accuse the father of abuse .I note your minors council never interviewed your child even though Sammy was ten (10) . In your case no abuse took place yet you were put on monitored visitation and visitation reduced to police station pick-ups permanently. It would seem logical Ken that at some time you become a safe parent. When is that after your four (4th) parenting class? Or after the third 3rd interview with the District Attorney’s Office. How about after the 8th sheriff or 13th DCFS investigations. What grade gives you a pass? Or is it like our friend who ponied up a Million dollars.
In my case I alleged that the mother was negligent or deliberately sub parenting in a manner as was provocative .Lj was taken to UCLA med center at three & half (3 ½) .and on morphine and intravenous feeding for 6 weeks after the neighbors call the police because they could hear her screaming. I had previously stated the mother did not have the skills or empathy and may have been suffering some mental distress.
Then two (2) years later numerous blood noses (daddy don’t put sunscreen on …its very sore) and Minors counsel accused me of overreacting etc. Yet my daughter now is showing a scar across her nose as her face has grown. Also when the symptoms that caused the first hospitalization reoccurred I took Lj to the Doctor without custodial privileges and was again accused of being alarmist yet the child’s diet was immediately changed by the mother and things improved.
Not forgetting being accused of 10K in support arrears that the judge threw out as falsified spreadsheet CSSD said I never owed anything. As well as the LCSW saying the Mothers accusation I yelled at our daughter and threw a phone at her was a work of fiction. Perhaps that is why we have a letter from the Bar suggesting we pursue “civil action”.
Given all this I am the one who is separated and monitored.
My point is you are not a molester as the DA stated yet you are punished and to the opposite I can prove the mother has been ,may still be or is a least using sub care of my child in a provocative manner where my child may be suffering yet I am punished,. Quote (LCFS,,‘ The Mother is not currently negligent”)
Really?
Finally we have our friend who only after paying a million dollars was taken of monitoring, all accusations and interference stopped and can see his children when he wants.
Here is the situation Given the violence in society killings in families, how much damage has been done to children and women, mothers Fathers parents and extended family by the propagation of this kind of duplicitous behavior within what seems to be a culture of deceit built around self-aggrandizing and financial self-serving that in fact amounts to fiscal abuse of children. What training skills and so on are lost in funneling the parent’s income to third party leeches using false or manipulated circumstances to serve their own interests?
In my case I spent more than $ 47,072 seeing my daughter for twelve ( 12) hours each month for the last year.
I kept my second residence in California, (rent) paid child support, Airfare from NY once a month air fare for a weekend from oversees and monitor costs including the monitors meals , go-cart rides, Taxis/transportation , lunches, entertainment, getting around, clothes, toys, books & games and adventures that I as her father are able to spend upon the daughter that I have raised!
What type of enhanced opportunities could a different approach have made?
If fathers are the enemy what will mothers become once a more robotic agenda is achieved .They will be phased out as well. Women should consider the short amount of time science is giving them to make the correct adjustments to this situation and police their own ranks from peers lawyers and malevolent individuals who care little for children, and will eventually throw mothers to the wayside in preference of the state. I mean do little girls really need to be born with a womb anymore?
The societal cost of the emotional and mental anguish to children and subsequent family killings from person caught up in this situations is surely not worth the salaries of a the firms and government agencies who benefit from this culture…>All mothers, children and Fathers are at risk and more so daily as those uneducated to the manner they will be manipulated and have their conflict orchestrated to the fiscal advantage of others.

My being asked to waive my 5th in family court because a stated somebody was a dead man walking, professionally speaking .It would seem I know what I’m doing as David J. Glass Ph.D. is now hobbled from abusing any more families and a judge who asks me if I wished merry Christmas to a Jewish Lawyer as a hateful gesture seems to be setting me up for something, especially since you had received notices mailed to your residence disclosing that David Glass would be on vacation during the “Christmas holidays”.
Yet you Ken are a longtime Jewish friend and my father spent weeks in a cattle car on his way to Stalag IVIII in Poland.
Was it not the Nazis who first separated children from parents?
And then when I request the transcript from that hearing, I pay for it I and then get not the original but a copy and my money order is handed back to me and no one will say who was given the original?
Lj says to me at age of 6 when I tell her mom loves her and will always be in her life
She state’s to me …“She’s going to live a lot; she’s never going to die?”
What is this child going to hold her mother responsible for and by what means will she do so?
The enabling of conflict by those who seek to gain financially is simply evil and no different from an arms dealer who supplies both sides .The killing of life be it on an emotional ,intellectual, financial, mental, spiritual and /a or physical level is a death and no different from actually using a mechanical device. Too knowingly do so to children whose spirit is pure is inherently foul.
To surmise IMHO the individuals and associated firms in our cases are only the tip of the iceberg.
Michael J Kretzmer. David J.Glass Ph.d, Lori Darakjian, Elise Greenberg of Carlson & Greenberg, Psychologist Angus Strachan Ph.d of Lund & Strachan ,FMBK Law , Kolodny & Anteau represent a blight upon what was once a noble profession .
Please get back to me with your thoughts, I am thinking about copying this letter and the letter of 2-12-2012 to the California Attorney General.
Thanks
Graham.
Ps I’ll be in LA for visitation. It snowed in NY this week.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jarred Donald DDS FAGD February 9, 2014 at 03:41

Just do this: marry them, make them stay home and raise the children. continue to educate yourself and build up your earning potential. If she wants to educate herself during this time, discourage it by busying your schedule, running out of town for every conference and CE opportunity you can, preferably with a sex buddy..:-)… do it so much she can’t do anything but raise the children, including my child from a former marriage. I fought custody for my child from a previous marriage and spend thousands of dollars and lost…oh well …tell her things like “I am hear to take care of you” and …”don’t worry about higher education…that is an elective for you at this point” and then divorce them right before mandatory alimony kicks in. I did that too.when we met my earning potential to now after the divorce increase by 400%, her’s decreased and remains stagnant at when she quite working a decade ago…as I made her raise the kids and work as an “employee” at my business, unpaid..think she’ll get a good referral if she puts my business down as a reference,,,haha…a year later after I openly cheated on her in front of my kiddos , I divorced her while remaining with my new lady, Lisa Ford, an employee where I worked..We have a great relationship now that she is divorced too. Hire a top gun attorney to take custody of my sons… yeah, just google, “men taking custody of child”, and based on where you live, click on the very first ad and place a huge retainer with whomever they are..totally discredit the wife and mother of your kiddos, lure the kids with bribes, junk food, like lavish vacations and cars when they can drive. A judge might rule no, just appeal it…the next district judge may rule no, and a experienced social worker of the court…who cares about the children and has interviewed them, recommends, no…just remain firm and … head for a trial…..with more social workers and fees, depositions and false witnesses that I can afford …this will work…tbc.. Dr Jarred Donald, DDS FAGD

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
chas February 24, 2014 at 08:58

Well gentle men. Its not ALWAYS the women who are the ass holes! I agree it happens all the time. I got separated. We had 3 boys, 2 where his. He told me if i didnt give him joint custody he would toss not only me out in the streets with nothing but the kids too. So i read and signed the paperwork. No alimony but he would pay full child support for 2 years till i got on my feet. Seemed fair, he got them 1 week i got them the next. Kids got both parents. We wouldnt introduce our kids to gf or bf for at least 6 months of dating, ok sounds good dont have people coming in and out of there lives for no reason.
Well he broke all of these agrements. took me to court couple months after i signed, got child support lowered to less then 1/2. Then had his new dying gf with my kids all the time 3 weeks after meeting her. (she seemed nice but not the point) he took my kids with him when she got blood transfusions and my son would passout. He isnt with that women anymore but on to now the 3rd in 5 years.(the 6 month thing didnt stick). I couldnt afford to live where we where so i had to move out of province. Leaving my 2 kids with him and taking my oldest with me (who i get no child support from his father and i have not gone after him for it). My 2 boys who are with there father are alone all the time and feed them selves, dress like welfare cases, i talk to them everyday and sometimes sit on skype with them all day on the weekend. Well he wine and dines his ladys and drives a new sports car. My kids ask me all the time if they can please come be with me, my 12 year old had me get him a lawyer to fight his father ( which i couldnt afford, ate k dinner and roman noodles for long time). I first talked to his father about him wanting to be with me and he told me they where his, like a trophy. My son ended saying he didnt want to come to the judge because his father bribed him. So we lost in court and his father had lied about the bribe to my son and now my son is devisted that he was tricked. Also i put in the paperwork that i wanted NO CHILD SUPPORT for my son! That we would each pay to take care of the child with us and pay to see the opposite. So we could see that child as much as we wanted or could afford. i paid him 245.00 for 2 years even though i couldn’t work. I stopped paying when i ran out of money. I told him i now make 9.00 an hour and he runs a company making over 160 thousand a year. That i had to take care of eric and keep food on his plate (he was your step son for 10 years). he can afford to take care of the boys with out my money and if he cant then send them to me i dont want his money, we would manage. He said no they are his and even if i cant afford child support he will make me pay to go to court and he will get money from me!
SO LETS RECAP: i played nice and i lost my boys, my home and my oldest son sees me cry all the time and never wants kids and has lost 2 fathers since he sees the evil in the second, who i let have my oldest every second week also with no child support, but because at the time they loved each other! My oldest son was sick of the names he called me and the way he was never home, he feult he was only there to take care of his 2 little brothers and stopped going, he told my son he was glad cuz he wanted to turn that room into a home gym. im going to loose a great majority of my income to someone who doesnt need it and my sons will be the one who suffers, the oldest will have to do with out even more and i wont be able to afford to see the other 2. Yah playing nice and sharing was the worst mistake i ever made! Men are just as evil as these women you talk about. Its not a man vs women thing…its just who is more evil and greedy! He told me later that 4 lawyers told him he would never get joint custody of the boys, would have to pay alimoney and full child support. Guess the joke was on me, didnt think a man should have to pay me alimony for having sex with me well we where together, full child support For 2 years seemed fair cuz id never had a job in 10 years since he said we couldnt afford daycare. Joint custody seemed fair cuz we both love our kids. But he doesnt know what love is, lust and possession is all he knows. Its very sad and i just wait for my babys to grow up now so this person will be out of my life forever.

Broken but still crawling forward

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Mom who loves her babies March 18, 2014 at 21:14

Hi Chas and gentlemen,

I understand your point of view. I’m there. To all the men who posted comment about their baby momma, you are right, there are 90 % of women who do all the things you’ve mention but there are the 10% like Chas and myself who aren’t like those women you mention. We care for our children and only wanted what’s best. I went three years without child support and didn’t even file at the time of my divorce because I wanted my children to have a strong bond with their father even when he didn’t want them. He makes well over 70 at the time, when I made less than 30 and I had a full time job and paid for Daycare while I work. He saw my two boys when he wanted and they were infants at the time (18 mons and 3 years old).. If he called and wanted to have the kids for a sleep over or to spend time with them, I allowed it not like those other women. Who hold the kids hostage as I call it. I embrace what ever relationship my two boys could get out of their father. When I got laid off, I finally did file for CS because welfare told me that I didn’t qualify for public assistance because it was their fathers responsibility to financial take care of them if I was unemployed. I even went as far as going to te social security office to file for assistance for my youngest son who was deaf, the bad thing about that was that they included my ex income saying that he made too much even though he didn’t pay a cent in CS. I was told I should go back to court to get sole custody of my deaf son or file CS. I already knew that even though he saw my two boys whenever and didn’t pay a cent, he wasn’t goin to give me sole custody of my one son. So I file like I was advise, then he came around and felt entitle to have to our children half the time. And to just undermind everything I had put in place for my two sons.. It went on for years the arguing, hardship, having me jump through hoops just because he doesn’t feel like he should do anything. Btw, he shops at a thrift store for my boys but buys high end brand name clothes for him and his wife.. Am I jealous, some would say that, but I’m jealous for my boys that their father would rather see his women look good and his kids look like their homeless.

I know what it’s like to want more for my kids. If I had a choice to undo the CS, I would ,just to save my sons the embarrassment their father puts them through. He doesn’t want them but will take them and will fight teeth and nail to get them just so he don’t have to pay CS. BTW he’s only paying 459 a month which isn’t a lot. It’s just enough for me to put gas in my car to take my sons to and from school 30 miles from my home when I have them. He made that decision by hisself without consulting me and I have 50/50 both legal and physical..

In all, men are just as bad as women when being spiteful. And all I wanted was for my two boys to have a bond with their father . Your probably wondering why I just don’t drop CS well it’s like this, if I do, then he stops coming around and my boys will be fatherless, if I keep it going, he at least will spend a little bit of time with them when he feels like it and I don’t spend his money on me like most baby momma’s do, I put what’s left at the end of the month away for my two boys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JB. April 3, 2014 at 07:32

Hold your horses (to those who speak against this). I have had 50–50 equal custody from day 1 and still pay child support to “mom” because I earn more/work harder/more ambitious. Women have gone a great job of declaring and convincing the public and legislators that “children suffer” if I don’t have my ex husband’s money. Are you kidding me? meanwhile, she moves a bf in with her and now I feel like I help to put a roof over his head. Additionally, on top of helping her to financially support the children, I must feed, clothe, entertain etc. them EQUAL to her and she YET she gets help…I don’t. AND I have to claim this income that I do NOT have while she DOESN”T on both federal and state income taxes. Can we say screwed up in more ways than one?!!? So I agree completely with the bloggers who have said that if the true goal was to avoid fatherlessness then why are the laws this way? I feel like I have to pay to have a relationship with my own children and I have equal expenses in raising them while she gets help from me and I don’t. By the way, her and the bf recently purchased a 3,000SF house complete with inground pool, on 2 acres, creating a windfall and much higher standard of living than as a married family prior to the divorce. I can’t say I haven’t been tempted to move on…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: