100 deadbeat dads

this reminds of the Tom Leykis words of wisdom, where he recommends all guys use a condom and pour hot tabasco sauce in the used condom before disposing of it :1orglaugh

You are preaching to the choir here. I agree 100% that things should be FAIR. I also think that the FIRST measure should be what is fair to the CHILD not what is fair to the mother or father. After the child's needs are taken care of, then the parents' needs come in to play, and as long as both are safe and sane people, they should have 50/50 custody and split costs equitably.

If humans got pregnant by a woman laying an egg into a womb-creature, and a man inserting sperm all over it.. then the courts would have an easier time. The womb-creature would decide whats in the best interests of the child until it's born, and both "parents" would be begging for what they consider their basic rights.

Egg donor, sperm donor, womb-creature. Yeah, thats the ticket!

If the condom really broke, I'd go after the condom company.

:2 cents:

It's funny, for a variety of reasons, I think the woman should always put the condom on, but maybe the man should always take it off.

The rights of the child are simply transferred to the adoptive parents (or in some cases to the state).

My ex asked if he could sign away rights to our son when we got divorced and my lawyer said he would only be legally allowed to give up his responsibilities if I had another man willing to take on the responsibility in his place.

And MANY "Fathers" walk because they're selfish lazy bastards. The current laws were created out of a need because, even before they existed, deadbeat parents were abandoning their children.

That's bullshit.

Fathers become deadbeat dads because a large percentage of their income goes to someone who hates them for knocking them up in the first place, and in return all they get is eighteen years of bullshit and little to no say in any decisions about their upbringing.

Let's flip this around - Why does a child always go to the mother? Seems to me these kids need a stable father figure.

I'm married, and my wife and I have a beautiful, healthy, smart seven year old daughter. I'm a part of her life every day and thrilled to death about it. But if you told me you were going to take 30% of my income and I'd have no say on how my daughter was raised and I'd only get to see her once a month on Saturdays for four hours...... I'd kill someone.

My sister in-law has three kids, two from a prior marriage, and one in grade school. The two older kids are in college now. She doesn't make much money to begin with, and because of her job and lack of dependable transportation she decided it would be much better if the child stayed with the father. She no longer collects child support but instead has to pay child support; She lost her house six months ago because she was using the child support to pay for the house. Now that she doesn't have this "income" she couldn't afford to keep her house, and on top of that she has to pay child support to him. Don't get me wrong, she made the right decision - She was unable to properly raise the child because of her job and decided to have the father raise the child. But when she did this she screwed herself and now she's seeing what it's like on the other side of the fence when you pay for the right not to see your child. It's bullshit.

Honestly, when I was an embryo I didn't care about life. I would not have cared if my mother chose abortion. my 0,01$

Its simple really - as a guy - you shouldn't stick it in something you aren't willing to at least deal with for the next 18 years (or life) - and be willing to accept what ever crap you are given.

In so far as its a womans right to choose - its also her responsibility to tell the father in advance. If the father is not named on the birth certirficate - then he should not be heald responsible. Don't run off, have a baby then show up 3, 4 years later expecting to collect child support and then limit the mans contact with the child.

While the dead-beat dad problem warrents strict laws to protect the mother & child and to help with the financial and social burden of raising a child - there is more of a need to create changes in those laws that create and protect the fathers rights as well. And beyond that - the child's rights. Far to often childreen in these situations are used as pawns to manipulate the other parent.

So again - men, boys, lads... if your willing to carry the baggage - dont take the trip!

oops... forgot the most important word in that...


So again - men, boys, lads... if your NOT willing to carry the baggage - dont take the trip!

There are some guys like that, but please tell me you don't actually believe that ALL stories go the same way? It's just not like that all or even most of the time. There still need to be MAJOR improvements made to the system but just because some guys are getting shafted doesn't mean that there are a shit ton of loser men out there as well.

What about guys who pay a fair amount and are able to see their kids 50% of the time but still don't bother to show up to pick them up from school? Because that does happen as well. As a matter of fact, if you want to talk about family members, how about this little gem of a story? My nieces father left her stranded at school the other day because he's a loser idiot. Just didn't bother to show up for her. He was into having a kid before she was born, but once she arrived, he changed his tune. Her mother WANTS her dad to see her, be involved in her life and keep her half the time, but the guy JUST WON'T DO IT. Since he wouldn't do it and she was having to keep the kid 95-100% of the time she did eventually HAVE to ask for support just trying to get by, and was awarded a VERY minimal amount. He refuses to pay, and since he won't get a job except for waiting tables, and since most of his pay is in the form of tips in cash, she can't even get them to garnish his wages. So basically now she has to take care of the kid 95-100% of the time AND pay for everything, yet in the middle of this, she is STILL allowing him to see his daughter on the RARE occasion that he decides to show up. She practically BEGS him to see her, and the little girl just doesn't understand why daddy forgets her at kindergarten.

Now are you telling me this is an isolated situation? You really think there are no deadbeat parents out there who are just plain losers in life and not a pitiful victim of the system? I don't hate dads or men, I have a great dad and know lots of great fathers, but not all guys who impregnate a woman are saintly men who want the best for their children.

So now - ladies, girls, lasses... if your NOT willing to deal with the baggage - dont take the trip!

whats fair to a child is that parents be required to be licensed to have children, requiring them to show proof of income/earnings and education as well undergoing psychological evaluations and parenting training before they are even allowed to have a child and after that, they are closely monitored for parenting competence... if they fuck up and have kids outside that system, both parents should be sterilized.

:winkwink:

Sounds good to me. Less screaming brats to listen to when I go out for dinner.

exactly. i hate that too... parents that have totally tuned out their own kids... yet i have to deal with them because i not only can't tune them out... but wasn't exactly expecting kids to be running around a restaurant screaming while playing I'm a Motherfucking Cop Killer or whatever the hell. I remember when i was little, i got a coloring book and a little tiny crayon nub and if i said anything, i got knocked right out of my chair. times have changed ;)

i am a very quiet and reserved person in real life. but that is one of the few things that will make me to get pissy and confrontational real quick.

That's the problem. None of the situations are the same, and everyone of them has specific circumstances. And I'm sure there are a lot of deadbeat dads out there. But the question is would they be deadbeat dads if they had custody of their children, didn't have to pay to support them, and now collect child support from the mother? No, they wouldn't be deadbeat dads because they wouldn't be spending their income giving it to a ex-lover and not being able to see their children.

Your story is rather interesting and I'm sure it's repeated thousands of times a day. And it's sad. But it sounds to me more like he changed his mind about being a father.

No, not all men are "saintly" and want what's best for their kids. But I bet you most of them are if there was a level playing ground. But when you take a portion of their income and restrict access to their kids and not allow them to be a part of their daily lives, well, it sort of sucks the life out of them.

We call it deadbeat dads because the women typically get the kids. But if you throw the shoe on the other foot it makes no difference. At the end of the day one parent is coming out ahead and has a normal life plus financial support, and on the other hand the other parent is getting brutally fucked in the ass. I mentioned my sister-in-law; She can't afford to make the payments and just lost her house because of it. How does that help the situation?

I know six or seven people that have kids and custody issues. And in every case the one paying the support - man or woman - is getting fucked. My sister-in-law, mentioned above, lost her house and is having problems paying for her apartment. My friend Neal ( who I think I mentioned earlier) has four kids from three different mothers and and pays nearly more in child support than he makes (granted, he should have kept his damn dick in his pants).

I could go on......

I think we need a huge change in the system. Both parents have joint custody and share the financial obligation fifty fifty. How does that work if you live in different states? Spend six months with one parent, and then six months with the other parent. No money trades hands, problems solved.

Wow, this thread got better and better. :upsidedow

You'd think there are armed posses of women scouring the United States forcing men to impregnate them. If you don't want to pay for a child, then it's fairly easy to figure out a solution for avoiding it. But I realize how offensive personal responsibility is to some.

We're not going to sneak into your bedroom at night and siphon the sperm out of you against your will. Honest.

(for free, anyway)

often sex is the result of raging hormones and youthful alcohol excessive consumption, there is often not alot of logical thought and brains involved in the process (haven't you ever heard the "little head took over" train of thought?)

I know it's not an excuse for anyone, but I bet alot of unwanted pregnancies are the result of going with the flow of youthful lust and inebriated exuberance rather than any planning. Young people tend to be of the invincible train of thought as well, youth take risks in all sorts of ways, sometimes they get burned.

I think our opinions on this are actually more similar than it may seem. I would MUCH RATHER see people involved in a 50/50 split where no one has to have to have an actual child support payment just like you described. That would be ideal, and it seems the most natural to me. That's exactly what my niece's mom was trying to do, and yes, you are right, he apparently DID change his mind about being a dad. But he changed his mind AFTER the baby was born, not before, so why should he get to just walk off with no responsibility to the child he said he wanted? Child support payments should be reserved for the people who can't work it out like normal civilized human beings.

I 100% agree. But the question was- should a man be required to support a child if he didn't want it. And yes, he absolutely should. It's not my responsibility, or the tax payers, to pay for someone else's bad judgement.

The two people who make the baby are the two who should have to pay. Saying, "Oh, I didn't want a kid when I knowingly dumped my load in her" is no excuse. We all know where babies come from and we all know they cost money to raise.

a couple sandwiches short of a picnic.


LOVE IT, no wonder this guy lives the dream


co-opting said line

A 50/50 split would be ideal, but the logistics from case to case would be difficult. The truth is there is no real answer to the problem.

As for your friend...... And the father of her child..... When a man and a woman produce a child they have both a financial and moral obligation to that child, not just for the next eighteen years but until the day they die. Sometimes in cases like this it's best for the one parent to just carry on and never expect anything. If not, life will be full disappointment.

If he didn't want to take the responsibility for his actions then he shouldn't have fucked her... pure and simple. It's basic logic... sex CAN result in pregnancy... I can never understand this really... I have literally fucked hundreds of women and didn't get any of them pregnant until I decided to have a child with my girlfriend (now wife). Of course... I was also silly in the fact that I never used a condom even once with any of them... if I had caught aids or some other STD it would have been my responsibility...

:1orglaugh
somehow i find it very hard to believe this would ever actually happen where the woman was forced to pay child support

i wonder if theres been a case like this ever.

true, but I think we should add that if they are not prepared to raise it themselves, their responsibility could also be met by seeing to it that the child is adopted into a two parent family that wants to adopt a baby..... I think many are far better off to give up an unwanted child to adoption rather than keep them in a broken home where there is going to be 18 years of arguing about them :2 cents:

and that is the point of the whole argument, the father should have the right to say that he wants to see the child adopted and relinquish all custody rights to that child

So if my niece's mom had popped her out and then thought to herself "shit, I don't want to be a mother anymore." It would be OK for her to have dropped her off at the father's house the day she got out of the hospital and left it to him to raise her? That sure doesn't sound fair to me either.

No, not at all. Hopefully your friend is smarter than that.

Basic logic doesn't work when your talking about sex. When your in the heat of the moment you don't stop yourself and say "If tonight is the night I knock her up it might change my life for the next eighteen years". That just doesn't happen.

I just thank god that I never knocked anyone up - or caught something.

Mom needs to take you aside and explain the birds and the bees to you...but I'm willing to start for her.

The ONLY way for a guy to ensure he will not father a child is to keep his dick in his pants. The moment he frees willie, all bets are off.

If a male and female engage in sex, like it or not, BOTH are responsible for the results. Condom breaks....oh well, that's the chance you take. Girls puts pin holes in the condom, then maybe Mister Love Machine should use his hand rather than fuck strangers. NO means of birth control is 100% effective and you should have learned that in Health class in grade 5 or 6.
*Shakes head in disbelief*

damm thts some shit

1. keep the child and take care of it. abort the woman.

2. nah, seriously have the child and take it day by day. unless she's just a whore then refer back to #1.

You are basically saying that if the father dumps the kid the day it's born, the mother should just move on and get over it and not expect anything in order to avoid a lifetime of disappointment. But if the mother does the same thing, that's not OK?

The laws aren't gender specific. It just so happens that in most cases the mother is the one that ends up living with the children. If a woman lost custody to the father the same laws government child support apply to her.

Havent you ever seen Judge Judy? There's just about as many non-custodial mom's she rips on as dads. Yep for real.

good old fashion BJ would have prevented all of that