Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Thanks for Your Service, Now Go Directly to Jail
When people learn about the Kafkaesque nightmare that confronts people (including, on occasion, women) who are falsely accused of fathering children they've never met, the usual response is "That can't be true!" Many of the illiberal provisions also do damage to the correctly named fathers as well, though who the hell wants to lift a finger for Deadbeat Dads? Well, maybe when people see how it's affecting American soldiers, they'll give the issue at least a second thought.
Reservists' child-support orders were based on their civilian wages, and when they are called up to active duty, that burden doesn't decrease. Few can get court modification before they leave, modifications are seldom granted anyway, and even if a father applied for modification before deployment the debt continues to grow until the case is decided much later.
These servicemen fathers cannot get relief when they return because federal law forbids a court to reduce the debt retroactively. Once the arrearage reaches $5,000, the father becomes a felon subject to imprisonment plus the loss of his driver's and professional licenses and passport.
More horror stories here. (Link via Radley Balko.)
NV Dad|3.10.05 @ 2:08PM|#
Good to see what's now called the civil rights movement of our
era finally breaking through. Family court, custody practices, and
the massive divorce industry are the real attack on the family, Mr.
and Mrs. Bush. Perhaps you could ask Maggie Gallagher to take part
of DHHS' $6,500,000,000 budget and also connect THOSE dots.
Radical gender feminism may be dying a deserved death but the
various special interests feeding on the remains of millions of
families are keeping it on life support.
|3.10.05 @ 2:19PM|#
Would this be a way for soldiers to get out of combat? Who gets the job of going to Iraq to arrest them?
The Wine Commonsewer|3.10.05 @ 2:23PM|#
Well Morat, you can't find any evidence of the taint of
MacKinnon's ideas. Here's some. Of course, if you don't think it's
a taint (cuz this is the morally correct point on the compass) you
can't see it.
Good point, NV Dad.
|3.10.05 @ 2:24PM|#
people (including, on occasion, women) who are falsely
accused of fathering children they've never met
Wait, women? Can you point us to any examples? More importantly,
can you tell us whether these women were actually stuck paying
child support? I remember from your article that men who don't
contest the order within 30 days or something like that can be
stuck paying child support even if the DNA test comes back in their
favor.
Would they be so dumb as to do the same to women? "Look, we know
you're not the father, but the law says that if you don't contest
it in accordance with these procedures then you pay child
support."
|3.10.05 @ 2:27PM|#
Thoreau:
I'd suspect something along the lines of a woman with a name that
could be used by a man. I've certainly seen jokes about that sort
of scenario.
Matt Welch|3.10.05 @ 2:28PM|#
thoreau -- Couldn't find a link after a quick search, but I've received e-mails about two different cases where women with androgynous names (like "Terry") were named as fathers by default, and had to fly across country (in the one case I remember) to show up in court & get a stay put on the order or whatever. Remember, there is no proof of service required in many states, including California, and the system is set up so that you are guilty if you don't insist that you're innocent within 30 days of being allegedly served.
NV Dad|3.10.05 @ 2:45PM|#
Matt,
We're at the point in our societal evolution- the heck with that;
with our RUIN of this constitutional republic, that proving
innocence is not only law, it's common law, as in it happens ALL
the time and nobody bats an eye.
In my lovely hometown not picking up doog poop costs 6 months in
jail. I'm not talking about THAT pendulum swing. I'm talking about
how four states have just now made it law that -- get this -- men
MAY now prove they're NOT dad in order to escape default child
support settlements previously imposed by the judiciary without the
slightest proof or even due process.
Further, Utah just now likewise just made it law that the feds
can't make mental health testing (by their psych drug cronies,
natch) a condition of public education.
Just to keep things even, Georgia has introduced legislation
allowing for a private affadavit -- that is, ex parte -- to remove
a parent from the home on the basis of an allegation of domestic
violence...which naturally means a default judgement for primary
custody to the complainant. Nice.
Didn't they do this in Nazi Germany too? Just point out the
fascist-protesting perp and off they go. What do you mean, due
process? Presumption of innocence?
Sheesh. We need laws now making it possible to be free. Or to just
LOOK at the Constitution.
This is what we've come to. Yeah, this place resembles the old USSR
more than the US.
|3.10.05 @ 3:05PM|#
How has someone not challenged automatic guilt cases as unconstitutional? Kinda hard to see how they pass the smell test.
|3.10.05 @ 3:13PM|#
Mo,
My guess is that it's mostly poor people who can't afford lawyers
and don't know what the Constitution is about who are the ones
charged with these "crimes." Man, maybe gaius marius is right. This
sucks.
|3.10.05 @ 3:18PM|#
NV Dad,
Point well taken. The "assumption of guilt" standard you're talking
about happens on smaller, mildly annoying levels, too. For example,
two days ago I got a $25 parking ticket for "partially blocking a
driveway" on a city street, which my car was NOT doing. If you wish
to contend your traffic ticket, though, you need to furnish hard
evidence of your innocence, which I could not easily obtain at the
time (since I don't own a camera phone, and I'd have to drive to my
home to get my camera, thereby ruining my evidence). If you cannot
prove your innocence, you are presumed guilty. If you do not pay
the ticket, you face a warrant, extra fines, etc...total bullshit,
especially coming from a city that blatantly makes its daily cash
flow from questionable traffic stops on a quota-based system.
Granted, the penalty I'm complaining about is not on the same scale
as child support payments, but the same principle is there: Guilty
until proven innocent.
Matt Welch|3.10.05 @ 3:19PM|#
There's some poverty stat in my piece (too lazy to check) ... but basically more than half of all California recipients of default orders declaring them the father live below the poverty line. They are disproportionately poor, non-white, and criminal.
|3.10.05 @ 3:44PM|#
Twba,
I don't think it would matter. You don't even have to have met the
person whom you alledgedly have a child with. You just need the
right(wrong) name.
Matt Welch|3.10.05 @ 3:49PM|#
Lowdog -- Because feminists have more influence on Family Law (and the Democratic Party) than father's rights types do. Also, because poor people don't contribute to political campaigns, and who the hell wants to stick up for Deadbeat Dads? Politically, about the only people who seem to give a crap about this are a handful of inner-city politicians, and some rural Republicans.
|3.10.05 @ 3:52PM|#
Lowdog-
Well, in a contest between poor men and poor women, the poor men
have one factor going for them in winning Dem sympathies but the
poor women have 2 factors going for them. So the guys are out of
luck on this one.
|3.10.05 @ 3:54PM|#
Smacky,
I alledgedly got a parking ticket in a city I hadn't been to in
months on a car that was in my parents driveway with engine
problems. At the time I was borrowing my father's car to get to and
from work. I only found out after I got a summons in the mail to
pay the ticket, which had tripled by that time.
I sent a letter to the city of Hartford after trying to reach the
collection office for days. No response yet.
|3.10.05 @ 4:02PM|#
Not to mention that, while most of the men facing these orders
are poor, it's hard to tell how many men are wrongly accused and
what their demographic breakdown is. The error rate may be quite
small and therefore lead to a fairly small constituency for reform.
What's inexcusable is that there's almost no way to correct the
errors.
Besides, any measure that makes it easier to correct errors will be
perceived as making it easier for fathers to avoid responsibility
for their kids.
|3.10.05 @ 4:07PM|#
thoreau,
In Southern newspapers its common to see "deadbeat father" exposes
and the like. Some of these have named men who are in fact not
"deadbeat fathers" - either because they are current on their
payments or they aren't fathers at all.
At the same time I know police officers who are clearly "deadbeat
fathers" who their fellow officers won't arrest.
|3.10.05 @ 4:09PM|#
Quoting: "Reservists' child-support orders were based on their
civilian wages, and when they are called up to active duty, that
burden doesn't decrease."
Well, why should it? It doesn't decrease here in the real world.
Kids still need to eat, etc, despite what you want to do in your
choice of career. Say you are a married father and get called up.
Why should the kids suffer just because you are in the reserves. It
seems unfair for kids being supported to have to pay for the choice
of the father's employment. there are millions of people that
choose to take jobs they don't love so they can support their
children.
So I don't think this is a married/single or even a child support
issue. It's personal responsibility: don't have kids unless you are
willing to support them.
|3.10.05 @ 4:12PM|#
What would really suck is if they find a case of a female reservist named Pat, Christ, or Terry, who can't get out of her payments but can't afford them while on military pay.
|3.10.05 @ 4:14PM|#
asparagus,
I understand your P.O.V. and it makes sense.
Nevertheless, there is some injustice in calling someone up for
duty, thereby decreasing their wages, and then nailing them with a
felony charge upon return.
|3.10.05 @ 4:14PM|#
Speaking of injustices, over lunch I realized that my workplace cafeteria inflated my chicken salad with rice and pasta bits. Either they are underhandedly cheap, or there is a conspiracy afoot to make me a fat off-topic whiner. What sort of cruel hoax!?.....
|3.10.05 @ 4:20PM|#
Asparagus-
If the reservists were still married then their kids would have to
make do with less money; why should the children of divorced
parents be any different?
R C Dean|3.10.05 @ 4:42PM|#
It seems unfair for kids being supported to have to pay for
the choice of the father's employment.
You can join us in the real world at your convenience, asparagus.
Every child "pays for" their father's choice of jobs. Why, I am
permanently scarred because my father didn't choose to be a
billionaire with a bad heart.
|3.10.05 @ 4:47PM|#
If the reservists were still married then their kids would
have to make do with less money; why should the children of
divorced parents be any different
Aren't families of married reservists entitled to health and
welfare benefits that divorced families with a stipulated support
agreement are not?
Regardless, if a reservist stops making house payments because he
can't afford them any more, the morgtage company isn't expected to
say, "Never mind." The mortgage is still owed and the house is
subject to foreclosure if there's no payment.
If he stops making car payments the finance company isn't expected
to say, "Never mind." The car loan is still owed and the car is
subject to repossession if there's no payment.
And if he stops making child support payments, his kids shouldn't
be expected to say "Never mind," either. The support payments are
still owed, and the Deadbeat Dads -- even if he's deadbeat by way
of reserve service -- are subject to being jailed if there's no
payment.
I'm with asparagus on this one...
Side note: This applies only to real fathers. False patertnity
allegations are a separate matter.
|3.10.05 @ 4:52PM|#
"Gee, dad; would it have killed you to be a rock star so we could live large?" --Wiley
|3.10.05 @ 4:53PM|#
Funny Schafley doesn't give one concrete example of a reservist dad subject to imprisonment, the purported topic of the column.
|3.10.05 @ 4:58PM|#
Sounds like another good reason not to ever sign a contract with the government.
|3.10.05 @ 5:06PM|#
"Kids still need to eat..."
Yes, they certainly do. Which is why their divorced mothers should
get off their whining, Oprah-watching asses and go get jobs.
|3.10.05 @ 5:12PM|#
Oh, Phyllis seems to have done a poor job with the facts in her column. I'm guessing that she took her line about 28 jailed in Wilkes-Barre from this notice, which has 28 people listed, but only seven were sentenced to jail; the rest have warrants issued against them for nonpayment of child support. And seven of them are women.
NV Dad|3.10.05 @ 5:26PM|#
Asparagas and Mark miss the point but skim low over the
conventional wisdom of child support. That's fine but that's also
woefully incomplete.
Fact is that government "reformed" welfare and turned around and
placed the cash burden on the States via District Attorney's nice
tidy little for-profit child support industries.
Yep; $0.60 of every dollar collected by whatever draconian means
local govts can think of in the name of "support" is kicked back.
Get this: Your own state's AG will flatly tell you it's a industry
contracted to DA's by the governor and that it operates without
legal check or balance.
Kinda like cops making up their own laws; are we comfortable with
that?
Fact is also that child support distribution is NOT tied to
supporting children in any way, shape, or form, so assumptions that
need is somehow realiably tied to the Washington support industry
are just that.
Fact is that child support calculations are about as logical as,
well, anything government does with a dollar bill? Should support
be free from government corruption and incompetence just because
it's "support"? I think not.
Fact is that child custody is awarded to men 1/7 as often as
women...and child support statistics natirally mirror this fact. My
point? That radical gender feminist lobby discrimination is, as
Matt points out, at the root of this too, and such is
illegal.
Meanwhile we all hate "deadbeat dads"...even when about half are in
actuality deadBOLTED dads, literally thrown out of their own
children's lives without any recourse whatsoever. Kinda makes
Washington's various pro-fatherhood campaigns ring all hollow,
no?
Fact is that fathers are jailed for "support" (legitimate of
alleged), lose licenses (making it impossible to work for The Man
in the parent's rights gulag that is America) and so forth. Wasn't
debtor's prison outlawed about 200 years ago?
Fact is no-fault has raised divorce by 25%. Fact is bad parents
game the system with en epidemic of false protection orders...that
result in immediate confiscation of the losing parent's entire
estate and up to 200% of his or her wage in "support."
And on and on.
Bottom line is that this is an industry that bilks billions, ruins
lives (we lose 15,000 disenfranchised dads a year to suicide) and
absolutely flies in the face of the Constitution.
You can assume child support consistently and reliably supports
children but nothing of the sort is going on out here...
|3.10.05 @ 5:30PM|#
Mark and Asparagus-
I'm not saying a father with reduced income should be freed of ALL
child-support payments, just that he shouldn't be expected to pay
the same amount as when his income was two or three times the size.
Incidentally, your comparison with missed mortgage or car payments
doesn't hold; if you skip your mortgage payments you'll lose your
house, but you won't be put in jail.
I do agree, however, that people shouldn't have kids if they can't
afford to support them, but unless my biology teachers lied to me,
making a baby is not a male-only business; there has to be a woman
involved, too.
|3.10.05 @ 5:31PM|#
"Well, why should it? It doesn't decrease here in the real
world. Kids still need to eat, etc, despite what you want to do in
your choice of career."
I would agree with this if the initial child support burden was
based exclusively on the needs of the child, but it's not. If the
child support burden is based on the father's ability to pay, it's
only fair to change the burden when the ability to pay changes.
|3.10.05 @ 5:55PM|#
Xavier,
It is based on the father/mother's ability to pay. His/her ability
to pay if he/she works full time and at the the greatest potential
for a wage he/she shown thus far. If it can be proved that you once
made 100k a year at a job you no longer feel capable of doing,
you'd be well advised not to mention it at the custody
hearing.
Family court judges will not give a person a reduction from child
support to go to college, even though that time in school might
leave that parent better able to provide for their offspring in the
future. This line of thinking goes right along with not reducing
pay for serving in the military. In the court's eyes,You have no
right to reduce your pay for any reason once you become a
parent.
|3.10.05 @ 5:57PM|#
Asparagus,
Kids still need to eat, etc
Yep, they do. And if there were laws that compelled the parent
receiving the payment to actually spend it on the child, I might
agree with you.
However, I was the child of a woman who regularly spent that money
on pot or booze, then said "We'll just have to tighten our belts
this month.", when the food ran low. A situation which was by no
means out of the ordinary in the neighborhood.
I'm not fond of either of my deadbeat parents, but I do think it is
unfair that my father's life is still being ruined by a couple
years of missed child support, when he was down on his luck, when I
know I wouldn't have seen a dime of it anyway.
|3.10.05 @ 6:12PM|#
all of this has to be analyzed in the context of abortion rights: women have them and men don't
|3.10.05 @ 6:13PM|#
Another topic for discussion just occurred to me. I also know
for a fact that in my state (VA) any subsequent children you have
(or "acquire" - in keeping with the article) cannot be used as a
factor for reducing your child support. Are there any stories of
people getting hit with multiple cases of this kind of thing? That
could seriously ruin a guy.
Moral of the story = keep it in your pants and always have $3k
ready to put down a retainer. Words I have lived by since my
divorce, and I RECEIVE child support.
Mark Draughn|3.10.05 @ 6:16PM|#
Keep in mind that child support payments aren't actually going
to the child. Even worse, if I'm not mistaken, they often aren't
even going to the mother. If she's receiving government aid to help
her take care of her child, then the father's payments are going to
the government to reimburse it for the aid. Only a small portion of
the payment makes it through to the child. A father who skips his
official payments but sends $100 cash once a month may be taking
better care of his child than a father who makes all the
payments.
I'm not saying that most deadbeat dads are really angels trying to
give money to their kids rather than the government. But having the
government take most of their child support payment for itself has
got to be a powerful incentive to do the wrong thing.
|3.10.05 @ 6:23PM|#
Men who don't want to be fathers can get a vasectomy. Those are the breaks of biology.
|3.10.05 @ 6:25PM|#
Mark,
I hear what you are saying and will add that any payments made
directly to the child/parent from a paying parent do not count
unless the payment goes through Child Support Services. Just
mention any money you might have given directly at a court hearing
and see how far it gets you. So even if you admit to being
responsible for the child and want to do your part, you are
obligated to go through the government to do so.
|3.10.05 @ 6:26PM|#
Monty Python time:
Look, even though men can't actually have abortions, they
should still have the right to have abortions!
|3.10.05 @ 6:33PM|#
Serafina,
I agree with you in principle. But there are exceptions there as
well.
My ex-wife had no interest in raising the child we created. So I do
it and, despite her constant consternation, she pays a small amount
of CS.
She could get her tubes tied, of course, but she has used her
incredibly fertile nature to make herself a few bucks and give the
chance of conception to some people who are willing to pay a lot of
money for a chance to do so (through egg donation). It would seem a
bit of a shame for her to have wasted all those eggs when they are
so valuable. I'm also quite glad to have the kid.
Of course, I'm totally off topic at this point.
NV Dad|3.10.05 @ 6:35PM|#
Jennifer, note your use of "father" as the default. It's subtle
and I know you don't mean sexism by it, but also realize that such
may not be the case in state's legislatures and in Congress in DC.
There the language is blatantly opposed to fathers and mothers
being EVER treated as equal. The very bills are now worded with
father-pays/mother-receives language, and this is pursuant with the
child support system flowing from Washington. So much for gender
equality in these our enlightened times.
Go back and read my point about this being a full-on industry
mandated by Washington. That's unconstitutional, defies state's
rights, ruins federalism, and flat doesn't work. Under this plan we
are subjects, plain and simple. Welfare, domestic violence
legislation and child support collections are now all part of the
same system. Would we be wise to expect fairness from that federal
debacle?
Stir in no penalty for perjury, no penalty for false allegations of
DV, mandatory arrest on DV calls regardless of their legitimacy, no
presumption of innocence, enormous gender bias, no respect for
personal rights, and you have a system paved with gold for those
who would abuse it. And abuse it they do.
Xavier, you are entirely right: Ability to pay is at least the
ostensible foundation of support, and so it should be given the
epidemic abuse of the means to gain support in the first place, a
procedure with absolutely no logic or justice in enormous numbers
of cases. In other words, getting shared parenting is the challenge
far more than managing incorrect or corrupt support amount rulings
post custody settlement is.
Ironically, support calculations are fairly on the mark; it's the
preceding custody dictates that are not. And then comes debtor's
prison, utter ruin of personal rights for single parents,
kids-for-money (read: Detroit) and the entire mess family court
loves so dearly.
Look, this is really a federalized made-legal kid relocation scheme
that just following the money trail will reveal in all it's
splendor.
NV Dad|3.10.05 @ 6:46PM|#
Have you considered a run for office, Jennifer? Would that such fairness would ever penetrate the halls of power...
NV Dad|3.10.05 @ 6:48PM|#
Know what the difference between no-fault car insurance and
no-fault divorce with children is?
Car accidents have nothing but downside for all parties.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.10.05 @ 6:49PM|#
In Ca the kid's yours if you're married regardless of DNA. Nice
touch, eh?
And speaking of chicks, I have a client who was forced to pay child
support to her ex husband in another state who OWED her almost 30
grand in back support. Our own DA threatened to prosecute her if
she didn't pay after her 16 year old son decided to go live with
dad.
I could fill this page with horror stories....but the point is that
the Boo Sheet sometimes swings both ways.
|3.10.05 @ 6:52PM|#
NV Dad-
If I ran for office my campaign would last all of five minutes
before my opponents dragged out various things from my past. I had
WAY too much fun to ever be a politician.
|3.10.05 @ 7:20PM|#
NV Dad:
Your passion and level of detail suggest personal experience. True?
If so, as a reference point can you give us some general sense of
your specific situation: Were you hit with a child support payment
you think was too high? If so what was the amount and what do you
think would have been more fair? Were you denied partial custody or
visitation? Do you believe that custody/visitation should be linked
to the amount of child support ordered? etc...
Not trying to invade your privacy -- I don't care who you are in
that context. I'm just looking for a frame of reference that helps
frame the discussion around a real example...
|3.10.05 @ 7:34PM|#
Men who don't want to be fathers can get a vasectomy. Those
are the breaks of biology.
In precisely the same spirit, women who don't want to be mothers
can get a tubal ligation.
|3.10.05 @ 7:42PM|#
Eric-
Actually, that's usually not true; women aren't allowed to be
sterilized unless they've already had a certain number of kids.
Evil but true. Goddam paternalistic government.
NV Dad|3.10.05 @ 7:47PM|#
Thanks Terry. Roughly half of my ire comes from my personal
experience and the other 90% comes from my libertarian
leanings.
I can't discuss my situation except to say that incompetence and
corruption don't begin to describe what's going on. If you can
imagine it, it's probably already happened to single parents and
their kids.
Think intentional ruin by lawyers. Conspiracies to destroy
parenting by corrupt parents and social aid. Epidemic false TPO
applications. Feminist domestic violence hysteria based on bad
numbers. Incompetent psychological industry hangers-on. Inescapable
expense. Violations of custody that span entire childhoods.
Parental suicide across the nation. Zero regard for legal procedure
in family court. Zero regard for personal rights (this despite
scores of Supreme Court rulings clearly defining parenting as a
fundamental right.) Willful disregard for the Constitution.
Debtor's prison. Federal kickbacks. No local check and balance. Bad
lobbies. Kids being doped. Kids being kidnapped.
I've experience fully half of these occurances in the last
decade.
It simply knows few bounds, Terry. There is a disconnect between
the Washington welfare and support programs, Supreme Court
precedent and Constitutional rights, and local officials that
boggles the mind.
Why hasn't the issue gotten national attention -- millions feel it
to easily be the civil rights movement of our era -- Matt aluded to
already, but it's still a mystery why civil rights Democrats and
constitutional rights Republicans haven't stormed Washington. Thank
God for Schlafly.
Oh wait; this is Reason and we all know why those two parties don't
work...
Anyway, to get a grasp of this mess, visit the site I include in my
link at NV Dad. Then multiply that site by 100 or 200 and you'll
know the size of just the US movement, a movement based on a needed
reaction to a real problem. Add every Westernized nation on earth
and now you approach the global harm to families perpetrated by
institutionalized bias, greed, and sloth.
Thanks to Reason for hosting this item. Please, Matt, make this a
feature topic as often as possible. Of all the domestic trainwrecks
Washington manages, this has to be the most severe and the most
sensitive.
NV Dad|3.10.05 @ 7:54PM|#
BTW, Stuttaford over at NRO's The Corner just linked Radley Balko's link to Schlafly. I always liked Andrew.
|3.10.05 @ 8:00PM|#
I had WAY too much fun to ever be a politician.
Jennifer, however much fun you've had, rest assured that Bill
Clinton's had even more fun.
How about a run for school board? I'll donate!
|3.10.05 @ 8:11PM|#
Thoreau-
Yeah, but Clinton's fun could only be testified to by unreliable
witnesses; MY fun could be testified to by staunchly respectable
types. No contest.
|3.10.05 @ 8:14PM|#
Actually, I would think that the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act
would assist. It's meant to avoid judgement on debts incurred
previously while the service member is on active duty. This was a
common problem during WWII and this federal act addressed it.
Although, I would presume that it would need updating.
I used it myself when an ex-landlord tried to sue me for several
thousand dollars in imagined damages a year after I went to
Germany. The JAG office wrote the judge a letter and it was
dismissed with prejudice.
The problem is the states know this and will wait until they return
in order to avoid falling under the Act.
|3.10.05 @ 8:17PM|#
Are you embarassed about your fun? If so, then I can see why
you'd fold your campaign.
But if you don't care that you smoked some pot in college, if you
don't think it's anything to get too upset over, then just say so.
As naive as this might sound, I really think that the reason why
most campaigns are torpedoed by allegations of a wild youth has
more to do with the candidate's response than with the allegations
themselves. The candidate usually gets embarassed and tries to deny
it and then admits that "mistakes were made and I regret
them."
I would love to hear a candidate say "Yeah, I smoked some pot and
had some sex when I was young, just like the rest of you, now let's
move on." If a candidate said that, I really wouldn't care what the
person's stances were (well, unless he's way off the charts with
crazy stances, but most candidates aren't), because it would be
refreshing and important to see a wild past no longer work as a
campaign issue.
|3.10.05 @ 8:18PM|#
"My guess is that it's mostly poor people who can't afford
lawyers and don't know what the Constitution is about who are the
ones charged with these "crimes." Man, maybe gaius marius is right.
This sucks"
Call me an asshole if you will, but these folks who "don't know
what the Constitution is," if they even exist among adult
non-retarded Americans, deserve what they get.
|3.10.05 @ 8:26PM|#
Thoreau-
I'm not embarrassed about a damned thing, but the American public
isn't yet ready to vote for a pothead atheist who put herself
through college by working as an exotic dancer.
|3.10.05 @ 8:27PM|#
<offtopic>
thoreau,
I think that the amount of fun Jennifer had in her youth wouldn't
be as much of an issue as her atheism. If that ever came out in a
school board election, it would almost certainly get the fundies in
her community screaming about the "atheistic, EVILution-spreading,
hedonist who's trying to destroy our childrens' values." Bleeaaah.
:-p
</offtopic>
|3.10.05 @ 8:31PM|#
Men who don't want to be fathers can get a vasectomy. Those
are the breaks of biology.
vasectomy may be sufficient, but it is not necessary. a paper
(paternal) abortion would be sufficient and not require any
cutting. it would also bring greater parity to reproductive rights:
which men currently do not have.
|3.10.05 @ 8:39PM|#
Well, Jennifer, you imply that your exotic dancing was witnessed
by respectable types, but how many of them would admit to
witnessing you?
Anybody who's willing to admit witnessing your dancing probably
wouldn't give a shit about it in a school board election.
I'd vote for you. You seem to have common sense.
|3.10.05 @ 8:43PM|#
As far as I can tell by the numbers, this is an arguement for banning the use of anesthetics because there can be complications.
|3.10.05 @ 8:50PM|#
Thank you, Thoreau. You also have a great deal of common sense, but unfortunately that makes you a minority.
|3.10.05 @ 8:52PM|#
"Actually, I would think that the Soldiers and Sailors Relief
Act would assist. It's meant to avoid judgement on debts incurred
previously while the service member is on active duty. This was a
common problem during WWII and this federal act addressed it.
Although, I would presume that it would need updating."
This law was updated in 2004 and is now called the Servicemembers
Relief Act. I don't know how it addresses this issue.
|3.10.05 @ 8:55PM|#
Jennifer, did you ever hear the story about physicist Richard
Feynman and the strip club? He liked to go to a place with topless
dancers, enjoy the show, and doodle equations on napkins when ideas
came to him. Eventually somebody tried to get the club shut down.
The law stated that it could be shut down if it "violated community
standards." The owner went to all of his regular customers, but
most were unwilling to go in court and admit to frequenting the
club.
The only guy who would testify was Richard Feynman. He figured that
he's tenured and a Nobel laureate, so he can't possibly lose
anything by testing on the owner's behalf.
So he went to court, and he said that the club doesn't violate his
standards, and he's a member of the community. Then he said that
he's not the only member of the community who goes there, and
without naming names he listed the professions of other regular
customers. He said it seemed like the place was widely accepted by
the community.
If I recall correctly, the club remained open.
|3.10.05 @ 9:04PM|#
Thoreau-
I didn't know that story, but knowing what I know about Feynman,
I'm not surprised.
If I were independently wealthy, I'd say "screw it" and give it a
try. However, if my boss found out what I used to do I'd probably
be fired. I remember once when she and one of my co-workers were
talking about how horrified they were when they watched some
televised sports show and saw a commercial for a local strip club.
The horror! Those women are all prostitutes! Think of the children!
How could ANY decent woman prance around on stage like that! I
suggested that maybe some of them were just trying to put
themselves through college, or supplementing the income from their
low-paying day jobs, but they emphatically told me that I was
wrong.
|3.10.05 @ 9:11PM|#
Oh, and to get back on topic--NV Dad should seriously consider quitting whatever job he has now, working at some under-the-table place, and saving up enough money to go to one of those cheap-cost-of-living countries that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US. Better to be an expat than a wage slave.
|3.10.05 @ 9:15PM|#
When did teh feminist movement deteriorate from 'I am woman,
hear me roar' to 'I'm woman, protect me from the big bad
world'?
This is part of why I don't think the government should have a say
in marraige contracts, good arbitration clauses would probably do a
better job, keep Uncle Sam's hands out of parents wallets, and
people could get contracts approved by their specific churches if
so desired.
|3.10.05 @ 9:19PM|#
I remember once when she and one of my co-workers were
talking about how horrified they were when they watched some
televised sports show and saw a commercial for a local strip
club.
Methinks thy boss doth protest too much.
And are there any countries that have a low cost of living, a
pleasant living standard, and no extradition treaty with the US?
I'm sure North Korea has no extradition treaty, and I could
probably buy all of the real estate in downtown Pyongyang with the
money I'm spending on rent right now, but I doubt I'd want to live
there.
|3.10.05 @ 9:32PM|#
Thoreau-
I dunno, maybe Brazil?
And no, I don't think my boss "protests too much." She's usually
easy to work for and I get along with her just fine, but she's the
type of woman who can't talk for more than three minutes without
mentioning something about Her Children.
NV Dad|3.10.05 @ 9:55PM|#
Presumably female, Serafina suggested:
"Men who don't want to be fathers can get a vasectomy. Those are
the breaks of biology."
And women tiring of marriage (70% of divorce is unilateral and
primary custody is awarded to mothers 7 times more than fathers;
you add it up) can marry 90 year old impotent millionaires if they
really want to get paid but, nobly, not for having kids.
Those are the breaks of (schizophrenic feminist) biology.
Obviously female, Jennifer then obliquely said:
"Oh, and to get back on topic--NV Dad should seriously consider
quitting whatever job he has now, working at some under-the-table
place, and saving up enough money to go to one of those
cheap-cost-of-living countries that doesn't have an extradition
treaty with the US. Better to be an expat than a wage slave."
Either that's a presumptive personal slight or a cop-out.
I realize this is only about widespread organized fraud against
personal rights in all 50 states, but please reduce it to support
dollars at your risk, not mine.
Oh, and it's about the best teenage daughter in my state. Assuming
anybody cares about her and her pop, that is.
Hope those principles keep your interest.
Come on ladies, you're counted on for a lot. Don't crap out
now.
|3.10.05 @ 9:58PM|#
NV Dad-
I didn't mean that as a slight. If your daughter's a teenager then
maybe you can take heart in the fact that you'll be free in a few
years. But if you are one of those guys who's paying the majority
of your income for the care of an infant you'll never get to see,
then I'd say leaving the country would be a bold act of civil
disobedience, not a cop-out.
|3.10.05 @ 10:03PM|#
Extradition answers.
Damn, J, you a badass. Did you enjoy that line of work? Would you ever go back? Maybe you could play up the Stripping Single Mother stories we've all heard. That'll mess with your boss's mind.
Working in CA family law in my early 20s cured me of any desire (if there was any to begin with) to marry or reproduce. I just knew I'd end up one of the statistics with a long, light green, numbered file.
|3.10.05 @ 10:05PM|#
Poco-
I am not a mom, and if I ever caught pregnant I'd abort the little
bastard so fast my coat wouldn't even have time to notice that the
hanger was missing.
|3.10.05 @ 10:12PM|#
J, I figured as such. I meant as in a "I was reading an article
about/saw this Lifetime TV-movie about a stripping mom" casual
oblique kinda conversation.
Oh, and NV dad, I x-posted with you. The Googling was just out of curiosity (and for my own future personal reference in other matters?). Hope I didn't anger you or come off flippant, bc I do feel for you.
Iguana|3.10.05 @ 10:43PM|#
Jen, not true. There are no laws prohibiting tubal ligations. At one time some 50 years ago the procedure was discouraged and in some states could not be performed without a doctor's consent (and the doctor often wouldn't consent) but those days are long gone and precede both of our arrivals on the planet. The youngest woman I know that was ever in that boat is 78.
|3.10.05 @ 11:39PM|#
iguana - women who have never had children and want to be
sterilized are basically fucked until they're well after 30.
doctors are afraid of lawsuits, most insurance won't even consider
covering it, and everyone tells you "oh, you'll change your mind"
because people are asshats like that. it's some serious
bullshit.
"I am not a mom, and if I ever caught pregnant I'd abort the little
bastard so fast my coat wouldn't even have time to notice that the
hanger was missing."
now i would totally vote for you. even though stripping creep me
the fuck out.
|3.11.05 @ 6:38AM|#
Dhex-
Not stripping, EXOTIC DANCING. In Virginia, when I was in college,
the rules were quite strict--I basically wore two-piece bathing
suits covered with sequins. Really, the guys could have seen more
if they went down to the beach. And for free, too.
|3.11.05 @ 8:16AM|#
Shouldn't that be EROTIC dancing? Unless, of course, you're actually from someplace exotic to Virginia, like the Faroe Islands or something.
|3.11.05 @ 9:19AM|#
Who gets pregnant is biology, living choices are sociology, NV
dad. Besides, most women I know work for a living, just as men
do.
Ironically, the only woman I know who principally relies on the
father of her children for income is my SO's wife. He pays a
thousand Euros a month in child support, the state kicks in 250
Euros each month per child, and she gets 3/7 of his remaining
income in alimony. Pretty sweet deal, no? Oh yeah, and he's allowed
to see his little daughters only three times a year. I'm
exceedingly sympathetic to the problems.
My point in posting here yesterday, no matter my personal views of
the issue, was that Shlafley wrote a sloppy opinion piece, dredging
up ancient cases that don't apply to the problem she outlined in
her opening paragraph. She fails to elucidate on what noncustodial
soldiers returning from active duty face here when they return.
|3.11.05 @ 9:29AM|#
It also appears that the Servicemembers Relief Act does take care of the problems she describes. If income goes down when called to active service, it may be reduced, and the interest rate on past due child support can be reduced also, for up to 180 days following the return from active service.
|3.11.05 @ 10:15AM|#
My husband became a deadbeat dad in California. He was living
with the mother of his children, but she was filing for welfare.
Then he ended up in jail for a while. When he got out, it was
difficult to find a job. He got waaay behind on his support.
Fast forward 8 years, he has lost his license and can't find a job.
His ex moves to Pennsylvania. He moves to Iowa and finds a
job.
Child support in California takes half of his income, then
transfers the support order to Iowa. Iowa now says that he owes
more money than California, because they didn't collect any money
from him. Iowa told him not to do anything until they contacted
him, because California is still collecting half of his income.
Iowa and California together are now collecting half of his
income.
At this point, we are still waiting for California to balance his
account out so that Iowa can correct the amount that he owes. In
the mean time, California is still collecting from his wages, plus
adding 10% interest on the back amount, even though they are not
collecting child support anymore.
Pennsylvania says that he is in arrears because California hasn't
sent the monies to them, since he's still behind in
Califoria.
In the mean time, he is now living in Iowa, the kids are in
Pennsylvania and he has no visitation rights. Even if he did, we
may not be able to visit or pick up the kids, since half of his
income is going out on child support.
None of the states involved will help with the visitation, so he
hasn't seen his kids in 3 years. Not because he doesn't want to,
but because we cannot afford to fly them or drive them, both ways
from Pennsylvania to Iowa. The custodial parent is not obligated to
help him visit the boys in any form. So, even if we got airline
tickets for the kids, we cannot be assured that the mother will
take the kids to the airport.
The ironic thing in this whole mess is this: Iowa continued paying
Pennsylvania child support and ended up over paying. My husband
recieved a check in the mail from the state of Pennsylvania for
$19, because he was overpaid!
|3.11.05 @ 10:23AM|#
"Dhex-
Not stripping, EXOTIC DANCING. In Virginia, when I was in college,
the rules were quite strict--I basically wore two-piece bathing
suits covered with sequins. Really, the guys could have seen more
if they went down to the beach. And for free, too."
um, that's even fucking weirder. like, it's one thing to pay for a
tease, which is up some peoples' unfortunate alleys. another
entirely to pay for that. weirdness.
have you ever read "g strings and sympathy"? it's a doctoral
disseration by a woman who worked her way through grad school
stripping in six different clubs in six different parts of a county
in alabama. it's interesting, but rather dismal, since the central
focus becomes these regulars (1 to 3 times a week) who go basically
because of the conversations they can have with strippers that they
can't have with their wives.
very depressing. didn't help my stripper phobia a lick neither.
|3.11.05 @ 10:33AM|#
On the other side of the fence, my mother once offered to relinquish all child support payments if my asshole father just left us alone. He refused.
|3.11.05 @ 10:51AM|#
My sister's ex faked a prison term for a felony drug conviction and moved out of state under an assumed identity to avoid paying child support.
|3.11.05 @ 11:22AM|#
but she's the type of woman who can't talk for more than
three minutes without mentioning something about Her
Children.
Ugh, Jennifer, tell me about it. I am surrounded in a sea of "My
Children" people at my job. It gets really old, really fast. Note
to readers: not everyone cares what your little angel ate for
breakfast this morning, or what he said while he was getting off
the school bus.
Shouldn't that be EROTIC dancing? Unless, of course, you're
actually from someplace exotic to Virginia, like the Faroe Islands
or something.
I have to side with The Pedantry on this one. What Jennifer was
doing was Erotic dancing, which is commonly misdescribed as Exotic.
Exotic dancing, namely bellydancing, is what I do. And as
a bellydancer, I wouldn't want to be lumped in with burlesque girls
-- no offense to Jennifer.
|3.11.05 @ 11:28AM|#
....pothead atheist who put herself through college by
working as an exotic dancer... - Jennifer
Now, that's just bragging!
Kevin
|3.11.05 @ 9:15PM|#
Bitter Woman-
There was no DJ; we had to dance to a jukebox stocked heavily with
Milli Vanilli and the early works of Paula Abdul. But if you want
to call such dancing "erotic," you may certainly do so.
|3.13.05 @ 5:01PM|#
Jennifer: Will you please cite your source for your statement that women cannot have at-will sterilizations... I'm assuming you mean in the U.S. Interesting that no one here questioned it? Thanks for your reply.
|3.13.05 @ 8:27PM|#
The proof of innocence comes up in a lot of paraphenalia charges: e.g. a friend of mine was charged with possession of paraphenalia after cops searched everyone in a car after the driver was found with weed. My friend had no drugs on him, but did have a small "clamshell" mirror (one used for makeup) which he used to make lines of coke. The cops gave him a $400 fine for paraphenalia, despite the fact that they gave no positive evidence that it was ever used for illegal purposes (other than the weirdness of a male having a mirror intended for makeup). In order to prove that it wasn't paraphenalia, he would have had to show, that, umm, the cops didn't find it on his person in a car in which someone else possessed a drug different from the one whose use this alledgedly aided. Now admittedly, in this case, the allegations were *true*, but come on!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245