Whisky Tango Foxtrot?!

[Griselda]

Ok.

What about the proud man that looks forward to being a daddy, and has his hopes and dreams dashed when a woman uses her right to choose? Think that doesn't hurt?

It simply isn't fair saying that men have no emotional stake in this. We do.
[right][snapback]104016[/snapback][/right]

I'm saying that childbearing, labor, and delivery are not comparable to nagging. I didn't make any other claims.

[Doc]

That would be a strong point if women were paid the same wages as men in America.  I don't want to come off as some screaming liberal about the issue, but the difference is a real problem.  And its not only in the high end executive jobs that women make less money than their male counterparts.  In fact, the pay descrepency is greater with 'low income' jobs than it is at the higher end.

Now, are deadbeat moms a problem?  Yes.  And do they deserve to be punished?  Yes. But until women have a fair shot at making the same money as men, its unfair to hold them to the same strict payment standard.

Cheers,

Munk
[right][snapback]103991[/snapback][/right]

Bah humbug.

If this had any sense of truth, then why bother going after the deadbeat dads going nowhere slow in life working in Hardee's or Wafflehouse for minwage... Courts go after those guys too with UNREASONABLE demands made for their income. In the paper a couple months ago, in a rare case of the local paper trying to be helpful, they had the story of some poor sap making minwage but still required by the courts to pay 400 a week in support. He didn't make it. You know, he had all those things the rest of us do... Rent, bills, etc. He's dirt poor and the payments were well beyond any reasonable expectations on what he could actually earn and afford to pay. Actually, if my memory serves me correctly, he was a grease monkey at Jiffylube.

So the whole woman don't earn as much thing is hokey. If they expect a man to take on a second job or even a third job, then so can a woman... Or are you implying that a woman is helpless and unable to do a hard days work? :rolleyes:(j/k) Women can earn minwage just the same as a man can. Men are expected to in these sorts of things, and by hearing all the loud vocalisations coming out of women that they can do everything a man can and then some, let's see them put up or shup.

For me, it's not about men vs women or anything like that. It's not about sexism. It's more about personal responsibility.

[Guest]

Probably not. I bet if you saw the median wage earned by dead beat dads it would be shockingly low.

But the real reason we have so many dead beat dad laws is in cases where someone "runs away" from the kids its ussually a dad.

[Doc]

I would like to take the chance to say hogwash about a woman's earning potential my self.

This is entirely from my own observations and experiences that comes from watching people. Usually sitting on some bench in front of Walmart or Target.

I see these women, almost every day, and they are easy to spot. They pull in to Walmart in some big honking SUV, but they are not the Duckhead wearing soccer moms. They get out of their oversized rig, and they are wearing sports themed track suits, expensive ones, the kind that cost a couple of hundred bucks at some expensive store. They are wearing gaudy gold jewelry. To much, on to many fingers. Their SUV has giantic chrome "spinnaz" on it. Her kids get out, and there are about five or six of them, all of them wearing astonishingly beat up rags, everything obviously bought second hand. These kids look rough. They look filthy and hungry. They whine and cry contantly, asking for stuff, anything. It's obvious she hates them and sees them as baggage. And they go in and get groceries, and I often see them paying with a little green EBT food stamp card. I see them in the bank cashing Family Aid checks at the first of the month. (Family Aid is a type of welfare check, but they don't like to call it welfare, because the word welfare is considered racist and degrading for some reason) So, anyway, they go in and cash these Family Aid checks, which are calculated based on the size of the family, and with five or six kids, can shoot up to about sixteen hundred a month. Maybe a little more, a little less. For nice round numbers, we will just say 1500 dollars.

So, 1500 bucks, plus several hundred dollars in food stamps. I'll leave that actual figure out, because it's not actually cash. It's an EBT card with electronic funds. Now, these women rake it in with the child support to, on top of all the "Family Aid" they get. Lets shoot for a nice round figure of, oh, I dunno, 400 dollars a week like was quoted in the news paper a good while back ago. Or even 200 dollars. It really doesn't matter. At 200 a week, with say, five kids, five daddies, that's a cool grand. At 400, that's two grand. A week. Four or eight grand a month, on top of welfare handouts. Er, wait, "Family Aid." Suddenly it becomes clear how these women are driving Escalades and crap like that. And how they can afford all that tacky gold jewelry. And really good lawyers, REALLY GOOD LAWYERS! to make sure they get every penny they deserve from their baby's daddy. And for the cherry on top, they are living in public housing, section 8 or HUD, for probably 250 a month or so. And might even get free cable and no power bill depending on the housing development.

Mind you, these are the extremes, but they are common place. These are people abusing the system to no end. These people sit back and actually make money, and live a very comfortable life doing absolutely nothing while some poor guy goes out and works two or three jobs trying to clear up a couple of hundred dollars a week for support, his own 400 to 450 a month in rent, (common for this area) his own power bill, and his own expenses, which really become tight and everything goes bad when he is a couple of days late and they come and repo his car, which makes it impossible to get to work, and begins the domino effect that leads him to jail. In jail, he loses his jobs. Once he gets out, with no job, no car, and a week to find work, his chances aint good. He just got out of jail, so actually getting a job is slim. He has no car. After sitting in jail for a month or two, he might not have a home either. And aint nobody going to hire somebody with no car, and no residence, that just got out of jail. So guess where he winds up...

I would say women have a better earning potential for doing absolutely nothing but spending a few minutes on her back, and a few hours spent here and there making sure she gets everything rightfully coming to her that she is entitled to through the system.

The only ones I feel sorry for are the real victims, the ones that slip through the cracks somehow and actually live terrible lives.

[Occhidiangela]

Probably not. I bet if you saw the median wage earned by dead beat dads it would be shockingly low.

But the real reason we have so many dead beat dad laws is in cases where someone "runs away" from the kids its ussually a dad.
[right][snapback]104019[/snapback][/right]

I disagree. As I see it, the motive (and socialist) force behind the deadbeat Dad laws was twofold: the bitter feminist agenda to marginalize the man in society, to replace him with the State; and a gender neutral reaction to increasing amounts of tax dollars being spent on child rearing for single mothers where fathers were findable, provable, and had abbrogated their responsibilities.

There used to be orphanages.

The lack of deadbeat mom law enforcement is linkable to my first point's agenda. I attribute that to a falacious presumption of innocence, or virtue, on the behalf of women. This is an embedded piece of the ubiquitous double standards, see also divorce court travesties, inherent in the Cult of the Victim.

Like the drunk driving laws, the deadbeat dad laws appealed to many since the statistics showed your last point to be the case: they were a decision to "do" something about it via statute that moral behavior and norms could not achieve unaided. The trouble is, they do NOTHING to address the double standards, and unfair treatment of men, in child custody cases in our courts.

I can conceive. You cannot. That is unfair. Neither of us can change that.  We are not equal in this matter.

Fair has nothing to do with it. You may as well say it is unfair that a bird can fly and you can't. It is simply how things are. The fact that far too many women and men overlook the conception fact while undertaking recreational sex isn't a matter of fair either, it is an epidemic of bad judgment. (What was it Heinlein said? The only universal constants are hydrogen and stupidity. :D )

Fair implies a rule or condition that can be modified or adjusted to achieve "fairness." Unless you decree mandatory sterilization, you can't put men and women on a "fair" reproductive playing field. Of course in doing so one eliminates the "game" altogehter! :whistling:

I don't know what sense of "equal" you are using. Equality under the law is a difficult to achieve when the foundation upon which law is built is two unequal, or fundamentally dissimilar, conditions. Sucks to be the law, but it can't be fair, it can only try to be balanced.

Equality under the law, or equity, would dictate that men and women be treated fairly and equally by the courts, which they are not, in child custody cases.

But we are dealing with symptoms here, aren't we? The root cause is the easy dissolution of a marriage, the incentives not to form a pair bond, and the rampant out of wedlock conception. The barriers to conflict resolution amplify this because there is more profit in an ever growing divorce court case load. :angry:

Griselda: There are all kinds of situations where deception and other unfortunate things can result in a pregnancy. However, once a child is born, you need to look at what's best for the child, regardless of the circumstances that led to pregnancy

.
Bingo. Once born, it's about someone else, the child. Gris wins the thread. :D

FWIW, I think improving our formal adoption processes, so more options are open to those in dire financial straits, would lessen the down stream problem of deadbeat dads.

Occhi

EDIT due to the first try being rather badly put

[Doc]

I disagree.  As I see it, the motive (and socialist) force behind the deadbeat Dad laws was twofold: the bitter feminist agenda to marginalize the man in society, to replace him with the State; and a gender neutral reaction to increasing amounts of tax dollars being spent on child rearing for single mothers where fathers were findable, provable, and had abbrogated their responsibilities.  There used to be orphanages.  The lack of deadbeat mom law enforcement is linkable to the first point agenda and a presumption of innocence or virtue on the behalf of women, which is fallacious, but is part and parcel of the ubiquitous double standards, see also divorce court travesties, of the Cult of the Victim.

Like the drunk driving laws, the deadbeat dad laws were appealing to many since the statistics showed your last point to be the case, and a decision to "do" something about it via statute.  The trouble is, it they do NOTHING to address the double standards and unfair treatment of men in child custody cases in our courts.

.
Bingo.  Once born, it's about someone else, the child.

And we need to improve our formal adoption processes, so more options are open to those in dire financial straits.

Occhi
[right][snapback]104029[/snapback][/right]

**Claps**

Edit.

After reading Occhi's edit, I feel I must applaud his choice of words used to drive his point home. Very well said my friend. A little venom mixed with truth is never a bad thing. The idea that women are somehow innocent or virtuous is entirely overplayed. Women expect to be treated as delicate hot house flowers, but only when it is an advantage for them.

[Guest]

Well it took you a long time to disagree, but you never refuted my personal observation that more dads walk away from kids than moms.


You made a great deal of correct observations but they didnt refute my thought.

Now you make a great point that moms are given an unfair advantage in child custody cases. But if anything that supports my original point - in function that encourages dads to walk away since they are not directly caring for the kids.

[ShadowHM]

Fair has nothing to do with it. You may as well say it is unfair that a bird can fly and you can't. It is simply how things are. The fact that far too many women and men overlook the conception fact while undertaking recreational sex isn't a matter of fair either, it is an epidemic of bad judgment. (What was it Heinlein said? The only universal constants are hydrogen and stupidity.  )

Fair implies a rule or condition that can be modified or adjusted to achieve "fairness." Unless you decree mandatory sterilization, you can't put men and women on a "fair" reproductive playing field. Of course in doing so one eliminates the "game" altogehter! 

I don't know what sense of "equal" you are using. Equality under the law is a difficult to achieve when the foundation upon which law is built is two unequal, or fundamentally dissimilar, conditions. Sucks to be the law, but it can't be fair, it can only try to be balanced.

Equality under the law, or equity, would dictate that men and women be treated fairly and equally by the courts, which they are not, in child custody cases.
[right][snapback]104029[/snapback][/right]

My first effort was obviously marred by chosing brevity over clarity. :)

Doc was railing away against unfairness and using the 'we are supposed to be equal' argument.

Thank you for spending the time to write a clearer depiction of the issues involved, Occhi. :)

[Maitre]

I step out for a few days and this place gets all reproductive. Sheesh. I have 2 points that would have made better sense had I made them earlier, but here goes anyway:

-- snip --
FWIW, I think improving our formal adoption processes, so more options are open to those in dire financial straits, would lessen the down stream problem of deadbeat dads. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]104029[/snapback][/right]

In the context of Doc's original post (abdication of male parental fiscal responsibility on the basis of choice, argued under equal protection clause) and combining with Occhi's comment on adoption, would a change in the system similar to what the lawsuit seeks allow for an "adoption of child support," e.g., kindly older couple with not to many years left, no kids of their own don't want to adopt, but want to help those who need it paired with young mother whose baby's-daddy decided to split (analogue to open adoption through private "broker").

Just something interesting that came to mind. Seems like a very awkward process, but something that might evolve.

Second,

-- snip --
Women carry (pun intended) the burden of child-bearing responsibility.  There are health consequences to all aspects of that responsibility.  Abortion, pregnancy and child-birth all can have serious health consequences to the woman, both physical and emotional.  There are no such consquences for a man.

We are not equal in this matter.
[right][snapback]104011[/snapback][/right]

I'll give you the unilateral nature of physical consequences ShadowHM, but I'd like to meet half-way on the emotional. Clearly the physical risks/experiences of pregnancy are vastly different for men and women, and though I have no idea how it feels to be pregnant, but I do have some concept of how my wife feels while she's (8 months) pregnant. (I just typed out a laundry list of the feelings that she and I have shared and discussed over the past months, but I realized that what they are is not important to my point, so I deleted it.) Suffice to say that no, I haven't felt the child move inside me, but I have seen it, and felt it move inside her. I've been kicked in the head while listening for his heart beat. There most certainly are some emotional consequences for an involved father.

To sum up: Buttercup 'is marry Humperdink in little less 'an half an 'our.
Seriously though, there are multiple levels of responsibility when it comes to reproduction. In some cases, where one party or the other wishes to abdicate their emotional, role-model, education, guidance et al. responsibilities, authorities seek to enforce a monetary responsibility to better society (in a "No child left behind" kind of way, and I intend the meaning of the phrase, not the educational objectives which are another topic for another time) by attempting to prevent poor and hungry children. Yes, criticism is deserved by a system that applies differing levels of enforcement for different parents who do not meet their imposed monetary responsibilities (under-zealous pursuit of "deadbeat" mothers in some cases). Yes, criticism is deserved by those who use the imposed monetary responsibility as self-support rather than child-support. Yes, improvements can be made for those who seek to be compliant, but have unfair expectations of support (those who are ordered to pay more than they could be expected to earn).

Throwing ethics out of this discussion is not possible. Child-support laws seek to legislate that those who want to walk away live up to their ethical responsibility to the child. I'm not generally in favor of legislating morality (or mortality for that matter) but in some cases it is the right way to go. Letting a man (or a woman) out of all responsibility for their progeny seems like a recipe for unhappy children (like those of parents who "stay together for the children" and would rather subject their kids to a warped template of adult relationships). Generally, it seems to me that unhappy children have a high likelihood to grow into unhappy adolescents, and soon after, unhappy adults. Yes, protections should be in place for situations of unwitting entrapment: fraud is fraud, be it financial or fertility. But personally, I would place a high burden of proof on the claiming party in such a case (personal responsibility is also something that we need get no further from).

Bottom line: keep child support: save the humans.

[Occhidiangela]

Well it took you a long time to disagree, but you never refuted my personal observation that more dads walk away from kids than moms.
You made a great deal of correct observations but they didnt refute my thought.

Now you make a great point that moms are given an unfair advantage in child custody cases. But if anything that supports my original point - in function that encourages dads to walk away since they are not directly caring for the kids.
[right][snapback]104041[/snapback][/right]

I disagreed partly, but it looks as though I did a poor job of identifying where and what.

The first point I disagree with, since the "runaway dad" is not confined to low income absent fathers. Courts use an escalating scale of "punitive child support" for increasing income level. :angry:

As to the second point, I disagreed with a single point cause and effect relationship.

That minor disagreement turned into a point of departure to cover points not embodied in your post. In retrospect, it was not a refutation, it was disagreement with using simplistic cause and effect premise. The stats, I think we can agree, skew the numbers to "more dads running off" but the root causes (multiple) of that include the lack of equity in the court system, incentivizing divorce over marriage healing, as well as the, sadly, too common exercise of departure by irresponsible men.

Occhi

edit for clarity

[Guest]

Mind you, these are the extremes, but they are common place.
[right][snapback]104026[/snapback][/right]

You cant have it both ways. Either your anecdote is a good exaple or a bad example.

From experience such a situation would be rarel case.


Now of course my local and the culture in in may be different than where you live.

[Doc]

I disagreed partly, but it looks as though I did a poor job of identifying where and what.

The first point I disagree with, since the "runaway dad" is not confined to low income absent fathers.  Courts use an escalating scale of "punitive child support" for increasing income level.  :angry: 

As to the second point, I disagreed with a single point cause and effect relationship. 

That minor disagreement turned into a point of departure to cover points not embodied in your post.  In retrospect, it was not a refutation, it was disagreement with using simplistic cause and effect premise.  The stats, I think we can agree, skew the numbers to "more dads running off" but the root causes (multiple) of that include the lack of equity in the court system,  incentivizing divorce over marriage healing, as well as the, sadly, too common exercise of departure by irresponsible men.

Occhi

edit for clarity
[right][snapback]104059[/snapback][/right]

Speaking as a Devil's advocate...

If I was making $5.15 an hour at Wafflehouse and some court banged me with the entirely unreasonable sum of four hundred dollars (Or hell, even two hundred) a week for child support, I would run away to. Hell, I would pack my bags, get on a Greyhound bus, and go as far away as I could possibly go. With taxes and such, that is, what, less than 150 a week in wages? Where does a fellow get enough to pay his own rent, and his own living expenses? Take a second job, that's 300 a week. 80 hour week. Something tells me that it is still not enough to cover child support payments and personal living costs. If you took a third job, ugh, part time, or on the week ends, say, another 20 hours, working 100 hour weeks, would you even clear 400 a week? Math is not my strong point. You wouldn't last long working under those kinds of conditions. I mean, you still have to make rent, power bill, phone, utilities like water and such, car payments, (if you even had a car) insurance, groceries, etc. I don't think it's physically possible.

Even somebody making eight or nine bucks an hour... Which is a fairly average wage for round these parts, that comes out to what, 360 a week? Not enough. Just not enough.

Given the unreasonable demands made with child support, and the physical impossiblity of actually making the payments, it's no wonder most men just run away and start over some place else if they can. And the judges don't care. It's been my experience that they don't give a crap if you can make the 200 bucks a week or whatever payments... They don't care about excuses. They don't care about the personal details of your life, they only care that you make the payment, or they sign the warrant to have you arrested.

Fellas... If a judge asked you to pay more for child support than you make in a week, what would you do? I am curious to see how some of the Lurkers might answer this question. Would you run away?

[Doc]

You cant have it both ways. Either your anecdote is a good exaple or a bad example.

From experience such a situation would be rarel case.
Now of course my local and the culture in in may be different than where you live.
[right][snapback]104061[/snapback][/right]

There is to much easily accessed information to take advantage of men and live the easy life. More and more women around here are latching on to it. Extreme poverty here. People will do anything, and I mean anything, to bootstrap themselves out of it.

It has become a large enough problem over the past few years that it is now common place to see the big honking SUVs and trailer trash covered with bling bling. You could pull in to almost any local box store round here, and see this for your self within an hour of sitting down. Pimped out rides, expensive clothing, wretched looking children. Or go in to the bank on Family Aid check day, and watch the disturbing number of orange yellow envelopes in the hot little bling blinged hands of some woman surrounded by her filthy brood of squalling brats. Pull in to the trailer parks and the housing developments and see absofarkinglutely squallid living conditions... I mean disgusting living conditions, but a frightening number of satilite dishes sprouting from the sagging roofs and big expensive cars and SUVs with those ridiculous looking oversized hubcaps.

In other parts of the country, you may find much the same, and either more of it or less of it, but I am sure it is becoming commonplace all over.

And with the way that the system currently works, I am sure this is a problem that will only become larger and larger as time passes.

A few years ago, I started noticing it locally. But it was just a few women here and there. Now, girls are dropping out of school and making careers out of this. Seduce a man, tell him anything and everything he needs to hear, and get knocked up a few times and then watch the money roll right in. There are even these awful little maggots on tv, these wretched lawyers and specialise in child support, offering their services to make sure that unwed mothers, these poor victims of circumstance, these poor women that were taken advantage of, get the money they rightfully deserve, and then some. These vultures ask for so little... 5 to 10% of all child support checks cashed till the child support checks stop. Seems like so little... But these guys are raking it in... 5% of a couple of hundred dollars a week, times God only knows how many checks, that is a lot of money. These jerks are part of the problem too.

It has become a lifestyle. It is still in early saturation stage, but it will grow and grow till it becomes an 'acceptable' way of life and become a 'normal' part of how to live, thrive, and survive.

[martini]

I would like to take the chance to say hogwash about a woman's earning potential my self. [snip]

I would say women have a better earning potential for doing absolutely nothing but spending a few minutes on her back, and a few hours spent here and there making sure she gets everything rightfully coming to her that she is entitled to through the system.

Given the wage inequity that women working genuine jobs have to face every day, I think it's pretty unfair to compare them with people who screw over the system. Saying that there is nothing wrong with the earning potential of women because an unscrupulous one can prostitute herself in order to scam the government (and potentially the other parent) is disingenuous at best.

With regards to the original topic, it's funny that the article is very much man vs. woman, which gets people locked into the arguments that we've all seen before, and neatly sidesteps the issue that in this case there is a child. The child didn't choose the methods or circumstances of his/her conception, and he/she needs support (and involvement) from both parents in order to have the best chance of a successful life.

[Doc]

Given the wage inequity that women working genuine jobs have to face every day, I think it's pretty unfair to compare them with people who screw over the system. Saying that there is nothing wrong with the earning potential of women because an unscrupulous one can prostitute herself in order to scam the government (and potentially the other parent) is disingenuous at best.

With regards to the original topic, it's funny that the article is very much man vs. woman, which gets people locked into the arguments that we've all seen before, and neatly sidesteps the issue that in this case there is a child. The child didn't choose the methods or circumstances of his/her conception, and he/she needs support (and involvement) from both parents in order to have the best chance of a successful life.
[right][snapback]104167[/snapback][/right]

Round here, it's 8 or 9 bucks an hour as a common wage for both men and women. And min wage is still min wage. Lots of people, men and women, get it. So the earning potential is pretty much the same. i do realise it is different in other places, but here, where many people are poor, pennies are pennies, and dimes are dimes. Aint a lick of difference who or what you are, chump change is chump change. About the only way a woman around here can make really good money is to be a stripper or a waitress at a high end establishment. Sure, there are doctors and such, but a lot of the locals don't grow up and become doctors. We import those.

A girl with halfway decent looks can make a killing as a stripper round here, and a waitress that knows how to lean over the table just right with a few buttons popped, a charming bit of Southern accent, and a sunny disposition can easily clear two or three hundred a night from tips, provided she has most of her teeth and has a job in a place that is a bit higher end or caters to the damnyankees that somehow keep finding their way South. (And if I see one more tourist putting sugar on their grits, I am going to shoot somebody in the ass)

No such luck and no easy jobs for the men though. All of the mills are closing. Times are hard. There isn't very many jobs with decent pay. Most take a job working at some place as an in between job, and wind up stuck there. Service jobs, gas station attendants, auto detail (Hah! Car wash) Fast food. There are some good tech jobs and such here... But a majority of the local population doesn't have the education to do it. A few do, and these people get to write their own hours and demand as much pay as they please, but this is the exception to the situation. There is a severe lack of firemen, EMTS, and police, as more and more people can not meet the physical demands required to become employed in these services.

Forgive my bluntness, but round here a nice set of boobs is a leg up in the world. Women catch more breaks in the workplace than men do.

[Tal]

Oh. And to add more fuel to the fire... Women expect special laws to protect them, but also make sure these laws do not apply to them.

Case in point. Where I live, there are some very strict deadbeat dad laws. If you are a man, and miss some child support payments, they can repo your car, seize your bank accounts, garnish your wage, and arrest you and toss you in jail.

However, these laws apply to men! There are no deadbeat mother laws for the women that lose custody of their kids to their husbands, but then refuse to pay child support, and very little is done to punish the women, because somehow, in spite of being deadbeat mothers, they are somehow made out to be the victim in these cases, and somehow it's never their fault they missed a few payments. The father is just being an "oppressive male" who is continuing to be abusive and controlling even though the relationship is over. There are even support groups for women who have lost custody of their kids and have to pay child support, support groups that fill the woman's head with garbage about why she shouldn't have to pay and why she shouldn't pay. But if men had these same organisations, oh dear God, we would never hear the end of it.

So, to sum it all up... When a woman asks for child support, it is because she is a woman... And she needs the money to take care of her kids. It is expected. It is her right... But a man asks for that same money, and he is being abusive and controlling and intruding on a woman's right to live her own life free of male tyranny.

Now that I think about it, it really is a whale of a double standard. The whole situation needs to be cleaned up.
[right][snapback]103980[/snapback][/right]

From the South Carolina Code of Laws Title 20: Domestic Relations

SECTION 20-7-90. Obligation to support spouse and children.

(A) Any able-bodied person capable of earning a livelihood who shall, without just cause or excuse, abandon or fail to provide reasonable support to his or her spouse or to his or her minor unmarried legitimate or illegitimate child dependent upon him or her shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be imprisoned for a term of not exceeding one year or be fined not less than three hundred dollars nor more than one thousand five hundred dollars, or both, in the discretion of the circuit court. A husband or wife abandoned by his or her spouse is not liable for the support of the abandoning spouse until such spouse offers to return unless the misconduct of the husband or wife justified the abandonment. If a fine be imposed the circuit court may, in its discretion, order that a portion of the fine be paid to a proper and suitable person or agency for the maintenance and support of the defendant's spouse or minor unmarried legitimate or illegitimate child. As used in this section "reasonable support" means an amount of financial assistance which, when combined with the support the member is reasonably capable of providing for himself or herself, will provide a living standard for the member substantially equal to that of the person owing the duty to support. It includes both usual and unusual necessities.

(B) Any person who fails to receive the support required by this section may petition to a circuit court of competent jurisdiction for a rule to show cause why the obligated person should not be required to provide such support and after proper service and hearing the circuit court shall in all appropriate cases order such support to be paid. Any such petition shall specify the amount of support required. Compliance with the circuit court order shall bar prosecution under the provisions of subsection (A) of this section.

On the subject of wage garnishment for child support:

PART II. INCOME WITHHOLDING TO ENFORCE SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS


SECTION 20-7-1315. Withholding of income to secure payment of support obligations; definitions; procedures; fines.

(A) As used in this section:

(1) "Order for support" means any order of a court or an administrative agency of competent jurisdiction which provides for periodic payments of funds for the support of a child or maintenance of a spouse or former spouse and support of a child, whether temporary or final, whether incidental to a proceeding for divorce, separation, separate maintenance, paternity, guardianship, or otherwise and includes any order providing for a modification of support payment of an arrearage or reimbursement of support.

The law is applicable to men and women. The fact may remain that there are more deadbeat dads than moms but they both seem to be equally punishable in the eyes of South Carolina's laws.

[Doc]

From the South Carolina Code of Laws Title 20: Domestic Relations
On the subject of wage garnishment for child support:
The law is applicable to men and women. The fact may remain that there are more deadbeat dads than moms but they both seem to be equally punishable in the eyes of South Carolina's laws.
[right][snapback]104173[/snapback][/right]

Hrm. I'll be damned. They have finally updated the law to include both sexes. Looks like it was changed in 2005. I honestly was not aware that they had updated anything.

Now, we just have to get people to actually prosecute deadbeat mothers, repo their cars, show their pictures on the five o clock news and label them as contemptable criminals, and demonise them to the degree that men have, and everything will be even Steven.

Thanks Tal, I wasn't aware that the changes had been made, and probably would have never looked, simply because I had so much doubt that anything would ever happen to try and fix the system.

[Occhidiangela]

From the South Carolina Code of Laws Title 20: Domestic Relations
[right][snapback]104173[/snapback][/right]

Nice research Tal. :D This passage is, IMO, license to steal.

As used in this section "reasonable support" means an amount of financial assistance which, when combined with the support the member is reasonably capable of providing for himself or herself, will provide a living standard for the member substantially equal to that of the person owing the duty to support. It includes both usual and unusual necessities

An open ended law to dip their hands into someone's pocket, also known as legitimized theft on the basis of "from each according to his income to the other based upon the former's income." This is incentive to do mental and emotional injury through separation.

Occhi

[Doc]

Nice research Tal.  :D  This passage is, IMO, license to steal.
An open ended law to dip their hands into someone's pocket, also known as legitimized theft on the basis of "from each according to his income to the other based upon the former's income."  This is incentive to do mental and emotional injury through separation.

Occhi
[right][snapback]104180[/snapback][/right]

The wording there is troubling.

[ShadowHM]

Nice research Tal.  :D  This passage is, IMO, license to steal.

[right][snapback]104180[/snapback][/right]

*raises eyebrow*

And fathering a child and not supporting him/her to the same living style you enjoy is what?