On the Run from Child Support

[junegemini]

Exactly! Besides the man is not the legal guardian so why should he have to pay child support? I mean a man should pay it because he wants to and it's his kid.The Law should not be able to force a man to pay for a child that was most likely an accident anyway.Most men ain't trying to knock a whore up when he in them guts.

you believe the shit you type nigga?!

 

[HustleThaDon]

No problem B some people know my story but their mom on some vindictive shit sent them to Ja. And without the right lawyer (expensive lawyer) I can't do sh!t. But at the end of the day their my responsibility and my father always made sure me and my brothers were taking care of and it's not their fault the bullshit me and their mom go through.

Oh ok I feel you. Hopefully yall can get that shit worked out so you can see ya seeds....

 

[Exell_doe]

Child support is bullshit. They should automatically give 50% custody to both parents and nobody cs. Then if one person refuses custody then they pay. Shit if you are to broke to take care of your kid half the time then they should give the custody to the parent that can.

 

[Crude_]

Child support is bullshit. They should automatically give 50% custody to both parents and nobody cs. Then if one person refuses custody then they pay. Shit if you are to broke to take care of your kid half the time then they should give the custody to the parent that can.

^^ Good point

I don't have any kids but I sit up see cats paying child support on kids they don't even get to see or spend time with. I think it should be a 50/50 thing as well. Let the kid alternate weeks with the mother and father. If one parent started slipping or not wanting to meet his or her full obligation then hit them with the cs. A child needs its mother and father, but in 90% of these cases the courts usually judge in favor of the mother. The mother usually gains primary or sole custody of the child and the father is forced to pay child support for his child that he sees only one day a week or maybe only a few days out of the month at most. Sometimes its less than that.

 

[Conscious__Nkechi]

^^ Good point

I don't have any kids but I sit up see cats paying child support on kids they don't even get to see or spend time with. I think it should be a 50/50 thing as well. Let the kid alternate weeks with the mother and father. If one parent started slipping or not wanting to meet his or her full obligation then hit them with the cs. A child needs its mother and father, but in 90% of these cases the courts usually judge in favor of the mother. The mother usually gains primary or sole custody of the child and the father is forced to pay child support for his child that he sees only one day a week or maybe only a few days out of the month at most. Sometimes its less than that.

Yes, the system is complete BS overall but no, it doesn't quite work like that.

 

[Crude_]

Yes, the system is complete BS overall but no, it doesn't quite work like that.

Yes, it does. I see it now as an adult and I also seen it as a child. Those courts favor on the side of the mother 90% of the time unless she has a state of mental illness, lengthy criminal background, is a threat to the child, or has some other factor that would prohibit her from taking care of the child to the best of her ability. I know some cats I grew up with that had good dads. I mean real stand up men that they hardly even knew, because the mom didn't get along with the father and she couldn't see past that bs so he could only see his child during the time set aside by the courts. Thats bs especially when you're trying to take care of your child and be in their life.

 

[The_Introvert]

On the run for child support? Sound like most of my uncles.....

 

[elzo69]

lol at being like Wesley SNipes in US Marshalls over child support. Niggas need to learn to pick the right one to nut in...

 

[Conscious__Nkechi]

Yes, it does. I see it now as an adult and I also seen it as a child. Those courts favor on the side of the mother 90% of the time unless she has a state of mental illness, lengthy criminal background, is a threat to the child, or has some other factor that would prohibit her from taking care of the child to the best of her ability. I know some cats I grew up with that had good dads. I mean real stand up men that they hardly even knew, because the mom didn't get along with the father and she couldn't see past that bs so he could only see his child during the time set aside by the courts. Thats bs especially when you're trying to take care of your child and be in their life.

Everything you see or hear isn't exactly so. I am just pointing out that every story has 3 sides: his, hers and the truth.
The court will not just simply grant sole custody to the mother which is how you are making it seem.
The thing is, many times we do see this and fail to know the entire back story because the fact of the matter is, many of these cases do involve a parent that allowed the other to gain sole custody by making no effort against the ruling.

Now, unless it can be proven that the parent is unfit, they usually will not deny some form of custody.
However, the parent in question must be present on a consistent basis for it to be considered. No person should expect to be granted joint custody if they have failed to be there for their child prior to any custody battle. It doesn't work like that.

The "father" in this case does have the power to affect any ruling but in some cases, many don't even bother.
They either a. Feel it to be pointless with this pre conceived notion in their mind that they will lose the "battle" or b. Do not care enough. If they don't show up or fight it then it becomes an uncontested trial and by default the mother is granted sole custody and that, I can completely understand and agree upon. It really is based on all moments leading up to being in court which itself isn't even necessary.

The first option is to settle out of court which really is in the best interest of both parties unless of course an agreement cannot be reached. A mediator is often beneficial because unfortunately many parents in a custody/support battle who are not able to communicate in a civil manner are selfish and not putting the child's best interest first.
Once it is taken to court, the final decision is no longer in your hands. You have now eliminated the possibility of settling this yourself and now it will be the judge who makes that final ruling based on your testimony and any evidence.

Of course many things are unjust but it isn't always that simple when it comes to a child. At the end of the day, the court doesn't care about you or I whatsoever.
It's like this, if a man doesn't pay a cent for his child, the court will still see the man as having a right to see his child.
The opposite also applies. If he solely supports that child financially, it still does not give him anymore rights as parenting isn't solely financial.

 

[Mr.LV]

for you young niggas bitches ain't shit and put more energy into getting money.

 

[Dupac]

right now...in america.....there's a chick who is calling around trying to collect bail money for her baby father who got locked up for not paying child support......

 

[gorilla]

Everything you see or hear isn't exactly so. I am just pointing out that every story has 3 sides: his, hers and the truth.

The court will not just simply grant sole custody to the mother which is how you are making it seem.

The thing is, many times we do see this and fail to know the entire back story because the fact of the matter is, many of these cases do involve a parent that allowed the other to gain sole custody by making no effort against the ruling.

Now, unless it can be proven that the parent is unfit, they usually will not deny some form of custody.

However, the parent in question must be present on a consistent basis for it to be considered. No person should expect to be granted joint custody if they have failed to be there for their child prior to any custody battle. It doesn't work like that.

The "father" in this case does have the power to affect any ruling but in some cases, many don't even bother.

They either a. Feel it to be pointless with this pre conceived notion in their mind that they will lose in court or b. Do not care enough. It really is based on all moments leading up to being in court which itself isn't even necessary. If they don't fight it then it becomes an uncontested trial and by default the mothers is granted sole custody.

This could be settled out of court which really is in the best interest of both parties unless of course an agreement cannot be reached.

Once it is taken to court, the final decision is no longer in your hands. You have now eliminated the possibility of settling this yourself and now it will be the judge who makes that final ruling based on your testimony and any evidence.

Sometimes things are unjust but it isn't always that simple when it comes to a child.

It's like this, if a man doesn't pay a cent for his child, the court will still see the man as having a right to see his child.

The opposite also applies. If he solely supports that child financially, it still does not give him anymore rights as parenting isn't solely financial.

I usually agree with cuz your one of the few posters that makes sense. On this one I gotta disagree tho. It's not a myth that the courts by default MOST of the time just give the mother custody and start stripping away/not enforcing the father's rights. It goes like this:

1. Judges don't like taking kids away from mommy. Period. Why is that? Well judges like to get reelected and thanks to pressure from women's groups, in particular, N.W.O(National Org for Women) they usually go overboard with defending women to the point where even where it's obvious and proven the woman is unfit they don't change custody or they drag their feet. The NWO even blogged about their fight against bills to make it law by default that 50/50 custody is awarded unless the situations call for otherwise. Why? Well they claim that it's another way for the father to intimidate and violate the woman's rights.

2. The local governments make money off of child support. I know firsthand because I have a $63 "administrative fee" and a $51 "service fee" out off each payment they take out of my check. But they don't provide any services to me, cuz I STAY up there filing complaints and having hearings about how I don't see my kids. To make matters worse, the courts are mostly staffed with women including the child support office. Now some of them have been very helpful and respectful, but a lot of them are scorned women themselves and before a word comes out of your mouth they look at you like and deadbeat and treat you as such. I've had complaints that I filed "disappear" on more than one occasion.

Bottom line is it's big business along with the fact that a powerful special interest group has stake in it. My judge is a woman who has a track record as a feminist. (She's gotten awards from several women's groups and does regular seminars) and I've watched her time and time again fuck over men in her court room. She's also the chief judge and it's circuit court.

And no, I haven't just sat by an let it happen, I STAY in court and yeah I've contacted everyone all the way up to the governors office.

 

[Crude_]

Everything you see or hear isn't exactly so. I am just pointing out that every story has 3 sides: his, hers and the truth.

The court will not just simply grant sole custody to the mother which is how you are making it seem.

The thing is, many times we do see this and fail to know the entire back story because the fact of the matter is, many of these cases do involve a parent that allowed the other to gain sole custody by making no effort against the ruling.

Now, unless it can be proven that the parent is unfit, they usually will not deny some form of custody.

However, the parent in question must be present in that child's life on a consistent basis for it to be considered. No person should expect to be granted joint custody if they have failed to be there for their child prior to any court hearings. It doesn't work like that.

The "father" in this case has the power to affect any ruling but in many cases, they don't even bother. They either a. Do not care enough or b. Feel it to be pointless with this pre conceived notion in their mind that they will lose in court. It really is based on all moments leading up to being in court which isn't even necessary.

This could be settled out of court which really is in the best interest of both parties unless of course an agreement cannot be reached. The reason why is because once you go to court, what you want the final judment to be kind of goes out the window. You have now eliminated the possibility of settling this yourself and now it will be the judge who makes that final ruling based on your testimony and any evidence.

Your very intelligent but you're being very naive to this. I know some guys involved in their kids lives. Never miss ball games always attending parent teacher meetings and whatever else. For whatever reasons the courts decided to favor the mother. The mother is the primary guardian while the father gets visitation and the occasional weekend. That is bs. In my opinion, I think the courts favor the moms because they see them as being more nurturing and a more natural care giver to the child than the father.

I've know one or two situations were the guy fought like hell for his kids and they were still awarded to the mother. The courts very rarely grant joint custody from what I've seen.

I do agree with you its better for both parties to come to an agreement independently and leave the courts and the legal system out of it. They usually tend to favor one over the other generally the mother in most cases.

Contrary to popular belief there are a lot of guys doing the right thing and being in those kids lifes and putting forth the effort but the legal system could give a damn about a fathers rights.

 

[Crude_]

I usually agree with cuz your one of the few posters that makes sense. On this one I gotta disagree tho. It's not a myth that the courts by default MOST of the time just give the mother custody and start stripping away/not enforcing the father's rights. It goes like this:

1. Judges don't like taking kids away from mommy. Period. Why is that? Well judges like to get reelected and thanks to pressure from women's groups, in particular, N.W.O(National Org for Women) they usually go overboard with defending women to the point where even where it's obvious and proven the woman is unfit they don't change custody or they drag their feet. The NWO even blogged about their fight against bills to make it law by default that 50/50 custody is awarded unless the situations call for otherwise. Why? Well they claim that it's another way for the father to intimidate and violate the woman's rights.

2. The local governments make money off of child support. I know firsthand because I have a $63 "administrative fee" and a $51 "service fee" out off each payment they take out of my check. But they don't provide any services to me, cuz I STAY up there filing complaints and having hearings about how I don't see my kids. To make matters worse, the courts are mostly staffed with women including the child support office. Now some of them have been very helpful and respectful, but a lot of them are scorned women themselves and before a word comes out of your mouth they look at you like and deadbeat and treat you as such. I've had complaints that I filed "disappear" on more than one occasion.

Bottom line is it's big business along with the fact that a powerful special interest group has stake in it. My judge is a woman who has a track record as a feminist. (She's gotten awards from several women's groups and does regular seminars) and I've watched her time and time again fuck over men in her court room. She's also the chief judge and it's circuit court.

And no, I haven't just sat by an let it happen, I STAY in court and yeah I've contacted everyone all the way up to the governors office.

Yep...... I generally agree with most of Marley's post, but I strongly disagree with her on this. In the majority of cases women are granted custody and the father is ordered to pay CS. Its simple as that.

 

[Conscious__Nkechi]

I usually agree with cuz your one of the few posters that makes sense. On this one I gotta disagree tho. It's not a myth that the courts by default MOST of the time just give the mother custody and start stripping away/not enforcing the father's rights. It goes like this:

1. Judges don't like taking kids away from mommy. Period. Why is that? Well judges like to get reelected and thanks to pressure from women's groups, in particular, N.W.O(National Org for Women) they usually go overboard with defending women to the point where even where it's obvious and proven the woman is unfit they don't change custody or they drag their feet. The NWO even blogged about their fight against bills to make it law by default that 50/50 custody is awarded unless the situations call for otherwise. Why? Well they claim that it's another way for the father to intimidate and violate the woman's rights.

2. The local governments make money off of child support. I know firsthand because I have a $63 "administrative fee" and a $51 "service fee" out off each payment they take out of my check. But they don't provide any services to me, cuz I STAY up there filing complaints and having hearings about how I don't see my kids. To make matters worse, the courts are mostly staffed with women including the child support office. Now some of them have been very helpful and respectful, but a lot of them are scorned women themselves and before a word comes out of your mouth they look at you like and deadbeat and treat you as such. I've had complaints that I filed "disappear" on more than one occasion.

Bottom line is it's big business along with the fact that a powerful special interest group has stake in it. My judge is a woman who has a track record as a feminist. (She's gotten awards from several women's groups and does regular seminars) and I've watched her time and time again fuck over men in her court room. She's also the chief judge and it's circuit court.

And no, I haven't just sat by an let it happen, I STAY in court and yeah I've contacted everyone all the way up to the governors office.

Why would you disagree though?
If you disagree that means that everything I said I applied as fact 100% of the time, which I did not.
If you disagree, you are denying reality as everything I have stated is truth as I have witnessed it for myself.
I never generalized or used blanket statements, I was very specific in saying "Some" This is the case some of the time, this is the other side of the spectrum.

I know how screwed up the system is and it hurts to know that there are females out here deliberately keeping fathers who WANT to be present and involved in their child's life away, especially with all these babies out here who don't know what it is to have a father who cares, or vice versa.

 

[Conscious__Nkechi]

Your very intelligent but you're being very naive to this. I know some guys involved in their kids lives. Never miss ball games always attending parent teacher meetings and whatever else. For whatever reasons the courts decided to favor the mother. The mother is the primary guardian while the father gets visitation and the occasional weekend. That is bs. In my opinion, I think the courts favor the moms because they see them as being more nurturing and a more natural care giver to the child than the father.

I've know one or two situations were the guy fought like hell for his kids and they were still awarded to the mother. The courts very rarely grant joint custody from what I've seen.

I do agree with you its better for both parties to come to an agreement independently and leave the courts and the legal system out of it. They usually tend to favor one over the other generally the mother in most cases.

Contrary to popular belief there are a lot of guys doing the right thing and being in those kids lifes and putting forth the effort but the legal system could give a damn about a fathers rights.

I don't understand how I am being naive considering I did not deny any of this actually happening.
I never once said you are incorrect about the injustice that so many fathers face, nope. I simply played the other side for a minute.
Usually I am on "your" side debating how unfair things are but I think many fail to see the other side of why things CAN and SOMETIMES turn out the way they do. That is all.

You are misunderstanding my stance.

 

[Crude_]

I don't understand how I am being naive considering I did not deny any of this actually happening.

I never once said you are incorrect about the injustice that so many fathers face, nope. I simply played the other side for a minute.

Usually I am on "your" side debating how unfair things are but I think many fail to see the other side of how things CAN and SOMETIMES turn out. That is all.

You are misunderstanding my stance.

Okay, understood but it seemed a lot like you thought that the courts generally ruled very fairly and right down the middle and gave the father just as much of a chance to have custody of the child as the mother when thats simply not the case in the majority of the situations.

 

[Conscious__Nkechi]

Yep...... I generally agree with most of Marley's post, but I strongly disagree with her on this. In the majority of cases women are granted custody and the father is ordered to pay CS. Its simple as that.

So you are saying that what I stated is never the case? That is what you are saying if you are disagreeing with what I have stated.

 

[Crude_]

So you are saying that what I stated is never the case? That is what you are saying if you are disagreeing with what I have stated.

What you are saying is the case sometimes, but way too many guys get a black eye for the actions of some. All guys are not deadbeats. The sooner the courts realize that the better off a lot of kids lives will be. Yes there are some guys that fit the mold you have described as being deadbeats but a lot of fellas are putting forth the effort but its not being recognized by the courts or society.

 

[Conscious__Nkechi]

Okay, understood but it seemed a lot like you thought that the courts generally ruled very fairly and right down the middle and gave the father just as much of a chance to have custody of the child as the mother when thats simply not the case in the majority of the situations.

WHOA.
No! Not at all.
Now things are getting twisted.
I know both sides of how things can go down, all I was doing was putting out there what CAN happen and for those fathers who do feel like giving up, there are things which can be done and work to your advantage but being that things are the way they are, it doesn't always work out the way it should. This I am quite familiar with.