Child support laws run amok

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Re: Joe Vandusen being layed off according to the various news reports...

Joseph K Vandusen wasn't layed off. He was fired for chronic unexcused absences. He also chose not to go the hearing re:employment and was receiving unemployment for no good reason:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...T2Sh4hdbW2vIIOxmj-owHQ&bvm=bv.117868183,d.eWE

This in addition to not getting back to his wife about divorce, he probably has been receiving benefits from the state for her and children.

 

[Rhea]

Interesting twist in the comments: NO idea if it's true but it would explain a lot...

Just like you to blame the man every single time even when it is clear that he is the victim of a deeply sexist system that perpetuates female privilege.
He should be suing her for child support for his children on the grounds of the 14th amendment.

LOL! I didn't blame anyone. I clearly said "no idea if this is true" but that if it were, it would explain a lot [about the absurdity of the situation of a man being asked to pay support to a wife estranged for SO LONG]

So - insult fail. It doesn't apply to me.
I think the law is stupid if it says a person has to pay support if DNA proves the child is not a biological descendant. (UNLESS there is paperwork to demonstrate that the two chose a fertility route together on purpose OR adopted together, in which case, of _course_ he is the "father" even if the DNA doesn't match)

 

[RavenSky]

Just like you to blame the man every single time even when it is clear that he is the victim of a deeply sexist system that perpetuates female privilege.
He should be suing her for child support for his children on the grounds of the 14th amendment.

LOL! I didn't blame anyone. I clearly said "no idea if this is true" but that if it were, it would explain a lot [about the absurdity of the situation of a man being asked to pay support to a wife estranged for SO LONG]

So - insult fail. It doesn't apply to me.
I think the law is stupid if it says a person has to pay support if DNA proves the child is not a biological descendant. (UNLESS there is paperwork to demonstrate that the two chose a fertility route together on purpose OR adopted together, in which case, of _course_ he is the "father" even if the DNA doesn't match)

And that is exactly what he has been advised (by a lawyer) he needs to do in order to be out from under the child support order - have a paternity test done and file for divorce. He says he doesn't have the money to do those two things.

It sounds like he has been in touch with his estranged wife, though. Other articles say they communicate periodically via telephone and Facebook. It sounds like neither one of them could be bothered to file the divorce papers before this, as opposed to either of them dodging it.

I think you and I (and almost every one else) agrees that if he is not the biological father (and there are no extenuating circumstances like artificial insemination or adoption), then he shouldn't have to pay child support. So much for the feminist conspiracy

BUT - and this is an important point our resident MRA's have ignored - there has not yet been a paternity test. Our resident MRA's immediately assume that the man is telling the complete truth that he hasn't been bonking his wife for the past 10 years. Now I do actually believe the man on this point, too, but why should the state? Since it is the state (taxpayers) that will be helping to support the child in the absence of a father, why should the state assume without evidence that the woman's husband is telling the truth?

Instead of immediately attacking the woman (and women in general), perhaps our resident MRA's should be arguing for free DNA testing for men in this situation. JayJay suggested it, but got soundly shot down in favor of more anti-women rhetoric.

What's unfair that it costs the person attorney's fees to have it corrected. That should be a matter of notification, providing some documentation that the couple has been separated, and volunteering to paternity test. Let the wife pay the legal fees if she wants to challenge it.

Well that would be better than situation now, but in modern world there is no good reason to assume the husband is the father. The burden of proof should be on the mother/state, not on the husband to prove his innocence.

BTW Derec, here is just one problem with your insistence that women should have to compel men to take DNA tests to prove who is the biological father - are you really suggesting that a woman should have the power to compel a man to give up his bodily fluid? :wow: What about personal integrity, control over one's own body?

Never mind the million other reasons your punitive anti-women suggestion would not work; are you really suggesting that women be given so much power over men?

 

[Jarhyn]

These threads are always so tiresome, where the conversation always spins out into the boonies.

First you have some manner of bullshitter claiming that the government shouldn't be forcing a guy to support a kid he doesn't want to be responsible fo, perhaps that he never consented to be responsible for, and can't afford at any rate. It's a valid point right up until they fail to discuss how the hell the kid is supposed to become anything other than a mentally damaged criminal when they have the disadvantage of a single parent who is always at work; sure, it CAN happen that they end up fine, but it is far less likely.

Then you have another manner of bullshitter who comes in and tries to blame him for it, as if actions (any actions) OUGHT to have negative consequences artificially thrust upon them. They try to blame the man for all manner of crap to put the guy in hoc, to ascribe some manner of debt to some action he has made. Sure he has a debt, but it is no different than the debt that we all have for letting this shit happen in the first place by treating reproduction as some manner of *right*, completely ignoring all the reasons why this is a really shitty thing to do. Such reasons include, but are not limited to: when he cannot pay, when paying harms not just him but others who now rely on him, and when he did not consent to the creation of the child. And let's not forget that if he CANT pay or if he isn't expected to pay there's still some kid out there getting shorted on their future.

Instead of discussion of what taxes and social safety net should exist for ALL kids, and thus all such unwilling parents, we get mired down into some bullshit blame game that tends to completely ignore the well-being of kids, often in the guise of pretending to care.

How about this: tax everyone, and give every parent the money to support their kids, and if they don't support their kids with the entirety of that money, take the kids and place them with families that can take care of them by some means of selection or another*.

*my first thought is to do it like jury duty, but there are complications involved there. It's definitely something that deserves thought.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anything to blame the guy.

You can serve by publication if you can't serve in person. Thus this argument is false.

No. It is not false. I've seen two divorces take several years because of an unwilling party.

There simply isn't enough information and back story here. What we do know is that sometimes laws are created that make 100% perfect sense in the sane world, but lots of people live off on the fringes of sanity making the laws become 'unfair'.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just like you to blame the man every single time even when it is clear that he is the victim of a deeply sexist system that perpetuates female privilege.

It isn't a deeply sexist system. The law makes perfect sense. The lawmakers in Des Moines didn't anticipate that there would be situations where a guy would be estranged from his wife for 16 fucking years!

 

[laughing dog]

These threads are always so tiresome, where the conversation always spins out into the boonies.

First you have some manner of bullshitter claiming that the government shouldn't be forcing a guy to support a kid he doesn't want to be responsible fo, perhaps that he never consented to be responsible for, and can't afford at any rate. It's a valid point right up until they fail to discuss how the hell the kid is supposed to become anything other than a mentally damaged criminal when they have the disadvantage of a single parent who is always at work; sure, it CAN happen that they end up fine, but it is far less likely.

Then you have another manner of bullshitter who comes in and tries to blame him for it, as if actions (any actions) OUGHT to have negative consequences artificially thrust upon them. They try to blame the man for all manner of crap to put the guy in hoc, to ascribe some manner of debt to some action he has made. Sure he has a debt, but it is no different than the debt that we all have for letting this shit happen in the first place by treating reproduction as some manner of *right*, completely ignoring all the reasons why this is a really shitty thing to do. Such reasons include, but are not limited to: when he cannot pay, when paying harms not just him but others who now rely on him, and when he did not consent to the creation of the child. And let's not forget that if he CANT pay or if he isn't expected to pay there's still some kid out there getting shorted on their future.

Instead of discussion of what taxes and social safety net should exist for ALL kids, and thus all such unwilling parents, we get mired down into some bullshit blame game that tends to completely ignore the well-being of kids, often in the guise of pretending to care.

How about this: tax everyone, and give every parent the money to support their kids, and if they don't support their kids with the entirety of that money, take the kids and place them with families that can take care of them by some means of selection or another*.

You left out the straw man bullshitter, and the "utopian" bullshitter who insists on solutions that are not in the realm of practicality.

 

[ronburgundy]

Instead of discussion of what taxes and social safety net should exist for ALL kids, and thus all such unwilling parents, we get mired down into some bullshit blame game that tends to completely ignore the well-being of kids, often in the guise of pretending to care.

How about this: tax everyone, and give every parent the money to support their kids, and if they don't support their kids with the entirety of that money, take the kids and place them with families that can take care of them by some means of selection or another*.

You left out the straw man bullshitter, and the "utopian" bullshitter who insists on solutions that are not in the realm of practicality.

His proposal doesn't sound that far off from what exists under Democratic Socialism in some European countries. In such a system, there winds up being little need for kids to be taken from parents that don't use the given resources for the kids. The nature of the system leaves little room for bullshit excuses by or on behalf of the parents as to why they are not providing for their kids needs. Without such excuses, any kid whose needs are being met is being criminally abused by their guardians. Thus, there is little room to game the system.

 

[laughing dog]

You left out the straw man bullshitter, and the "utopian" bullshitter who insists on solutions that are not in the realm of practicality.

His proposal doesn't sound that far off from what exists under Democratic Socialism in some European countries.

How far away is USA from that? I seriously doubt we would get there within the next 30 years at the earliest.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

LOL! I didn't blame anyone. I clearly said "no idea if this is true" but that if it were, it would explain a lot [about the absurdity of the situation of a man being asked to pay support to a wife estranged for SO LONG]

So - insult fail. It doesn't apply to me.
I think the law is stupid if it says a person has to pay support if DNA proves the child is not a biological descendant. (UNLESS there is paperwork to demonstrate that the two chose a fertility route together on purpose OR adopted together, in which case, of _course_ he is the "father" even if the DNA doesn't match)

And that is exactly what he has been advised (by a lawyer) he needs to do in order to be out from under the child support order - have a paternity test done and file for divorce. He says he doesn't have the money to do those two things.

And that, bolded part, is the only reason this is even an issue. The law gives him plenty of recourse to address what is, by definition, a clerical error. It's just that it's not FREE. Bureaucracy costs money. It probably shouldn't, but it does, and it's annoying, but we all deal with it because life sucks like that.

If Derec has such a hardon for this guy and his rights (see what I did there?) he should start a gofundme page or something. Otherwise, there's always payday loans...

 

[RavenSky]

And that is exactly what he has been advised (by a lawyer) he needs to do in order to be out from under the child support order - have a paternity test done and file for divorce. He says he doesn't have the money to do those two things.

And that, bolded part, is the only reason this is even an issue. The law gives him plenty of recourse to address what is, by definition, a clerical error. It's just that it's not FREE. Bureaucracy costs money. It probably shouldn't, but it does, and it's annoying, but we all deal with it because life sucks like that.

If Derec has such a hardon for this guy and his rights (see what I did there?) he should start a gofundme page or something. Otherwise, there's always payday loans...

Derec doesn't need to start a fund. There is already one up. I gave Derec the link earlier. I wonder if he donated to help the guy out.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I wouldn't donate. I read in comments the guy is addicted to meth.

 

[Bronzeage]

He should be able to sue the wife for the cost of the lawyer.

These laws are perfect example why feminist mantra of "male privilege" is nonsense. No woman has ever been held liable for child support payments for her husband's children that are not hers.

There's a man somewhere who is the real father of this child, and because he never married the mother, will not be held responsible for the child's support.

Now that is male privilege.

 

[ZiprHead]

And that is exactly what he has been advised (by a lawyer) he needs to do in order to be out from under the child support order - have a paternity test done and file for divorce. He says he doesn't have the money to do those two things.

And that, bolded part, is the only reason this is even an issue. The law gives him plenty of recourse to address what is, by definition, a clerical error. It's just that it's not FREE. Bureaucracy costs money. It probably shouldn't, but it does, and it's annoying, but we all deal with it because life sucks like that.

If Derec has such a hardon for this guy and his rights (see what I did there?) he should start a gofundme page or something. Otherwise, there's always payday loans...

My wife helped a girlfriend file for divorce. No lawyers involved. She had the sheriff that was monitoring the work gang the guy was on raking leaves in front of the court house serve him the papers. Very little money involved.

Don't know about the DNA/paternity testing though.

 

[ronburgundy]

And that, bolded part, is the only reason this is even an issue. The law gives him plenty of recourse to address what is, by definition, a clerical error. It's just that it's not FREE. Bureaucracy costs money. It probably shouldn't, but it does, and it's annoying, but we all deal with it because life sucks like that.

If Derec has such a hardon for this guy and his rights (see what I did there?) he should start a gofundme page or something. Otherwise, there's always payday loans...

My wife helped a girlfriend file for divorce. No lawyers involved. She had the sheriff that was monitoring the work gang the guy was on raking leaves in front of the court house serve him the papers. Very little money involved.

Don't know about the DNA/paternity testing though.

When your spouse is required by law to be in a particular public place at a particular time, it is much easier to hand them the papers than when they are free to not answer their door or free to not come greet a person that arrives at the workplace on a personal matter. Putting something into another person's hand (which is what is required) when they do not want to let you do that is much harder than you might imagine.

The law should be changed to allow papers to be sent to last address of record, and if no response in 60 days, then too bad, they are divorced and have no say in the matter or in how the assets are divided.

 

[ronburgundy]

As for the paternity test, he should be presumed innocent of failing to support his children until proven otherwise. Proving that requires proving he is the father, which means it is the burden of the plaintiff. IOW, she should have to pay for the paternity test in order to prove her case that he owes her support.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BUT - and this is an important point our resident MRA's have ignored - there has not yet been a paternity test. Our resident MRA's immediately assume that the man is telling the complete truth that he hasn't been bonking his wife for the past 10 years. Now I do actually believe the man on this point, too, but why should the state? Since it is the state (taxpayers) that will be helping to support the child in the absence of a father, why should the state assume without evidence that the woman's husband is telling the truth?

There won't be a paternity test unless he can come up with the money for it.

Instead of immediately attacking the woman (and women in general), perhaps our resident MRA's should be arguing for free DNA testing for men in this situation. JayJay suggested it, but got soundly shot down in favor of more anti-women rhetoric.

I'm not blaming the woman--I don't think she's the one behind it. I think she filed for welfare and the state is coming after him. I posted this as an example of bad laws, not as woman-bashing.

I don't think free DNA testing for the man is the right approach--rather, the burden of the DNA test should be on the party making the claim for child support. DNA shouldn't be a defense, but rather a required element of the claim itself. (Although it should be possible to "file" a case contingent upon DNA results, this would permit compelling the DNA test without obligating the other side to respond to the suit unless the DNA test was positive.)

- - - Updated - - -

Just like you to blame the man every single time even when it is clear that he is the victim of a deeply sexist system that perpetuates female privilege.

It isn't a deeply sexist system. The law makes perfect sense. The lawmakers in Des Moines didn't anticipate that there would be situations where a guy would be estranged from his wife for 16 fucking years!

The law made sense when it was passed. The problem is that it's been overtaken by technology. We have a far better means of determining paternity, this dinosaur of a law should go.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The law should be changed to allow papers to be sent to last address of record, and if no response in 60 days, then too bad, they are divorced and have no say in the matter or in how the assets are divided.

That's unreasonable in the other direction. A reasonable effort to locate them should be required.

One thing that I think would help: Allow the involved parties to serve papers but only if they have a video record of them actually doing so.

 

[RavenSky]

There won't be a paternity test unless he can come up with the money for it.

Why is that his estranged wife's fault (which is what certain people here are saying)?

Donate to his GoFundMe page if you care. Advocate for state-funded paternity tests.

Instead of immediately attacking the woman (and women in general), perhaps our resident MRA's should be arguing for free DNA testing for men in this situation. JayJay suggested it, but got soundly shot down in favor of more anti-women rhetoric.

I'm not blaming the woman--I don't think she's the one behind it.

I didn't say you did. Are you an MRA?

I think she filed for welfare and the state is coming after him. I posted this as an example of bad laws, not as woman-bashing.

I agree with your first sentence. I disagree, however, that this is "bad law". Unless this country chooses to pay child support to every child born (as Jaryn suggests and I don't disagree with), the parents must be held financially responsible whether they want to be or not. And when two people are married, in the absence of a paternity test showing otherwise, it is reasonable from the state's and society's perspective to assume the husband is also the father.

I don't think free DNA testing for the man is the right approach--rather, the burden of the DNA test should be on the party making the claim for child support. DNA shouldn't be a defense, but rather a required element of the claim itself. (Although it should be possible to "file" a case contingent upon DNA results, this would permit compelling the DNA test without obligating the other side to respond to the suit unless the DNA test was positive.)

I think this is a waste of resources as the vast majority of men are not denying their paternity. Why should the state have to pay for paternity tests when the man is not even claiming he isn't the father?

Just like you to blame the man every single time even when it is clear that he is the victim of a deeply sexist system that perpetuates female privilege.

It isn't a deeply sexist system. The law makes perfect sense. The lawmakers in Des Moines didn't anticipate that there would be situations where a guy would be estranged from his wife for 16 fucking years!

The law made sense when it was passed. The problem is that it's been overtaken by technology. We have a far better means of determining paternity, this dinosaur of a law should go.

Then you should volunteer to pay for all of the paternity tests for every man in every child support case, even when said man is not denying that he is the father.

 

[Bronzeage]

I've been divorced twice. I have little sympathy for a man who waited 17 years and never filed.