Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from figaro Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 08:32 (Agree/Disagree?) It is because of stories like yours that I have never had a child. I will NOT subject the woman, or the child to the hardships of life that you have to face. My heart goes out to you, and I truly wish there were something I could do to help you. I'm sure you have been over this all before but, is there any way that you could force the father to help? (reply to this comment)

From cass&eman Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 20:15 (Agree/Disagree?) no, I just need to keep woking untill I can get to a place where we are stable, time is what will make the difference, and persiverance(reply to this comment)

from conan Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 11:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess it's my turn to be the asshole again. All your article did was point out some of the many flaws in the U.S. welfare system and trying to have everyone on here hate your 'deadbeat ex' without actually having much of a point except 'poor me'. Before everyone on here jumps down my throat, you yourself stated that you own a home and have a respectable job. Those factors are some that contribute to the state not giving you the unlimited food stamps/benefits you feel (deservedly or otherwise) you are owed. I know a few single fathers and mothers who never receive a penny in child support from their ‘deadbeat’ exes but manage to give their children all their necessities without bitching about the ‘whore of a bitch mother I married’ or ‘lousy, good for nothing son of a bitch cheating bastard’ or other such derogatory remarks at the expense of the failed marriage or relationship. I’m not implying that you are incapable of giving your children the necessities they need, but if you are depriving yourself of nourishment on a regular basis, you won’t be capable of helping your children and will inevitably end up giving up custody of them to either your deadbeat, abusive ex, or the state that so quickly and efficiently denied your benefits for longer than one month. Perhaps you should give the stand-up comedy a rest and worry about generating some genuine income during your evening comedy shows until you have the financial stability to allow yourself the chance to fail as a comic without potentially damaging your offspring’s chance at a healthy, comfortable childhood. (reply to this comment)

From cass&eman Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 12:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, Look life happens, Comedy is a hobby for me it gives me somthing to do, and as far an your analisis of the situation, your more than a little off, Owning a home does not diqualify you from recieveing food benifits its the fact that two month out of the year I recieve three pay checks those two checks are counted against my income each month and it averages out to being 20.00 over the income limit. My job is decent I don't have to flip burgers for minimum wage but it dose not pay much more than minimum wage, I busted my ass to get a house becuse I was sick of living in substandard housing, It did not change much other than the fact that its in investment so now instead of wasting money to pay someone else I'm gaining equity which I plan to use to send my kids to college. My job is descent but if you know anything about socialogy you would know that there is a class called the working poor, you bust your ass and still fall short, I'm not making excuses, and the last thing I want is pitty, I was simply making a point, take it leave, it or over analize it, I know how the legal system works, and I know how the child support system works, but sometimes you find your self in a shitty place and you deal with it, This was my way of venting, get over it, My children are loved, and well cared, and more importantly well adjusted, I don't belive that I am owed anything , but as I have said before if you pay into a program you should have access to it when you need it, (reply to this comment)

From cass&eman Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 12:32 (Agree/Disagree?) In fact I am only on stage a few times a year, for that reason exactly(reply to this comment)

From heheheheeehe... Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:56 (Agree/Disagree?) ooooppppuuusss........No he didn’t!! (reply to this comment)

from nix Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 10:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Where do women meet these lops? Who the hell would have a child with someone who refuses to work? Who would have a child with someone who was not financially stable? It's not a crap shoot. Generally there is not a huge element of surprise when a deadbeat boyfriend or husband turns into a deadbeat dad. It's not as if the average man is suddenly stricken with these flaws the second a zygote begins to form. Not to take any of the blame off the losers who won't own up to their responsibilities, but women have the responsibility to make better choices for themselves as well. There are usually many signs that a man (I use the term loosely) is an asshole before you get pregnant. It's not as if pregnancy isn't preventable. (reply to this comment)

From cass&eman Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 12:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Hi Nix, Life happens, appoligies are for repeat offenders ,and smile now becuse it only gets worse these are my mottos I am happy with where I am I would not change a thing my kids are great, and things get better in time, I did not think that my frustrated rant would incite a virtual riot of condesending openions, I appreciate you feed back as it directly from you expierences and perspective but there are no absolutesd and lets face it if life was perfect most of us would not be on this site anyways.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 02:01 (Agree/Disagree?) One of the hallmarks of this site is the no-holds-barred approach which its members take to issues, it affords people the opportunity to vent on pretty much any topic they choose - which in my experience in not all that common, even online - but the flip side of that is that it also affords others the right to reciprocate in a similar fashion, should they choose to. As such I find it smacks of hypocricy for members - and I'm not just talking about this situation, as it happens quite frequently - to once they have 'vented' then turn around and cry foul when others take a less than supportive position to their own. Comments such as "I did not think that my frustrated rant would incite a virtual riot of condesending openions" (sic) - and, again, I'm only using this one because it's here in front of me - very quickly lose my sympathy as I figure if you're going to dish it out then you ought to all but expect to recieve it back in similar measure. Anyhow, this is nothing personal at all - your comment was just an opportunity for me to post this.(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 06:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Who died and made you the voice of reason? ;)(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 12:26 (Agree/Disagree?) The usurper to my title.(reply to this comment)

From nix Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 13:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't mean to be condescending at all. In fact, I have a child from a deadbeat mom so I am speaking from experience. I have custody of my son and I don't receive any child support, nor do I want it. I am not bitter toward her and I wish her the best... with someone else. I too am happy where I am in life for the most part, though not so happy that I resist change and growth. I knew there were things that were off between us (My ex and I) but she was "someone" at the time. If I had it to do over again I might have made some changes, however, I accept that it was my life and I was in control. I failed to exercise the control where I should have at times so I must blame myself, short of kicking my own ass of course. But then maybe I wouldn’t change a thing anyway. After all, where would I be standing now if I had not walked a long way to get here. Anyhow, I meant no disrespect and I do sympathize with you because I know what it is like. I meant only to speak a word of caution to anyone who is in a situation that isn’t everything it ought to be. Before you find yourself in these situations (For those walking the line) balance what you want against what you have. And if it isn’t everything you want, let alone what you need, then get the fuck out. I, personally, will never settle again. (reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 13:44 (Agree/Disagree?) That's sad Nix, don't give up hope I am sure you will find someone good for you. My old manager who was about 10 years older than me, had 2 very young kids and then divorced his deadbeat wife. Then he got married to a younger girl who had one kid and now they are a happy family--It can happen. (reply to this comment)

From nix Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 14:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Nah, it's not sad. Endings are great because they enable new beginings. Starting over has opened up a whole world to me, as well as given me time to learn about myself. I am not the same person I was then, and that pleases me. (Sorry if I sound like I just left an AA meeting... I didn't) (reply to this comment)

From cass&eman Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 16:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you that settiling can get you in a lot of trouble I hope what you wrote keeps someone else fromwalking that same path (reply to this comment)

From madly Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 13:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Sounds kind of like you are preaching "love is an emotion" to me. ;)(reply to this comment)

from ........ Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 00:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Why didnt you just say that to his face? Now theres no way he's gonna know because all you can do is post it on here....seriously you people make me sick. (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Saturday, August 18, 2007, 10:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Coward, coward, coward. Are you afraid to use your name? Come on now I want to mock you to your face and I am feeling mean.(reply to this comment)

From ............... Saturday, August 18, 2007, 05:37 (Agree/Disagree?) ....rash generalization...... Perhaps she was too busy tending to her sick child? “You People”......means who? --I’d ask you directly i.e. say this to your “face” but alas.....how can I? P.S. if you are feeling sick ....go see a doctor! (reply to this comment)

from AndyH Friday, August 17, 2007 - 11:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't understand the mentality of these men who can deny their own creation. Are they not moved by a sense of responsibility at all? I know guys that aren't even involved in the child's life, and don't visit, but they still send a check. I can almost understand that (thought I couldn't do it) but leaving your child and it's mother destitute is fucking despicable. I'm trying not to wish bad things against others, but I do hope your deadbeat ex is exposed for the piece of shit he is, and made to pay every cent he owes you. I was under the understanding that the state is supposed to pay you and go after the father for it, charge him a ton of interest and pay themselves back. I guess things don't always work out in our twisted system. What a shock. Sorry for your troubles, good luck to you and your child. (reply to this comment)

from steam Friday, August 17, 2007 - 10:57 (Agree/Disagree?) I have four kids and I am a single father with two kids paying support to my ex who also has two kids. Society tends to have very sexist views on all these matters. There are so many factors to every situation that blanket statements don't work to well. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Monday, August 20, 2007, 10:01 (Agree/Disagree?) You are 100% right! The US and England have very biased laws regarding child support. I can totally understand the frustration that the man you overheard is probably going through. A lot of times the man has to pay out the ass to his X who doesn't use all that $ for the child and at the same time the man has to spend more money when he cares for the child on his days. I share custody with my X Wife. I have to give 20% of my salary as child support. Granted she bought a house and has a room there for him, but so do I. I could have bought a nice 1 bedroom condo for myself, but I instead bought a house with a yard so he could have his own room and a be happy, yet I don't have someone helping me with my bills when I have him. (I am single, what else would I need a 3 bedroom house for. I know she also pays for his school supplies and clothes, but there is no way it costs 20% of my salary. Then on top of it, I don't get any tax break for what I pay out, yet the X doesn't have to claim that as income AND she gets to claim him as a dependent. How the hell is that fair??? Oh, AND I have to maintain expensive health insurance for him and keep my personal life insurance up to date at my expense. Sorry, but I am also sick of paying child support out my ass when I know only a fraction of it goes to my son. Now don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't want to support him, it that I don't think that I should have to bear the full burden to where it's unfair. Also, I am curious. Why is it that you have not taken your X to court and demanded child support? You could force him to do a full disclosure, get his employer to send you his salary and have them garnish his salary. (reply to this comment)

From figaro Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 09:47 (Agree/Disagree?) My oldest brother is going through the same thing right now. He is being forced to pay the same 20% of his check to his ex who has custody, but when he goes to get her for his every other weekend he finds that not a penny has been spent on her. He gets her and his ex says "she has no diapers, so you'll have to buy some" then he looks, and she doesn't even have a pair of shoes, only one pair of cloths, no socks nothing. So he ends up buying her all these things on the weekend that he has her, then 2 weeks later on his next scheduled weekend its the same deal. Basically, he is paying 20% of his income and NONE of it is going to take care of the kid. His ex refuses to have a job, so all the money thats supposed to be taking care of his daughter is paying for her rent and he ends up buying everything the little girl needs on top of his 20%. And if that weren't enough, the mother decides she wants to move to Alabama and there is NOTHING he can do about it. So now if he wants to get his scheduled weekend custody he has to fly from Texas to Alabama then back.(reply to this comment)

From Nick Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 11:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, I feel for the guy! However, does he have joint custody with her as the primary? If that is the case, then a lot of times the mother can not take the kids out of the state or even county with out his permission. For all you fathers out there I strongly suggest that you get the divorce decry to stipulate that even tho the mother is primary, she can not leave with the kid UNLESS the father moves out of the state first. (reply to this comment)

From figaro Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 22:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, I don't know the exact details, I just know that there wasn't anything he could do to stop it.(reply to this comment)

From cass&eman Monday, August 20, 2007, 13:25 (Agree/Disagree?) First Thank you for your response, It is allways good to get a diferent perspective. You braught up a very good point about the cost of health care as well. To answer your question we have been to court but his income is nominal and he has no ordered support. (and he refuses to work) There are several diferent issues on my post and it has been very interesting to see which ones poeple focus on. .(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Monday, August 20, 2007, 17:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Unfortunately I'm more familiar with the process of extracting child support than I would like to be, but I have learned a few things. Regardless of the type of job someone has and how much of it is taxable (over-the-table) money, an assumption can be made that someone will at least make minimum wage. Twenty percent (or more depending on how many kids are involved) doesn't add up to much but it's still something and in principle at least there's some assistance being rendered. Being too lazy to work is not an acceptable position to take and most states in the U.S. can make life pretty miserable for a parent who doesn't make their child support payments.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 09:23 (Agree/Disagree?) I would have to disagree I know someone who is very close to me who has two children and only gets $300 child support all together for the whole year. It depends on your State and how they choose to enforce the law. How on earth a mother is to provide food, shelter, daycare, school supplies and everything else a child needs with $150 per child per year is beyond me.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 18:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess it might vary to some degree from state to state but $300 a MONTH would probably be more appropriate for 2 kids if the non-custodial parent was earning a bit over minimum wage. There could also be other factors like if the non-custodial parent was disabled or had some legitimate reason for not being able to hold a fulltime job. $25 per month for 2 kids is such a paltry amount it probably costs the State more to collect and distribute it.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 11:01 (Agree/Disagree?) No the state here decided that the minimum he needs to pay is $300 a year for both children. So a total of $150 per child. Every year he pays it just before he gets arrested for not paying it. (reply to this comment)

from Aita Friday, August 17, 2007 - 06:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Totally understand! I'm also a single mom and I've been having to make some difficult choices lately. I only have one child but the pressure and stress is the same. My only safety net is the one I create. (reply to this comment)

From cass&eman Friday, August 17, 2007, 11:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you for your response, This article was more about brining the issue to the table than about me. I simply chose to use myself rather than some one else as the example. I know many Overtime parent both male and female who face the same choices every day. I don't think that most poeple realize how hard it can be there are many social factors that contribute to the circumstances and although I am the one responsible for the health and welfair of my children I am failing to understand why it's so hard to access a resource that I contribute to. Every one that works pays taxes and about one percent of those taxes go to social services the rest goes to inforstructure, militiary, goverment, ect. But this is another issue entirely. Anyways thank you for your coments, I appreciate your openions and perspective.(reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 13:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Well I may be harsh in saying this, but I think men that have children out of wedlock should not have to pay child support. I mean it--A lot more women would think harder before they have a baby and we would have a lot less single mothers, because we wouldn't have those kids in the first place! I just listened to a segment from a radio station here yesterday, where they get you to tell the show the biggest lie you ever told. It went something like this: Female Caller: " I once faked a pregnancy test after hearing that my current husband was cheating on me." Host: "Were you married at the time?" Female Caller: "No we were just boyfriends and girlfriend. He said he was going to dump me for another woman, and I then told him I was pregnant, when I wasn't so he would marry me instead. He made me take a pregnancy test, so I borrowed urine from my girlfriend who was pregnant, and showed him the results and now we've been married for 6 years and my boy is 5! It was difficult because I had to try real hard to get pregnant and know my ovulation dates etc" Host "What about the other girl, are they still in contact?" Female Caller: "Yeah that bimbo emails him every once in awhile and wants to hang out with him" Host "And you are okay with that?" Female Caller: "Hell no, but I don't care, I know he knows he's mine!" What garbage!(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 02:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I think that it is impossible to have a prescriptive response to such situations. Ultimately it should come down to what's best for the child in the circumstances - but I also am very firmly of the view that this should be sorted out between the parents, or if necessary the 'extended family', and not be a government issue. It should not be the government's responsibility to subsidise people unless in the most extreme of cases, and while earning minimum wage is certainly never going to be easy, I don't think that government should be supplementing the incomes of those who earn it - much less any higher than it. I've witnessed enough divorces or separatios to know that it's almost never an entirely one-sided decision, and there is definitely no hard or fast standard of who should take responsibility for the kids - trying to create a formulaic response is in no one's interests, least of all the kids. That said, I do think that special consideration has to be given to MARRIED couples, on the basis that through marriage they are 'officiating' their relationship, and therefore should be afforded rights - and responsibilities - not afforded to unwed couples, no matter how long or 'strong' the relationship. If you want to benefit from the benefits of marriage, then get married - otherwise you are just two single people, and the law should treat you as such.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 11:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Why married if you are married here you pay more taxes. Why do you need a piece of paper to make it official? I certainly don't want one. As far as getting help from the government when disaster strikes your family, that is what I pay taxes for. So if God forbid my spouse gets Cancer or crushes his arm at work I have something besides my meager savings to fall back on. When you have to write a check for $1200 because he needs a twelve day supply of medicine and his job did not have any medical insurance you make hard choices. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 12:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Because the piece of paper IS what makes it official. For any agreement between two or more parties, be it employment, tennancy, or even a sale, the piece of paper is what makes it official. Now, I'm all for informal agreements and not being forced to 'register' with the government, but I'm 100% of the view that if you want the government's protection of your agreement - or to intervene when there are problems within it - then you need to make it official, and a signed document is the global standard for doing so. There are many reasons people think they pay taxes, and 'disaster relief' - or the 'safety net' described in the title of this article - is possibly the most frequently misunderstood reason. I would add that it is also a dangerous assumption, as unlike an insurance policy, there are no stated terms - you are forced to pay tax, and yet the government retains the right to change the terms (and even rate) any time it so chooses. Insurance is another frequently misunderstood concept - largely due to the fact that it is so often compulsory, I think. It is not some 'magical solution' to all our problems, rather it is a risk-reward assessment which an individual should take of whether it is better to pay a regular, minimal, amount up front, or bear the risk of things going wrong at some point. It is not always economically a good idea to take out insurance - and the very fact that insurance companies make such healthy profits is evidence that you are on average paying far more into your policy than you are claiming out of it. Not having insurance is essentially a case of self-insurance, whereby you make the decision not to have insurance, and instead bear the cost of it if/when things go wrong. I'm not saying that any situation is going to be easy, but ultimately it is an individual's responsibility to live within their means - and that should include either some form of insurance or otherwise savings to cover such emergencies.(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 09:22 (Agree/Disagree?) What you are saying makes tons of sense, and it is perfectly fair, but I wonder how realistic you are being. If the government were to immediately stop forcing men to support their children, and stop providing supplements to the poor, how long would it take for the market to balance itself out? How many people would starve, or how many children would have to given up? I think the state would rather make men take responsibility for their children, then to take care of those children themselves. I guess what I'm asking is, do you believe that what you are suggesting is possible? If so, how? Also, how's this for a formulaic response?: Neglecting your offspring is criminal, those who commit this crime should be brought to justice, and made to meet their obligations. (reply to this comment)

From afflick Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 17:10 (Agree/Disagree?) So retro! You place ALL the responsibility for conception on the woman and that will solve everything. Except...it didn't work too well for women before the sexual revolution and millions of women struggle with the consequences that MEN have placed upon their bodies everyday. I know it's rather uncomplicated for your little brain to simply make it all the women's concern but there is this thing called real life. And in reality, children come into being under many different circumstances. So much of life is nuanced and well, complicated. Much more complicated than crassly telling a woman (!!!) to keep her legs closed. A reasonable, responsible person would put more thought into a response than simply restating a Dr. Drew radioshow snippet. (reply to this comment)

From Aita Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 17:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I would agree with you that the woman is just as responsible as the man in an unwanted pregnancy. And, yes, there are a lot of women out there who would get pregnant, or fake it, just to keep a man. But, the problem is that every case is different, so where do you draw the line? Maybe the woman lied just to get pregnant, but then again, the man was just as stupid to have sex without protection trusting that she "was on the pill", or whatever. So, if a child results, the man should not be held responsible because he believed her? In my case I got pregnant before I left TF. I was basically forced into something I didn't want and it was not a conscious decision on my part. Was I responsible? Yes, to a certain extent I was. I was stupid, young, and I feared repercussions. Maybe if I had been stronger and more rebellious it wouldn't have happened. But I don't believe I should have carried that responsibility on my own. I left TF at 20 with a 1 yr. old, no studies, no work. Nothing. Leaving and starting to be on your own is hard enough without adding the burden of feeding and raising another life. Ever since leaving I have been very careful about getting pregnant and I know that a person can decide when, where and with who to have a child, so, yes, to a certain point, I agree that there are no excuses to there being so many single moms out there. I believe that education is a very important step in reducing these numbers.(reply to this comment)

From cass&eman Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 16:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I was married for the record(reply to this comment)

From cassy Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 16:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I will agree with you so long as we also agree that men should not have sex outside of marriage either.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 15:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok. So wow breathing deeply here, you are so full of crap it is beyond me. I have two children and I am unmarried with the third child due any day. All my children are from the same father. In your book if he decided to leave me he would not be responsible to pay any child support for our kids he could walk away scott free. You think it is an easy decision to decide to carry a child that you may have not originally wanted? Do you think abortion is a decision a woman makes lightly, like getting her teeth cleaned? What if it is the guy, like it was in my case, who wants the baby more than the mother does. What does she do if he decides to walk away? While there are women out there who care for nothing but themselves there are others who are willing to give up everything for that life that some man put in them and now wants nothing to do with. (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 13:56 (Agree/Disagree?) How is it the mother's repsonsibility and not the father's? That's incredibly unfair. Sure, women should be held accountable for their actions, but so should men. It takes two people to make a baby, both are responsible. (reply to this comment)

From katrim4 Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 08:28 (Agree/Disagree?) In all of these circumstances, isn't the custodial parent already being held responsible by having to raise the child 24/7. Money is a big deal to a lot of people, but it's not everything. You have to calculate in all of the time and physical energy that goes into raising a child as well. It's not as if these mothers (in most cases) are getting their child support checks and then handing the children off to a nanny to raise them. 20% of ones salary (unless you are extremely wealthy) would not be nearly enough to pay a competent person to stay up at night with a sick child, worry about them when their at a friends house, make excruciating decisions that will impact the childs entire life, teach them life's lessons, etc. If you think that your responsibility towards a child ends when he has clothes on his back, food on the table and a roof over his head, then end of story mission accomplished why should I pay another red cent, perhaps you shouldn't be having one to begin with. Of course the reverse is also true, if your child is just a pay check (welfare or child support) to you, perhaps you are not the best candidate for being a parent.(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 09:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, people don't appreciate how taxing it is to take care of a child 24/7. I certainly didn't until I had to do it. It's not like physical labor but it limits what you can do so much, and the simplest tasks become complicated chores. (reply to this comment)