Deadbeat Dads: Jail or Vasectomy

[Club'nBabySeals]

I think that when your born everyone gets their tube thingies tied until you reach a certain level of responsibility they untie them and you can procreate. There would be less welfare, no teen pregnancy, and you can regulate who can bear children so there would eventually be no idiots running around.

That'd be nice---but unfortunately medical professionals will not "tie tubes" until a woman reaches 24 years of age. Something about body development being hindered beforehand.

I'm not sure about the policy for male sterilization--or even if it's reversible.

I certainly wouldn't shed any tears if the government started proposing staunch penalties against Welfare recipients who continue to procreate whilst subsisting on my tax dollar. Perhaps a "We'll pay for the first one, but next time you're on your own" policy?


This judge has the right idea, though. You've got to stop the problem where it starts, so to speak.

 

[Sparx]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
It's my DREAM! I should have been a Chinese dictator, I'm tellin' ya.

Hey, first time I've agreed with you on anything...
Both things actualy, the tied tubes and the chinese dictator part

 

[Nickel]

Originally posted by lfquade
Well it might be the funniest thing you've heard, but thats the way its supposed to be, and trust me I know the POS's don't get jail time, Ive had an order since 99, and the father has paid hardly nothing and its a shame the state doesnt do more.

I know that's the way it's "supposed" to be, but it's not enforced. That's why it's "funny"

 

[lfquade]

Originally posted by Club'nBabySeals
That'd be nice---but unfortunately medical professionals will not "tie tubes" until a woman reaches 24 years of age. Something about body development being hindered beforehand.

I'm not sure about the policy for male sterilization--or even if it's reversible.

I certainly wouldn't shed any tears if the government started proposing staunch penalties against Welfare recipients who continue to procreate whilst subsisting on my tax dollar. Perhaps a "We'll pay for the first one, but next time you're on your own" policy?


This judge has the right idea, though. You've got to stop the problem where it starts, so to speak.

Where did you get your info about not tying tubes until 24 years of age? Just curious?

 

[lfquade]

Originally posted by Nickel
I know that's the way it's "supposed" to be, but it's not enforced. That's why it's "funny"

Oh ok. I thought you meant what I wrote was funny, yea I know they don't enforce it. Sucks.

 

[Club'nBabySeals]

Where did you get your info about not tying tubes until 24 years of age? Just curious?

When I asked my doc about getting it done, that's what he told me...much to my chagrin.

 

[lfquade]

Originally posted by Club'nBabySeals
When I asked my doc about getting it done, that's what he told me...much to my chagrin.

Oh ok, I had my tubes tied at 23 y/o, and my dr tried to talk me out of it but didn't happen, I feel that if you are 18 and over you have the choice of doing it or not doing it and I don't think a dr should be able to say no, but the world doesn't work that way.

 

[pixiegirl]

Originally posted by Nickel
That is the funniest thing I've heard all day

My son's father hasn't even been close to going to jail, and he's only paid CS maybe three months of the entire 2 years we've had the order. They like to give the POS's the benefit of the doubt. A friend of mine's father went to jail the day after he (the friend) turned 18, for non-payment of support for 18 years. So basically, they'll give them countless chances before sending them to jail. At least that's the way it is in Charles County.

Exactly. Same thing with my ex. He is just under $10k in back CS. The Child Support Enforcement Office is a JOKE!

Funny thing is when I told him I was pregnant with B he had the nerve to say to me "I thought you were smarter then that. I thought you learned your lesson the first time." I guess he thought (half of his problem; he thinks he's smarter then he is) he was taking a good blow at me and didn't expect me to return with "I am smarter then that and I did learn my lesson the first time. I didn't have any more kids with you did I?" He stomped off like a spoiled brat.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Sparx
Both things actualy, the tied tubes and the chinese dictator part

 

[pixiegirl]

Originally posted by lfquade
Oh ok, I had my tubes tied at 23 y/o, and my dr tried to talk me out of it but didn't happen, I feel that if you are 18 and over you have the choice of doing it or not doing it and I don't think a dr should be able to say no, but the world doesn't work that way.

You have enough kids to have it done. I asked my dr at 22 after my first. She initially told me 28 or 3 kids. I guess things have changed some in the past couple years. I'll be 25 when I have this one and she's going to do it.

 

[mojorisin]

Originally posted by jazz lady
NEWPORT, Ky. - For some men showing up in court for being habitually behind in child support, their choice is jail or a vasectomy.

Family Court Judge D. Michael "Mickey" Foellger has given the option to a few men who had multiple children and were tens of thousands of dollars behind on their child support.

Foellger said he considers it an effective way to get his message across - that having children is a responsibility.

"If these children are in poverty because these guys are not paying their child support, I have no qualms about it," he said of his policy. "I don't think these men deserve to have any more children."

I hope they do sterilization for deadbeat moms, too.

I agree with the article, but something has to be done about the judicial system. Most of the men I have seen go to court for a divorce get slaughtered. Some of them barely have enough money to live off of after they get done with all of their payments. The system is set to favor the women.

 

[Club'nBabySeals]

I agree with the article, but something has to be done about the judicial system. Most of the men I have seen go to court for a divorce get slaughtered. Some of them barely have enough money to live off of after they get done with all of their payments. The system is set to favor the women.

Agreed.


The bottom line that many people (especially mom's) fail to realize is that the purpose of child support is NOT so that Dad will be forced to provide full financial care for a child----Dad is supposed to provide HALF, and Mom is supposed to take care of the other half.

For example, there is a man with whom I work who pays $750 a month in child support for ONE KID!!! He rents a trailer and drives a beat up old Pontiac because he is a responsible sort who would do anything to make sure that his daughter is taken care of (and thusly was butchered in court and agreed to pay the outrageous amount without so much as arguing it---PLUS the daughter is on his Health insurance plan---and ex-wife gets to claim her on taxes).....meanwhile, his ex-wife and daughter live in a 300K house and take vacations almost every month. She is a TEACHER. How can she afford to do this? Well, you could, too, if you had an extra $750 a month coming in. There is no way you can convince me that an 8 year old eats $1,400 of food per month, or goes through $1,400 worth of clothing every 30 days.



There should be a pretty simple mathmatical method to determining what each parent should contribute to Child Support. If it costs $400/month to support a child, then each parent should be responsible for $200. I wonder why such a simple fix hasn't been passed through the legislature.

 

[Tina2001aniT]

Originally posted by lfquade
I thought here in Md when you violate you CS order jail time is close to 6 months? Or thats what I've heard while in CS court.

As has been previously noted---just doesn't work that way.....my ex hasn't paid for almost 4 years now and the only thing that has happened to him is they took his drivers license away two years ago, then we went to court and the POS said "how am I supposed to get to work to pay my child support if I don't have a license?" and the court agreed and gave it right back to him...no $$ for the baby, NOTHING, just gave it back.......now 2 yrs later still can't get a penny. Reminds me of when I was like 16 and mom told me to save for a car and I asked how was I supposed to work without one and she was like find a way...wow! mom is tougher than the judge & at 16 I figured it out and bought one, I must be smarter than the courts!!!

 

[lfquade]

Originally posted by Tina2001aniT
As has been previously noted---just doesn't work that way.....my ex hasn't paid for almost 4 years now and the only thing that has happened to him is they took his drivers license away two years ago, then we went to court and the POS said "how am I supposed to get to work to pay my child support if I don't have a license?" and the court agreed and gave it right back to him...no $$ for the baby, NOTHING, just gave it back.......now 2 yrs later still can't get a penny. Reminds me of when I was like 16 and mom told me to save for a car and I asked how was I supposed to work without one and she was like find a way...wow! mom is tougher than the judge & at 16 I figured it out and bought one, I must be smarter than the courts!!!

I know it doesn't work that way either but that is the law thats not enforced. I've had an order since 99 and recently the CS he owed would come from his taxes, I'd get everything he got back. Doesn't any of these other POS's have a job and get taxes taken out and why arent you getting there tax return, just a question.

 

[Nickel]

Originally posted by Club'nBabySeals
Agreed.

Puh-lease, do you have kids? Let's review some of your key points...

The bottom line that many people (especially mom's) fail to realize is that the purpose of child support is NOT so that Dad will be forced to provide full financial care for a child----Dad is supposed to provide HALF, and Mom is supposed to take care of the other half.

9 times out of 10, Dad is only required to provide about 30% of the money it takes to "maintain" a child. Ask anyone who receives child support who actually works for a living, although that child is in their home, they are usually paying more out of pocket than the absent parent.

For example, there is a man with whom I work who pays $750 a month in child support for ONE KID!!! He rents a trailer and drives a beat up old Pontiac because he is a responsible sort who would do anything to make sure that his daughter is taken care of (and thusly was butchered in court and agreed to pay the outrageous amount without so much as arguing it---PLUS the daughter is on his Health insurance plan---and ex-wife gets to claim her on taxes).....meanwhile, his ex-wife and daughter live in a 300K house and take vacations almost every month. She is a TEACHER. How can she afford to do this? Well, you could, too, if you had an extra $750 a month coming in. There is no way you can convince me that an 8 year old eats $1,400 of food per month, or goes through $1,400 worth of clothing every 30 days.

Child support is for the following things...to help with the mortgage for the home the absent parent's child lives in; to help pay the car payment and gas money,for the car that takes their child to school, friend's houses, etc; to put food in their mouths, clothes on their backs, field trips, anything it takes to make that child happy. Secondly, most of the time the absent parent is required to carry health insurance for that child. That's just the way it goes. You don't have to miss a day of work when the kid is sick, you might as well have a little extra taken out of your paycheck to provide medical coverage.

There should be a pretty simple mathmatical method to determining what each parent should contribute to Child Support. If it costs $400/month to support a child, then each parent should be responsible for $200. I wonder why such a simple fix hasn't been passed through the legislature.

There is a mathematical method to determining the amount of support. This is used in every instance. And just for argument's sake, it costs way more than $400 a month to support a child. My son's day care is $500 by itself, not to mention food, clothing, etc. I'm sure you were just using that number as an example, but thought I'd clarify just in case. So while your buddy may think he's being jipped, he's not being treated any less fairly than anyone else. If he doesn't like it, he has the right to contest it, otherwise he should STFU and do the best he can to support his child.

I've said it many times....child support is about the CHILD, not the mother or the father. If you don't wanna pay it, don't have kids, it's fairly simple.

 

[vraiblonde]

There's actually a formula they use to determine child support.
http://www.marylandlawonline.com/cal/MDCSC.html

 

[Nickel]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
There's actually a formula they use to determine child support.
http://www.marylandlawonline.com/cal/MDCSC.html

I beat ya to it

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Nickel
I beat ya to it

Oops - sorry. The ol' eyes just aren't what they used to be.

 

[lfquade]

Originally posted by Nickel
Puh-lease, do you have kids? Let's review some of your key points...



9 times out of 10, Dad is only required to provide about 30% of the money it takes to "maintain" a child. Ask anyone who receives child support who actually works for a living, although that child is in their home, they are usually paying more out of pocket than the absent parent.



Child support is for the following things...to help with the mortgage for the home the absent parent's child lives in; to help pay the car payment and gas money,for the car that takes their child to school, friend's houses, etc; to put food in their mouths, clothes on their backs, field trips, anything it takes to make that child happy. Secondly, most of the time the absent parent is required to carry health insurance for that child. That's just the way it goes. You don't have to miss a day of work when the kid is sick, you might as well have a little extra taken out of your paycheck to provide medical coverage.



There is a mathematical method to determining the amount of support. This is used in every instance. And just for argument's sake, it costs way more than $400 a month to support a child. My son's day care is $500 by itself, not to mention food, clothing, etc. I'm sure you were just using that number as an example, but thought I'd clarify just in case. So while your buddy may think he's being jipped, he's not being treated any less fairly than anyone else. If he doesn't like it, he has the right to contest it, otherwise he should STFU and do the best he can to support his child.

I've said it many times....child support is about the CHILD, not the mother or the father. If you don't wanna pay it, don't have kids, it's fairly simple.

 

[Club'nBabySeals]

Puh-lease, do you have kids? Let's review some of your key points...

No, I don't---and thank goodness for that!

9 times out of 10, Dad is only required to provide about 30% of the money it takes to "maintain" a child. Ask anyone who receives child support who actually works for a living, although that child is in their home, they are usually paying more out of pocket than the absent parent.

You undoubtedly have a lot more experience with this than I do, but I also came from the other end of the spectrum---Lived with Mom for 18 years, while Dad paid CS...and although the expenses went up a bit as I got older, I can clearly remember my mother (whom I love and respect; don't get me wrong) dipping into the monthly CS fund for all the various odds and ends that go into raising a kid in the early 80's...and then having enough left over from the fund (all of which was contributed by my father) to go out and buy herself a set of D-cups, or a new purse, or what have you. I'm sure a lot of things have changed since then (I certainly HOPE they have), but that sort of thing tends to flavor one's view of things.

Child support is for the following things...to help with the mortgage for the home the absent parent's child lives in; to help pay the car payment and gas money,for the car that takes their child to school, friend's houses, etc; to put food in their mouths, clothes on their backs, field trips, anything it takes to make that child happy. Secondly, most of the time the absent parent is required to carry health insurance for that child. That's just the way it goes. You don't have to miss a day of work when the kid is sick, you might as well have a little extra taken out of your paycheck to provide medical coverage.

My main point in bringing up the aforementioned example was the difference in lifestyle achievable by both the mother and the father. I wholeheartedly agree with you that no parent should EVER have any qualms about providing the necessities for their child (although unfortunately this is apparently not the case in many situations). I do, however, think that when two parents who earn approximately the same income are supporting a mutual child---and one is living like a pauper while the other is galavanting to Disneyworld every 6 months---there is some flaw in the system.

There is a mathematical method to determining the amount of support. This is used in every instance. And just for argument's sake, it costs way more than $400 a month to support a child. My son's day care is $500 by itself, not to mention food, clothing, etc. I'm sure you were just using that number as an example, but thought I'd clarify just in case. So while your buddy may think he's being jipped, he's not being treated any less fairly than anyone else. If he doesn't like it, he has the right to contest it, otherwise he should STFU and do the best he can to support his child.

I was not aware--Thank you for the link! I input my information and that's enough to tell me that I never EVER want to pay child support. I suppose the best sterilization is a kick in the wallet.

I've said it many times....child support is about the CHILD, not the mother or the father. If you don't wanna pay it, don't have kids, it's fairly simple.

It IS about the child---but Mom and Dad have to live, too.