It must be an absolute shock to anyone who hears the term "family court" to discover it is the exact opposite of a "family" court........from what I hear, that is not at all an exaggeration.
.
The tragic question then becomes .......if the family court isn't going to seek justice for the people, who will?

These "courts" do, as the old saying goes ..........."as little as possible" ......its like a picker that picks only one bushel of apples a day and the "lowhanging fruit" is what they go after, THATS WHY a good father with a good job gets hounded and true deadbeats are left alone...its just too much work...Just about ALL of these people would be fired YESTERDAY if they had a real job....but, you know, you can't fire bureaucrats that WE ALL PAY.

In regards to the unweds and wedded people who live off the system: If they made a mistake once, we could help them get back on their feet by helping them to learn to be on their own without the government's help. If they repeat having children just to get the government to support them, cut them off. PERIOD! Why is our government making it so easy to get welfare??

realitybites- you are correct. You do not have to be in arrears to have wage assignment enforced for child support!
mOOnbabyOO- I have gone through it. On both sides, I have an ex did not pay and the courts did nothing to help me. On the other hand my current husband, never missed a payment and she got everything she wanted!! I think the court figured since he worked at gm it was easy to slap him with wage assignment and paying her court fees evertime she got a bug up her butt and wanted something else. truth1- yes many jobs have gone out of the country...but in good economic times you still had the problem with unweds who just kept having children and living off the system. Never doing anything to even try to better themselves!!

m00nbaby00 says "Courts do not automatically put in the auto-deduct they have to be not paying for some time and be proved to be avoiding payments in court before hand. and all these families could avoid this whole court thing by having their own agreement on support/visitation entered instead of playing the legal game.. "

sorry honey: that is not the case. I was not even given the option to pay directly. I just got a pink slip in the mail one day stating they were taking money directly from my paycheck. And no, I had no history of missing payments or trying to avoid payments.

moonbaby- No one is saying there aren't dads that don't pay.......its apparent that the "family" courts don't work for ANYBODY...they just do what politicians and bureaucrats want them to do.

......anyone that hasn't gone to the stores to see how much stuff that was made here that is now made in china or mex over the last 2 to 3 years will will be SHOCKED at the current situation.

tomtom- I agree with that, but the politicians over the last 30 years have facilitated all our jobs going to mexico and china....most people that want a job now can't get one no matter how hard they try and won't be in any forseeable future.

dkush21- you hit it right on the head.Same with welfare and ssi, there is something these people can do. Sure it may not pay enough to totally support them...but if they atleast attempt to support themselves, then subsidize their income with government help. But if they wont even try, why should they be support by us that have to work. Same with unwed pregnancy. Sure it happens (unplanned), but when you live off the system, the second time it happens (which will provide more money)I think they should mandate sterolization. Why should someone keep getting pregnant, and live off the system. If they are active enough to keep getting pregnant..they should be active enough to work, even if part time!

And about putting these deadbeat parents in jail, how about MAKING them work. Let them pick up the trash on our highways, etc. in order to pay their child support. You'll see how fast they can get another job that they would prefer.

I applaud the mothers and fathers who at least make an effort to support THEIR child. My Daughter has worked hard, sometimes 2 jobs to support my Grandson, who is 10 yrs old now. His father does not know what work is and if he does get a job, gets paid cash so that he doesn't have to support his own son. Too busy drinking and doing drugs. Is bipolar and schizo. Comes up with any excuse he can to avoid paying. He owes $15000. to $20000. in child support which my Daughter will probably never see. What's sad is that this will hurt the children of these deadbeat parents more than anything. Sure, he wants to PLAY with his son. But, that's about it. He just doesn't get it that being a true Father, comes the responsibility to support and take care of his son. Life is not free! And our government does NOT do enough to make these deadbeat parents responsible.

I need to correct my previous post...it should have read "not only once" referring to drunk driving. The live in who cared for the kids while she was in jail...later served prison time to drug dealing...and since has overdosed and died!

I would love to know how the court system thought it was just to order 25% of all gross income to my husbands ex-wife....when she didn't even work. Other than being a so called Mother, what was her monetary contribution to supporting the children. I use the term so called...as she was arrested for drunk driving, no only once, leaving the scene of an accident. She also spent time in jail and her live in cared for the kids. Fine example of parenting!!!

For those interested in this chat, there is an ongoing public chat on Wisconsin Fathers. Google WI Fathers, on the left is a drop down menu - choose Chat - there are 2: one for members and the public one.

There are many interesting subjects being discussed including what is happening for change in current legislation, and opportunities for action. It is hope for change.

Regarding putting dads in jail for not being able to pay support, or losing one job and not being able to find another at the same pay rate: Please understand that I was not condoning this method for anyone, including dads who owe thousands. Perhaps in too subtle a fashion, I was backing the opposite viewpoint, as that is where my feelings lay. That the practice even exists is ridiculous, but that it continues is even worse. Perhaps the people that need to fight it the most are the ones being persecuted by it and have much less of a voice because of it, not to mention funds. Others need to be motivated, but probably first need to be made aware, before the situation is going to change. I would never have believed it worked this way until it hit my family, then I was shocked. Ironically, I continued to be shocked as each new revelation presented itself. I was a slow learner. Up until this most recent court case I assumed court orders MUST be followed, by both parties. Thinking about the Family Court Commissioner and the judge that handled the de novo - I can understand why fathers in these cases remain passive - their future with their children depend on these biased people. They cannot show anger or frustration - OR, oh,oh - they must not be stable enough to be parents, or whatever. There is always a severe consequence, or the threat of one lurking in the air for many dads in the family court systems. So far, I cannot see where or how to really make FCC's and judges responsible for how they run their courtrooms, no matter how unfair or unjust, except by making others aware.

I believe the "courts" act in this assinine fashion because the states get matching funds from fedgov for collecting the money.....Another twist to this scenario is that the department of defense came out against forming a federal policy that would make it more difficult to steal a military person's children while overseas and defenseless in the matter.
.
There is a really REALLY bad odor about this stuff.

justsaying- It sure doesn't make sense to put people in jail for not having a job to pay support but from what I've heard, thats exactly whats done in a LOT of cases..."Courts" with NO sense.....and "arrears" build up the whole time the person is in jail...NO sense at all...Nice for the taxpayers all the way around 'eh?
.
I'm not in this situation at all, but it really bothers me that we seem to have third-world tinpot courts in this country....I thought this country was better than that.

Haven't piped in for awhile, but need to now...regarding the question how can someone owe so much and not be in jail...what is the point? Unless the deadbeat gets work release (and actually goes to work), there are no payments. Going to prison, well gee, they can make up to, what, a dollar an hour? Come on folks, think...why would you (or a judge) want to send a deadbeat to jail (prison) in order to get child support paid? think about it, if the deadbeat owes over $40,000 it is because the deadbeat skipped on providing for his child(ren. In this economy, ok there are job losses-this economy has not been THIS bad for more than a year now.but to owe $40,000 the deadbeat has NOT paid for a VERY LONG TIME,and really cannot blame the economy......that would be saying the deadbeat pays $3300 plus change a month!! Can only say if you are lucky enough to NOT have to go through this, stay out of it, because every case is different...And just to clarify, not ALL who owe child support are deadbeats, only the ones who deliberately flee in order not to pay...yes people, it happens, and the KIDS are the ones who suffer when Mom or Dad have to say no to something because there just isnt enough money due to having to do it all on your own. Again, if you are NOT in this situation, be thankful. If you are in this situation, hang in there, things can and will change for the better.

Oops - sentence structure off: Regarding the suspended Kentucky judge, I meant to say: A KY Family court judge was suspended for misconduct in the handling of two cases involving fathers . . .
lots on the plate lately and I seem to be constantly rushing - sorry.

Truth 1: For information on suspension of a judge, google Kentucky judge suspended. Last month there was a Family court judge suspended for handling two cases involving misconduct of fathers in the system. I read the article . . . this is rare, but so openly welcome. It is said that there are most likely many more than these two cases. Usually a judge catches trouble for using drugs or something of that nature, but not for how they run their courtroom. I hope this starts a trend.

I do believe judges can be impeached and removed if there is enough interest in doing so.....I would think that a judge being complicit in a felony or multiple felonies would count for something also...
.
Perjury is a felony...

truth1: About the two cases being so different, actually, that is why I am questioning it. With what I have learned and experienced thus far, I can't understand how a father can owe that much money and not be in jail. I was a court observer, attending with WI Fathers, for a case in the summer. This involved a father, living and working in Korea. HIs pay took a dive and he fell behind in child support - between 2 and 3 thousand dollars. When entering the country, he was met at the airport, to be arrested and jailed for delinquent child support. (Imagine how many tax dollars are spent on this kind of thing) . . . Anyway, he was allowed to go back to his job in Korea, some how; however, if he wanted to come home, the court ordered his immediate arrest - at the airport -unless this back child support was paid. I listened to the phone call from Korea to the court room. This man truly could not meet this financial obligation, with the cut in pay. In the end, his family, represented by his mother, paid the back payment amount so he could return home. I heard the judge state that if he fell behind again, there would be another court order for his arrest. So, that is why I also do not understand a case of someone behind $46,000 - and nothing is happening.

Regarding the purgery: I don't think people know what to do. I spoke with court employees, and they agreed that this "kind of thing" is going on all the time, to quote directly, and they just shake their heads. That's why I joined WI Fathers . . . going public, going political, when and as I can.

To jvilldr: Most placement has to do with parents work schedules. The process must go through mediation - there is no automatic 50/50 placement. Your assumption was that in Wisconsin, 50/50 placement occurs unless there is something wrong with the other parent??? That is off. I hope you reconsider that assumption. It is as false as assuming that if the DA issues criminal charges against someone, that they have evidence, so, that person must have done "something" wrong. No, no, no. As I understand how the law is suppose to work, criminal charges are not suppose to be issued unless there is evidence . . . at least that is what DA newspaper cases state, and that is what happens on TV. But, in reality, something entirely different is going on. If it was rare, then it could be written off to human error. But, it is not rare, and the personal case I witnessed was shocking. Once proven innocent, even the GAL wrote a letter to the DA, stating she was appalled that criminal charges were issued on a mom's words alone . . . unbelievable what is going on, including the escalating suicide rates of dads, and those numbers are kept relatively quiet, so far.

HOW are these two cases so different??...I mean what lvmyslf is saying and what Revika is saying.....How does one get away with not paying and the other doesn't?????
.
About the perjury......WHY are citizens allowing judges to be party to felony crime from the bench?????

rivika22 - No he does not work, he has not had a job since he was fired twice from GM 10 years ago. He is 39 and lives off of his 23 year old girlfriend. He has not been any part of my sons life since I left him 13 years ago. My son has no respect for his dad at all, he knows that everything he has and is, is because of me. My ex is a DEAD BEAT DAD....

Wisconsin needs child support reform so it is EQUAL for both parents. Equal payments and equal placement! But this stuid ass state will never change.

Ivemyslf:
I am feeling empathy for you, but I am curious: Can your ex realistically afford to pay you $46,000.00? And if he can, is he in jail? I am interested in knowing, both sides. Via WI Fathers, I learned some months ago that in Milwaukee, many fathers were out of work, due to the economy. The law holds that they must find a job of or around the same pay scale as they had so their ex-wives/kids can retain the same level of living they had experienced with his first job. Well, obviously, these fathers could not do it. Milwaukee's jails would have been overly filled, so it was one woman and I do not recall her name, that was working to create some kind other way of handling the situation. People in jail also create a heavy tax burden on the economy as well.
In both my dads and sons cases, the court immediately went through the child support agency to take the payments directly from the father's paycheck. I am not looking for an argument or for you to be upset in any way, when I ask if this was done in your case. If not, I wonder why not.
Since I have become involved in the politics of this, and want to continue to do so, I truly want to know how it is working. One more thing - does the father have a positive relationship with his children? Is he actively and positively participating in their lives?

truth1 - Shut your face. I am a mother who is owed $46,000 in back support. What I am saying is so many people piss and moan about having to pay, or saying they don't think the other parent is paying enough. I have had to hire a lawyer MANY times to get an order enforced that was already there. Child Support enforcement is a joke and so are you. You must be one of those bitter ex!

Truth 1, The practice has become commonplace. There are no easy answers to put us back on a moral course.
In a particular case, it could be proven without a doubt, that the mom had lied - in writing repeatedly, to the police, to the courts, to the DA's office; there was overwhelming evidence there of what she had done via a false allegation. I suggested to an attorney: the father should sue her. He spent thousands on the prove yourself innocent thing; however, the greatest damage was emotional pain and suffering of the child, and himself. The attorney had a great laugh over that idea. It simply does not happen. When it comes to moms using the system for custody/placement/child support gains - and the attorneys/courts profit, and they do - they get away with what they want as the norm. If anyone out there can relay something contrary to this, I would love to hear about it, for hope most of all.
As far as perjury being allowed - Yep. Over and over again.
So, I have to wonder if the system itself, for profit of a variety of sorts, isn't a strong catalyst for creating the current situation as it is.
Perhaps that attorney's laugh was part of an inside joke. Perhaps the mom taking part in creating the chaos is just a symptom of a cause. Perhaps action needs to be taken against a system that we witness repeatedly allowing this literal crime to continue - and what we can't witness and I have come to feel paranoid about thinking - is that the system is a main cause, in and of itself.

Revika22- I suppose lvmyslf thinks the other parent should hire a lawyer with that $160 a month.......
..Revika, you referred to one party being able to get away with lying in court.......that is PERJURY, which makes a judge that allows it complicit in a *FELONY*.....and they get away with that, too.

Reality check: "deadbeat dad" has been used as other psychological (political) propaganda has been, and it has been effective. That is the issue,
The term does not psychologically "capture" mothers - not in a societal sense, which is also an issue.
The term has been overused, and it projects a negative image, quickly, which is in effect, prejudice. No difference. When fathers have been treated unfairly in a biased court system - and the great reality is that they have been - the term associates automatically with the injustice those have personally felt.

EXAMPLE: case going on NOW - can support the cause via WI Fathers;
A dad agreed to pay the sum of $1200.00/month child support for 33 months, in accordance with the stipulation law. He lost his job. Unemployment amounts to $1360.00/month. He went back to court -the decision is that since the stipulation is stated the amount of $1200.00, no matter the circumstance, this amount cannot be changed - he is held to it. Who can live on 160.00 a month? This the the law: the payee - almost always fathers - are under the stipulation clause. HOWEVER, the party receiving the pay, usually the mother. is not forced to agree to any amount she accepts - no stipulation for her - because if HER circumstances change, she can go back and request more. In this particular case, the mom's salary is in the realm of $100,000.00/yr.

As far as taking an unfit mom to court to gain primary custody - this is not easy and can be extremely expensive. Remember, we are living in an era when the DA offices are issuing criminal charges - almost always against fathers - on a mother's word ONLY. No evidence. This is not even suppose to be happening, and yet it is happening and not rarely. Research is showing that if the abuse charges are made during a divorce or custody / placement conflict, 95-98% of these charges are false, and, sorry ladies, way over 90% of the false allegations are mom initiated. Also - there simply is no consequence or responsibility for lying. It costs dads thousands to prove themselves innocent. If they do not have the proper attorney, the result can influence their contact with their children for the rest of their lives.

Moms and attorneys are making out financially very well on this process. The court system employees have job security. The people in control are making out, and I think that may be a huge block to change.

Some where, some how, society as a whole is going to have to first acknowledge the prejudice, rise above it and insist on fair treatment for all parents in the family courts.

The term deadbeat, I don't care if you are a man or woman, is the pile of crap that DOES NOT AND WILL NOT financially support thier kids...... Who cares if your bitter wife wants more money, are you paying? Then you are not a deadbeat. If the mom is unfit but pays her support, then she is not a deadbeat. If you feel your ex is unfit in any way and should not be the main caregiver of your children, then get off your butt and take the worthless parent to court and YOU get primary placement. But then what would you complain about? I know... how expensive it is to raise a kid......

Another good point the article makes is the term d---b--t-dad is used by political operatives, but they never use "B"-word or any other term for bad/violent mothers....They use the pejorative for the man who doesn't want to pay money to a violent or irresponsible mother, but they won't use the other pejorative when it fits the other party.....Really makes them look silly.

Macgruff - RE: Dec 3, 2009 at 11:19 a.m.
You said it best, my friend. Rise above and quit slamming the former spouse.

tomtom - The payroll checks I processed weren't in arrears. This is something that all the guys that worked for the company I did told me that was child support policy.

truth1 - Yes, that's what I see sooo many times. It didn't work out with her, so she'll be damned if he gets a start with someone else and be happy. Make his life just plain miserable! IMO. And by the way, it's not really an opinion. It's first hand knowledge.

Another aspect, too, is the "looser" that changes and tries his darndest to be a good father/provider and gets berated constantly by the "mother" because he can't/won't be a human ATM machine.

swisschick- Yes, thats the other side of the coin and a very good point.

I better use "former girlfriend/wife" so I don't get slammed.

I get a kick out of people who claim the former boyfriend/husband is a deadbeat and nothing of a "father" figure. True, some people change down the road, but everyone????? Nobody forced anyone to sleep with these losers. I'm gonna hear it now!

The thing that really gets me is that people are terrible wronged by the gov't yet, instead of TRYING to do something about it, keep their heads full of inane nonsense like "professional" sports and the like.
.
It never ceases to amaze me how certain people in supposed turmoil can go on and on and on about meaningless drivel..You'd think they would be using their head to figure out what to do next.

Just thought that was the way it was.

jajeja8 - Sorry, I was told by court employee that it is an automatic thing, unless of course, the parent is self-employed.

Truth1, I was going to pull out quotes, but then I realized I would be citing most of this op-ed piece. This writer presents his opinion as if it were fact and "truth" without citing statistics, resources, or neutral, third-party studies. For instance, look at how he says that "feminists often claim" or that "women's advocates often claim" or how "fathers, all too, often..." and so on. Any time he uses "often" or "most" these OPINIONS need to be backed up.
**
Is our country so used to media pundits that we can no longer differentiate between fact and opinion?

Kay13- Well, then, tell us what in the article is so patently "untrue"??

Aw give it up Kay, So we start with the petards, of Woman hater, and next it will devolve into wife beater and child abuser. The reason I called you on your attitude was simply that you follow the doctrine of Alinsky, otherwise known as the hegelian principle which is totally compatible with the states interest in human resources, particularly children. In order to have a healthy debate on this issue I am willing to hear your point of view so make a valid point not rhetoric. As for the idea of percentile figures, you do know that shared parenting in WI, means that the father is entitled to only the minimum of 48 days a year. For anything else the state along with the former spouse will fight tooth and nail until the daddy runs out of money, goes away in disgust or just plain gives up after too many prosecutable accusations with no evidence. Every male knows or should do, that mommy gets the kids and daddy gets the invoice.
My concern is not the immediate benefit to the custodial parent, it is the long term demographics of what happens to a lot of females once their cuckoo's leave the nest. It is especially sad for children and their life long losses. Most never know the other side of their family, worse 60% of NCP's lose their bonds with their children forever. The CP's only consider the monetary interest in their children as a validation which reflects a pretty poor mindset.

Truth1, it is the Gazette's responsibility to ensure that they publish op-ed pieces that are supported by facts rather than biases. Journalism 101.

In other words....the problem is the so-called "courts" have made a mockery of "equal justice" and "equal protection"

Kay13- Its not up to the Gazette to "support the writer's assertions"..Yes, it is an editorial.....The facts are out there, its up to the reader to find them or disprove them for themselves and there really isn't anything out there to disprove any of it....The real problem isn't with females per se, its with the "courts" that seem to pick-and-choose who they will allow to commit perjury and seem to think its just fine to hold people for ransom, embezzle money, and kidnap children.

Andrew_Ess, your hatred towards women is pretty revolting.
**
I would argue that when someone has a child (and whether they are the father or the mother), they have an obligation to financially support that child. While Wisconsin no longer uses percentages, that's around 17% of income for one child or 25% for two children. That seems incredibly reasonable for someone who doesn't have physical placement. If the non-custodial parent chooses to not work or pursue additional placement, I fail to see how the custodial parent (which is usually the woman) is to blame.
**
And besides, your insult of calling me "comrade" doesn't even make sense in this context. Let me guess: you're also one of those people who insult those who support national health care by labeling them "commies," too, right?

Comrade Kay13 would be correct that in order for a male to be more interactive with their offspring. He must financially invoke the courts into allowing or ordering more legal time with their children to which most females would obviously object as this is directly proportional to their personal Child support income. It is not unusual for females to ask for complete physical placement and custody of the children, to which by default the court will grant without question the demand. It is sadly the most poorer of families who submit one of the parents into a lifelong period of financial incapacity to support not only their only vocation, lifestyle or basic needs but also render them incapable often of working. We are talking here the 26% of male defaulters who earn less than poverty after child support. I am sure kay will not tell us how many females default on their child support and worse those numbers are rising dramatically. For those females deluded enough to believe that this just relates only to men, be aware that their are at least a half million females who do not contribute to the welfare of the children, and never will. Yet strangely they are hardly ever prosecuted. Perhaps a clarion call too late but the feminist Mckinnon has reputedly stated that, 'it would be time to consider allowing men to become part of the family again by allowing them back into the home'. A revelation far tardy to correct the financial onslaught that will now reverse and effect females for generations to come. There never was a real interest in the welfare of females just their votes and consumer profile, that was previously sub serviced by males not females.

Andrew_Ess said this: "It is rather interesting that a number of female posters only equate fatherhood with money, child support and irresponsibility." I disagree. It sounds to me like many (male and female) posters recognize that some people (both male and female) are capable, responsible, and caring enough to be good parents. The ones who are too immature, self-centered, or irresponsible are the ones who often don't pay child support or regularly seek placement.
**
If a woman's experience with her child's biological father is the latter, is it any wonder that she would focus on the child support in arrears or how he doesn't take any interest in the lives of his own children?

You know, I find it really interesting that no one else is taking this writing - or the Gazette, for that matter - to task for not supporting his assertions with facts, studies, and other non-biased information.
**
I know that we now have a much looser definition of "journalism" that we used to. But even if this is an op-ed piece, I expect the Gazette to maintain high standards of journalism and insist on facts rather than misleading or blanket statements.

[[con't from 3 above.]]
***
But at her dad's there is a set routine - homework and nightly reading and baths, as well as any forms needing to be read or signed. Its clear who takes the child's needs into consideration. However when it comes to support he just pays the mother to go away, in a sense, because the child is much better with he and my sister, but he doesn't want her to try to take her out of their home (which she does if she doesn't get her way with him). (No, I don't say this because she's my sister; if you knew these people and the situation you would agree too.)

So tell me, jvilledr, how that fits into your perfect view of the system. It is quite obvious that you are the one who is wrong and has no clue what you are talking about.
***
As for the person who asked why lawyers need to be involved... I do think that they are necessary to an extent, but more at the level of guardian-at-litem (GAL). A GAL is supposed to talk to the parents and children each separately, as well as (often times) teachers, counselors and other adults in the child's life, and they make the decision based on all info gathered, what is best for the kids. But yes, I do think that sometimes its not necessary for lawyers for the parents, but sometimes it is.

1) My aunt was dating a man that was bringing home checks for $35 A WEEK (sometimes less) from his 40 hour/week job with 50/50 custody with his ex because she was always dragging him back to court for more. Nope, getting 90% of his check plus insurance coverage for herself & their two children and ALL of her attorney fees was not enough. At times he could barely afford to buy food for himself.

2) This same aunt has 50/50 with her ex, yet he pays her child support because he makes more a week than she does. (They both work 40/week.)

3) My sister's finace pays his daughter's mother (or egg donor as we call her) about $35/week and they have 50/50. However my sister and her fiance pay for EVERYTHING (food, clothing, school fees/supplies, medical expenses, sports, you name it, they pay for it) for his daughter. She is with them all but a few nights a month. The mother picks her up when its convenient (usually, when she gets a new flavor-of-the month), or to make sure that her daughter can't do something she is looking forward to doing with her father. The mother barely works but never has her child. And even when she has the child the child is usually with a babysitter or one of her older brothers (one of whom nearly died of a heroin OD this past summer). The daughter is now eight but in the past when she was with the mother more, she would be late to school nearly everyday because the mother would be too lazy to get up or the daughter would say "I don't feel good" (never anything wrong with her though-she learned to play this card well) or "I don't wanna go" and that would be that-no school that day! There was no set bed time, so getting up in the morning was a struggle and came with lots of bad attitude and mouthing off, which would carry throughout the day, even when she got home to her dad's. Even now, the few school nights she spends there, no homework or nightly reading is done. No permission slips read or signed. Nothing. Often times she returns to her dad's house after two to three days wearing the same underwear she left in, and needing a bath because she hadn't had one. The mother would rather go out drinking with her friends than care for her child. The mother has gone without seeing this child on her birthday, Christmas, and many other holidays, and often doesn't call. She used to bad talk my sister and the dad, but thankfully the child is realizing that her mother is wrong, and is realizing this on her own. (As my sister and I are from a divorced family, we fully understand in our family the importance of NOT speaking ill about the other parent when the child is around so that she can form her own opinions.)

Swisschick - not all child support is garnished from paychecks. That usually happens when there is a court order, or an agreement to do so. Otherwise, the paying parent just sends the money to the state, or to the other parent if that's the arrangement.

It is rather interesting that a number of female posters only equate fatherhood with money, child support and irresponsibility. While it is quite easy to provide anecdote that counters these arguments. Is it not the case that those individuals life views are so restrictive and extend to every male. It is sad and sometimes understandable but it does not fix the individual problems created. Such an attitude permeates a vicious cycle and the one's who really suffer out of this are always the children. I can only imagine what can become of children brought up by this attitude. There are legal procedures to right these wrongs, but only if you have the money to do so. Unfortunately after the courts have taken their pound of flesh it usually leaves a rather lifelong hole for the former family to fill. So sad that as one ex family attorney stated, family courts and the very system made to save them the problems created out of divorce or separation place "a price on the head of the children."

anonomouse didn't say i wanted anyone to feel sorry for him,i sure don't yes i think he realized having unprotected sex could result in a child and he was told by the mother that there was protection being used will not go into details just that he wasnt thinking with his head when this situation occurred just saying if you don't want a child or child support payments take responsibility for protection yourself

I guess I can give my opinion now on this subject. I'll keep it brief as the whole story is upsetting and sickening. I have two boys, 13 & 10, they don't know or remember their father because he left us when my youngest was just going to turn 1 yrs old. Ran off to be with a married woman who is 14 yrs older then he is. Never turned back. I use to try to keep in contact with him for the kids but he never wanted anything to do with them. He would never even recognize them on the streets if he saw them. He is court ordered to pay $85 a week but has never paid more than $100 every other week for years. That is when child support can track him down and he stays working long enough to garnish him. My question is the child support dept says for two kids he should pay 25% of his wages to child support. What would happen to my kids if I only paid 25% for my kids support? Plus trash like this doesn't even deserve the label of any type of "Father".

So-called "protected" sex often results in children too......Unless you're sterilized, having sex comes with a chance of having a child.
.
I see no "trick" in the situation either..

Burbanmom how was he conned? Did He not realize that having unprotected sex could result in a child? Sorry not feeling sorry for him.

tomtom your statement is so very true,the father of my children was conned (claims were made about being protected)low and behold after a couple romps in the sack guess who gets preg. now for 18 years there will be child support medical dental vision.when he starts collecting SS the child will probably be eligle(but i'm sure she knew this)i guess in a way the state welfare system is being replaced by a federal one. aparently she thought he would leave his intact family and would be financially set for life, it didn't happen and now the sad part is that he will probably never be involed in this childs life simply because it was a con job, lesson to be learned if someone says they are protected use double cause if you don't a unplanned child whether your a man or woman could be the end result of getting some.

jvillerdr, you are totally wrong!!! And Spark, you sound like a person who has their eggs all in one basket! You are very knowledgeable on this subject. In response to jvillerdr, besides airplanes and cars, they also have these brick buildings called schools, thats where our kids and grandkids are educated, have you ever been in one? Probaby not! It is the law that the kids have to go to one, so what happens when a parent lives out of town or state or doesn't drive and can't get them to school? "Mr. Judge, I don't want to pay support or take my kids to school, is that okay with you"? LOL Do you have a solution, Einstien?? 50/50 placement with no support, in most instances is not viable. The judge gives this arrangement unless something is wrong with the other parent? HUH? What if one parent works 60+ hours a week or lives out of state? What if one is in jail or an abuser and the other parent can prove it? What then? Does child support pay for gas or does that get picked off the tree in these peoples backyards? I lived this scenerio out about 5 years ago (towards the end of support), it started in 1991 when I got divorced. My ex could not hold a job nor did he ever want his kids, even on weekends. We agreed on $50 a week for 3 kids, even when he was unemployed (which was 80% of the time). What I am trying to say is, each case of divorce and custody is different, there are no two alike. So where do you get off telling people how it is? You do sound like a very frustrated and pitiful person, you are the one who needs a therapist, not Spark. JMO and I'm sticking to it!!!!! I also attended college in the legal profession so I think I know what I am talking about, Wisconsin has always had a screwed up court system when it comes to any crime or divorce or whatever!!

"The Divorce Industry" - I suppose it was not coincidence that both attorneys, first thing, want to thoroughly investigate how much money the couple is worth and what assests they have. All was taken; actually, when all equity from the house was drained, that is when the divorce ended. My son was forced into bankrupsy, fighting to prove his innocence and gain half custody and placement of his little girl. He is the angel and savior of her life, and says there are no regrets - he'd do it all again in a heartbeat. During the marriage, the ex-wife stashed money in bags, not banks, as do her sister and mother - they have quite a complex system going. The men in their lives walk away with nothing financially, and usually in great debt; they, on the other hand, walk away with thousands, drive new cars, work part time and receive much government aid.

Off track . . . so, I believe politicians' backgrounds are usually involved with law - attorneys. So, the people who make the laws and have the power of how they are enforced, are the politicians who are mainly attorneys; and the judges that sit on the bench, are attorneys; and it is the attorneys who also make money off the very system they have set up.

Oh.

As per the article title, the term "deadbeat-dad" ........the Divorce Industry adores it since it rolls off the tongue so easily making it sooo easy to dupe the public .....But, many ARE beginning to wise-up to it.

I've heard that the Divorce Industry actually puts La Cosa Nostra to shame....heard that quite a few times.

revika- Yes, the lawyers profit and I do believe judges WERE lawyers .......Isn't that just REAL convenient..
.
There are many other operatives in what a lot of people call "The Divorce Industry" ...not much unemployment in there.

truth 1: I agree, our family court systems are not what we have been raised in American society to believe they are. I would never have believed what goes on, until I experienced it. I hold more fear than respect for the system, and that feeling is greatly justified.

I have asked myself, numerous times, what can I do about it? I have an advantage - I am a woman, and an educated one. As a woman, my voice has ten times the power of a man's . . . I have tested this out. So, a conclusion reached is that women are going to have to unite to speak up for the men. The men try, but looking at other cases via Wi Fathers, men just are not being listened to. It seems, over and over, an assumption exists that they are natural liars and abusers, and the moms are natural truth tellers and nurturers.

I joined WI Fathers. After what my family has endured, and still suffers with, I feel that i will always be involved.
Just spreading the word on experiences is something.

Some day, hopefully, the family courts are going to see individuals as individuals, with same rules applied for everyone. Also - some kind of consequence or responsibility needs to happen for those who falsify legal documents, lie to police working the system to their advantage - this is of monumental cost to the tax payer, besides the harmed parent. The winners are the court workers and the attorneys, and the manipulative parent. The biggest losers are the kids.

To Andrew_Ess RE: profit of state and legal profession
Ironically, this topic just surfaced in our experience and I wondered if I was becoming paranoid. My son's ex wife has refused to follow court orders numerous times, without consequence. He finally was advised to file a contempt of court order, because she refused to disclose financial information PER SIGNED COURT ORDER. She is doing this because she is hiding a second income - weekend work. Because my son worked weekends, even though his hours are flexible, he was denied weekend placement because mom "did not work weekends." Also, her one part time income is the basis of child support. His daughter has continually been left with sitters and boyfriends. He needed the proof of the second job. In October, the case came before Winnebago FCC - ex wife is "cute" - he quickly decided that she did not have to follow the court order if she did not want to. Again, she walked away without consequence - big smile on her face. He filed a de novo. It went before the judge in November. It was decided to uphold the FCC decision?? It was stated that "she really should follow the court order for next year".

What are court orders? I have witnessed that my son, the father, must follow them strictly to the letter.

It was also learned that all the child support she is collecting all year, and probably is not entitled to, once she is caught, she is not obligated to pay any of it back.

What goes on continues to baffle me . . . unless I am missing something entirely. Perhaps these cases are providing job security for our court system workers? I wonder where the real responsibility lies for how this system is working - is it the lawyers? Who profits from this system . . . the lawyers? Mmmmmm.

Before I began studying the issue I had no idea one parent could break up their family, abscond with the kids, and get a "court" to embezzle and rob the other parent of nearly all their assets for years .....This happens, mind you, in a first-world country.

Revika22- Those "courts" should take the flag of the United States OFF their grounds...They have nothing whatsoever to do with it...

Truth1: regarding, servicemen, divorce and Iraq
Via a WI Fathers link, not long ago there was a reference to this;
It went along these lines: not long ago a serviceman finished his tour of duty in Iraq. He returned home to find his wife and child with another man. His wife wanted a divorce, and a new daddy for the child. Because he had been gone for at least a year, the courts thought it best that he have limited access to his child, because now his child was used to seeing the other daddy, according to the mother's wishes. Of course, she wanted child support . . . granted by the court. The man took his own life. His sergeant, I believe it was his sergeant, wanted to start some kind of activist group, because this kind of thing seems to be happening more and more often.
I know statistics for father suicides are continually on the rise.
If my son had not found the second attorney he had, I fear he also could have become one of these statistics.

Everyone should read the post by revika22 while thinking about that "walk a mile in her shoes" thing (LOLOL ......

MacGruff- I agree with you 100%, it would be nice if majority felt and thought the same as you. I to do not recieve any child support, my ex currently owes $46,000 in back support. He does not see his child, by his choice and his HUGE loss. I remarried to the most wonderful, caring, patient, giving, etc. man. He owns his own buisness and I help him by doing the paper work, the part he hates, so I do not work outside of the home. He has taken on every aspect of caring for my daughter, he has said so many times that he does not want a thing from my daughters sperm donor. He has so much love for my daughter and my husband her step dad is the man she considers her daddy. She has even changed her last name ( not legally, she is only 10!) to my husbands! I am very blessed to have found such a wonderful, caring and understanding man. Your wife is also very fortunate. You and my husband now are an extremly rare breed. Kudos to you!

Having experienced divorce first hand, I know the toll it puts on the PARENT that cares what happen to the children. My brother went through a divorce back in the 70's. He worked at GM when they were not making the big money. He followed the divorce decree to the T. He helped his ex go to school, paid child support,
bought extra things for the kids, and saw them every other weekend without fail. To do this he had to live in small little apartments, go with out at times. But today he is reaping the rewards. His children and grandchildren believe He is the BEST and his ex-wife and him have a relationship that they can share information about their children and grandchildren. I on the other went through a divorce in the 80's. My ex never followed the divorce decree, he went eight years without paying child support. He told the court that $40 a week was too much to pay. My son is now 28 and he hasn't seen his father since he was 3. There was never a birthday or Chirstmas card. My ex husband reward, nothing my son has no memroy of him, and no desire to meet him or see him. I guess what I am trying to say is, parents be heros to your children, support them, love them, sacrfice for them because your rewards are going to be fair greater in the future, then what you may have to go without now...

I have witnessed fathers absolutely being blasted, more often than not within the family court system. There exists strong negative false assumptions in the family court targeting fathers.

My mom filed for divorced in the early 1960's:she had adopted a bar fly life, and boyfriend bartender.
My dad - the stable, interested in the kids parent, was awarded 2 hours a week placement time. My older sister, a victim of PAS would not see him for years. The bartend became the 2nd out of 4 husbands. Drinking, pills, suicide attempts, abuse - it was a hell of a life for us kids, but she always remained the professional victim in the court's eyes.

I assumed after decades, courts had become more reasonable. Then, my son married into a family enmeshment system; his family did not see him for 4 years. In my son's case, the abuse took various forms, with threats both to the safety of, and the loss of the children, keeping him "in line." He worked full time, adjusting his hours to weekends and early morning hours to be the primary caretaker of his baby and a stepson. He also worked a second job, lawn/snow care, to which he brought the kids along. Economic abuse is not to be minimized. He was allowed ten dollars a week. Phone bills were checked every month to see that he had no contact with his family or past. Marriage counseling began when his family initiated contact. His wife's stories were initially believed by the counselor, truth emerged -she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorders, histrionic, narcissistic and anti social symptoms. During one session, she attacked the counselor. She had to sign papers to get help for anger, anxiety, issues. The court ignored these papers and refused to consult with the counselor. My son was warned that she would initiate a false allegation of abuse to gain the upper hand in the divorce and custody battle . . . and she did.
That is where my education of the family court begins. My son was arrested in his driveway. There was a catalyst - the ex had taken off in one of her many rages, this time with the 3 yr old standing up in her booster. She slammed the car into reverse and hit the brakes hard, then took off. The child had flown head over heels in the car. She feared a neck injury and rather than taking the child to the ER or doctor, she fled home and made up a story about my son "throwing" the child into the car.
The officer was convinced and arrested my son when he arrived home. The following day, the DA issued 2 criminal charges against him -their evidence was the mom's words only. A bond was placed against him and he was not allowed to see his 3 yr old. It took 3 months to prove his innocence. By that time, the 3 year old had withdrawn emotionally, started wetting, chewed the skin off her fingers and clung on to him like an octopus. When he expressed fear for the children, it is written in the DA's report that he lies, "due to his penal interests
.

Our society has many ills to heal.

Biscuit5: as a matter of fact I HAVE been asked to leave the room in what is supposed to be impartial mediation. My baby mama was caught in an outright lie and she started to cry. I was asked to leave the room for a couple of minutes. Soon after I was let back into the room an officer enters and looks directly at me asking if I have everything under control. The assumption is that the big mean MAN made the poor woman cry. Get real. The system is biased toward women.

I've also heard stories about soldiers in Iraq having their spouse leave them and clean out their bank account while they're gone and the court let them get away with it....Awfully ironic, then, that such a "court" would fly an American flag outfront..(LOL

lvmyslf said--"the court won't even look at you unless you have a lawyer".....
.
"Courts" are supposed to be "for the people" since the "people" support them with their taxes..............no one can say the courts are "for the people" if the above quote is true.
.
Sadly, some people have resorted to "other ways" since a viable court system seems to no longer exist.
.
In a nutshell, I guess we're heading toward a third-world economy and already have third-world tinpot courts wherein the powerful benefit financially at the expense of justice.

I wonder if anyone commenting has taken the time to study the rock county child custody hearings over the last 20 years the numbers are like this,judges have given placement and custody to women 88 percent of the time the county judges are biased.
please answer this have any of you men gone to court ordered mediation and been asked to leave the office for a minute I bet you have.
B

It is so sad to hear all these heartbreaking stories. Yet we all miss the point, all our children suffer for these antics created solely for the pleasure and profit of both the state and legal profession. We should all lament the loss of many of our rights and natural liberties stemming from the inception of child support. In the bigger picture and future the very system of legal business as usual is now unbound. The transfer of wealth as it is commonly known among males has caused so much grief to both sexes and especially that which we cherish and invest in most all our collective children and their futures.

The good thing for males is as the disabled legal gender. We can now watch over the next decade or so the decline of our culture as the system turns towards the natural financial evolution of chasing dollars out of females, having stripped everything including legal due process rights from the majority of males.

As we all come to realize we own nothing and just rent space, property and our own flesh and blood in this once all powerful nation. We should thank the legal systems move from a simple philosophy of law and order to that of Monopoly state contracts and enforced orders. A far stretch removed from our once proud nations constitutional intent. The question then becomes do females then instead of supporting the states interest, support that of their fellow humans, namely males. At that juncture will males protect them or let them fail as they have failed to protect us throughout this NWO type of legal endeavor.

My father and his brother were raised by a single mother in Chicago. His father left when he was a few years old. My mother had the chance to be a stay at home mom, until my dad lost his job and she needed to work. She didnt like that so she often found excuses to leave my father to go to her mother's. He eventually found a good paying job, allowing my mom to not have to work. When I was 15 I told my father, after my mother left again that she shouldnt be allowed in our lives since she does nothing for us and often leaves all of us without so much of a goodbye at times. He agreed. He finally told my mother not to come back. He filed for divorce that year and my mother was shocked. In court she told the judge she only wanted to see us in the summer. NO holidays, birthdays, or anything else. She would stay out-of-state where she lived. The court ordered my father to have permenate placement of me and my two other siblings and my mother would have to pay doctors bills or other bills we children may have. My mother has done nothing to support us or provide for us since. I am now 20 and in the last four years, my younger sister who is not 18 yet has not had any support from my mother either. We rarely see her and she is now married to a man where she can stay at home without working. My mother has lied to my sister saying she bought her things, but this was never so. My mother cannot keep a job, and hardly calls. My older sis is in a simliar situation now. Shes a single mother working two jobs, she only has one son. The "baby-daddy" does not work. He has threatened to take my sis to court for child support, although he often refuses to take care of him. My father always took care of me and my sisters when he could, but now my sister needs help because the father wont even watch his son at times when my sis has to work. Yet he threatens her with going to court because she wont pay his bills. I think if a dad or mom is not paying the child support they should, they should be locked in jail and forced to work until it is paid off until the child's 18th birthday. YOu cannot be a parent, unless you act like one.

Poor "Blood" sounds like you may have been unfaithful and now you want us to feel sorry for you that your exwife is/was bitter towards you. Hmm?

I will say this. I have a stepson from my wife's previous marriage. He's 13 now. Last time he saw his dad was when he was 18 months old. The guy ran off to marry another woman with 5 kids because as he said, "I never wanted that kid. You did(meaning my wife)".

Every once and awhile we'll intercept his tax refund or get a 8 dollar check. Every time we put it in a savings account for him for college.

Is her ex wrong for not paying? Sure. Do we let it get to us. Hell no. We struggle through bills and put away what we can for him. We are there for him when he has questions. We even discussed adopting him this year as we finally got the money together to do so.

So it is my opinion that while it is easy to sit and blame deadbeat parents for not paying, I think what could be best done is to try to rise above the anger and jealousy and just work on making your kid's life as good as you can. They'll respect you more when they grow up.

I will close my comment by saying that I don't expect my advice to be easy to do. If it was easy, this wouldn't be an news story.

Nothing in this world worth doing ever comes easy.

Thanks for the comedic relief, molly49, it's gettin' heavy around here, lol.

Hey my exhusband worked at gm, I KNOW he slept with the whole production line he supervised! LOL

I am aware of women who had babies with several men that worked at GM because they could be ordered 17% of gross for one child! And while the men were working at GM it could be ordered and calculated to come right from the check. Now they don't have the pleasure of the GM income! Maybe they should have thought of that when they were sleeping with the whole production line!!

I never had any problem with my husband paying his child support, as my ex never paid!!
My problem was with his ex-wife not using the money for the kids and denying visitation and talking poorly of him. She obviously got enough in child support that she didnt work....other than maintaining a home(which was in dire strait)she had no monetary contribution to provide for the kids.

To those of you who do NOT have personal knowledge or experience in this matter: You really should get your facts straight before you obliterate people who ARE involved in this type of situation. Child support is to help raise the children. If money is being spent on things other than the children, it doesnt necessarily mean that ALL the child support is for extracurricular things. There are medical bills, sports, movies, occasional McDonalds, school pictures, school registration, school supplies, ice cream once in awhile, gas money to transport them, upkeep on a car, oil changes, heating bill, phone bill, food-they eat A LOT as they grow, do I really need to go on? If you havent raised a child, you obviously do not know how expensive it is, not just money, but helping with homework, reading to your child, playing a game with your child, listening to their hopes, dreams and fears, and just being the best parent you can be. This doesn't mean that the non-custodial parent can't be a good parent, it just means that there ARE some who ARE deadbeats, who aren't there for their kids for EVERY other reason besides money. Also, the comment about legal fees being ordered paid by the other parent-YES it happens, and YES sometimes is warranted-for instance when the deadbeat decides to file ridiculous motions-which by the way COSTS you more money!! So if you are luck enough not to have to go through this horrible ordeal, hug your kids and be thankful.

BTW, your neighbors in Walworth county don't have it any better in the family courts! From what everyone is saying, it is more of the same over here!

I agree that there are wonderful fathers who SHOULD be able to be with their kids. My husband is a wonderful father to his son and the three that are not his biologically. I have a daughter who was med flighted, and when I called her father, he said, "What do you want me to do about it?" Try having your child have her fifth open heart surgery and the stepmother there at the 18 hour surgery talking about children's caskets and children's funerals. This is what I dealt with, IF they showed up at all. Personally, the money I get for child support is a joke when you take into account all the medical expenses that I pay. I would much rather he be more involved in their lives. BUT you can NOT get a court order for THAT.

BTW~about the attorney fees, maybe it is different here in Rock County, not so in walworth County.

I'm a single mom of two and do it all myself without father and no help by state or child support I work all day to pay for things for my kids my kids are first I'm always last just people don't understand how hard it is. The ones that suffer is the kids. Cause they see and hear all. I love my kids and they come first no spas no nothing just my kids and no break for me wish I did can't afford it. Nothing will change in court system so I gave up after 5 years and was told to by the lady on my case

According to Chief Justice Shirley Abramson, 67% of the litigants in Milwaukee County Family Court are Pro Se. It's absolutely correct that in the Rock County Family Court a litigant with an attorney will easily overcome a Pro Se litigant because it's a good ole boy system. Also, a couple of these judges need to be reminded to take their meds before they come to work and quit their disrespectful red-faced rants and bully tactics. It seems like the Gazette has touched a hot button here by publishing this article and should follow up with an investigation into Rock County Family Court. Like I said, just come and sit a day in their court room and you can see it for yourself!

redder- The govt. does not take pride in punishing the fathers. In 17 years I have been in and out of court so many times with my ex. I am the one who is punished, he owes $46,000 in back child support, he has visitation which he does not take. For years I would call him every week to take his daughter, he always had something better to do and when he got remarried and had 2 more kids, he called my daughter on a weekend he told her he was going to pick her up and told her he no longer could because they were taking a family vacation and she could not go. There are many good dads out there and unfortunately they are a small minority, I have HUGE respect for those men who want to and stay a major part of thie kids lives, kudos to you.I also have ABSOLUTELY no respect for the money hungry b**ches out there who do use thier kids as a pawn, they will get thiers in the end, which I have read a couple stories here and smiled when i read them!! Today the courts want the dads to be in the childs life as much as the mother, however the dad has to let that be known, otherwise it will automaticaly go to the mom. I do however feel there are a couple judges who are more for the mother and that is unfortunate to the good dads, no matter what you will have to get a lawyer, the courts won't even look at you unless you do.

JVILLERDR-When I went through the court system my wife's attorney paraded one after another of her friends to say what a bad person I was, although my older three children tesified differently and wanted to live full-time with me. I was living with my partner who shared 50/50 placement with her ex and he is an attorney! You think if I was the heathen my bitter wife projected to the judge that her ex would have allowed the situation to continue. In Rock County, with "most" family court judges, it's a matter of what lawyer you have and how much money you have to fight the system. Now my older children won't talk to my ex-wife because of the crap she put me through in the court system, because of her bitterness! That's why the laws were changed, but these judges think they can do whatever they want! Who's going to fight them??? If you don't believe me then go hang out at the court one day and see how these judges treat people who are Pro Se and can't afford to fight. There's no equality, no fairness, they're a law unto themselves! Don't get me started!

This has become quite an anti-mother rally. May I point out that, in addition to "Drs" assertion that the actual parenting holds value, Child support is intended to pay for the child's living expenses. That means: a larger home for that child's bedroom, the heat for the bigger house, the water that is expelled for child's baths, the car and gas that get the child to school and to appointments, etc. It is not just about "buying the stuff" for the child. It is about all of the things, in addition to the obvious, that the child needs.

CS payments DO NOT have to come directly out of your paycheck. In fact during a separation I received payments directly AGAINST his wishes in court because I requested it and there there was no reason not to. In fact he made an agrument about having documentation and wanted to mail it, the judge looked at him and said your check is documentation. There is a lot of leeway in the courts.

amen, nothing escapes child support, not that the kids dont need to live but the goverment takes pride at punishing fathers

Child support is directly connected with the govt. If you are paying taxes from a job they will know about it and then send order for payment thru the employer. Whenever I changed jobs I always notified CS and within a week, two at max, an order was there to take support out first. During the lapse in between it is up to the payor to make the payments. Thus if the payments are not made an arrearage is established. Unemployment checks are not exempt from child support either, believe me I know!

and yes the judge can order whatever they want as far as you having to pay for attorney fees.

I have to say that as a father who pays a ton of support and still has to mantain my own home and have cloths for the kids and pay half of all of their activities and school, I just want to spend time with my kids and that is a joke. In Rock county they are so far behind the times it makes you sick. fathers have no rights and these judges think its 1950. We need equallity in raising children, mothers are not better parents because of gender. I am a good Dad, I want to be a great Dad but rock county court is pathetic. I will fight for my kids and continue on, but ladies, just because you are female does not mean that we as fathers do not have rights. You too, must pay your fair share. Allow fathers to spend time with their kids, they need to know their Dads too. Fathers, go to court and fight for your rights. Until we get ruleings on the books, nothing will change. I,personally did not ask for a divorce, she tore my famoly apart why must we (my children and I) now suffer. I pay, and boy do I pay, never in arrears, always on time like a clock (atomic at that) I know dads out there are going through misery, like myself, and I hope they get a fair shake, but I do not think it will be in rock county.

BTW~Attorney fees can NOT be ordered to be paid by the other party. It is NOT a right, but a choice, and each party is responsible for their choice of attorneys and the fees they incur.

BOTH parents can be made to pay for a guardian ad litem, the court appointed child's attorney.

"Not only did we have it taken from the check by choice we also asked that she got the maxium allowed so we didnt have to run to court everytime she got a spurr you know where.
As for the payroll bookkeeping, it was not alway mandatory....unless the judge ordered it do to arrearages.
We made payments every Friday right at the courthouse until we chose to have it taken from his paycheck."

I was just trying to clarify.

He wasn't in arrears! She took us to court everytime she thought she could get a little more money. We started at $100/wk, then $125/wk, then up to 150/wk, so instead of needing to take off work and hire attys all the time the last time she wanted to go to court for more support..we asked to just have it put at the 25%, which was the max., and then she wouldn't do the court thing again..when we went to court we always got screwed...ordered more child support plus had to pay part of her lawyer fees. I will swear on a stack of Bibles...he never missed a week of support payment!

spicymarge~I agree with you...family court is often used to battle out personal battles between two parents and even when "it is in the best interest of the children" it usually isn't. It is sad, especially for the kids involved. Usually the winners are the attorneys.

One thing I would *REALLY* like to know about "family" court.......why are lawyers necessary.......It seems a "judge" thats supposed to have common sense should be able to look at a family situation and come to a conclusion without lawyers on both sides babbling-on about it.....It would seem the "law" end of it would be pretty cut and dried.

SwissChick - You are correct. They come direct from a paycheck and the court orders that. If someone is not having it done that way, there is mysterious loophole. The only way people can get away with not doing that is moving out of state and bouncing around. The system is terrible at enforcing that.

If he paid every week, why was there arrears? Just curious.

Not only did we have it taken from the check by choice we also asked that she got the maxium allowed so we didnt have to run to court everytime she got a spurr you know where.
As for the payroll bookkeeping, it was not alway mandatory....unless the judge ordered it do to arrearages.
We made payments every Friday right at the courthouse until we chose to have it taken from his paycheck.

The few times we got the kids, they would tell us that their mom lied and returned gifts we had gotten them to the store saying they already had one! They came in clothes that you wouldn't even take them to McDonald in. She obviously wasnt using the money for the kids! There were weeks she received more in child support than I made working. She didn't want my husband, wanted to run around(along with her sisters) with men after bowling, while he was at work, but still she wanted to get his money!!

Isn't it mandated that child support payments come from employers of parents who get a paycheck? It has been that way for quite a number of years. It's not by "choosing" to do it that way. (Versus someone that is "self-employed"). I think it's been that way for about 20 years. I know that because I've done bookkeeping (payroll) since before that time.

tomtom- Thats another thing about visitation....I believe some parents don't take visitation because the custodial parent turns the kids against the other parent....I'm sure its hard to pick your kids up and have them constantly tell you how bad you are because an abusive custodial parent lies to them all the time.
.
Defacto full-custody turning the kids against the other parent by abusing/lying to them about the other parent.

and....to think she has had the nerve to tell the kids that their dad is worthless.
One particular Christmas we even had a sheriff deputy go to her house with us to pick up the kids and she wouldnt let them come to the door. On one occassion she was in jail and the kids were left with her live-in boyfriend who later served time for dealing drugs and since has overdosed and died! She is a fine example of a parent.

I've said before that I don't have any personal experience with this stuff, but I've heard many shocking stories about how certain courts/judges will CATCH some people in {{{flat-out perjury}}} in "family" court to further their case and LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.....I've heard this far too many times to not think its true.
.
WHAT kind of "justice" is THAT?????

My husband paid 25% of all gross wages weekly, never missing a week, we had it taken directly from his check by choice. His ex-wife refused visitation even when she was court ordered. But do you thin the court would help in this situation. NO WAY!! When every her life was in termoil she would call and try to disrupt things in our life. All she wanted was as much money as she could get. Since we no longer need to pay her support, her house is being forclosed on, she has many collections against her and is on her third marriage!!

A deadbeat is one thing and applies to men or women. A dad spends time with, cares and nurtures his children. Ransoming children to spend time with either parent is an injustice to both children and parents. Unfortunately divorced people often confuse a bad spouse with being a bad parent.

My daughters' father pays his child support because it is taken right out of his check..he barely ever sees them or calls them...I consider him a "dead-beat dad."

Sorry, jvillerdr, but I agree with spark. You can't possibly know what REALLY goes on in the family courts unless you have PERSONALLY been through the process. It is not as cut and dry as you seem to believe.

lvmyslf - You got that right! Apparently, they know they can't get blood out of a turnip.

It seems that this wonderful system we have in place here in Rock County, goes really hard after the good parents. If you pay your support faithfully and see your kids, that is when they will crawl so far up your butt if you miss a couple payments. The ones that nothing is done about, the ones who don't work, won't work and could care less if thier kids have clothes, food and a roof over thier head, cuz they won't give that B**ch one cent! Is it because it is easier to go after the good ones, easier to scare them? The courts KNOW that they will do whatever to gt caught up. The LOSERS, dead beat dads & moms that don't and won't pay, why waste the courts time if they don't care and just continue on not paying. A friend of mine, a very good dad, has his daughter all the time and buys everything she needs, got behind a couple winters ago. He was in the hospital with pneumonia, he is also self employed. When his very undeserving ex took him back to court, the judge ordered him to pay the $3,000 in back support within 2 months, or he was going to jail. That is our wonderful system here!!!!

Sorry the judge deviated for your friends. Must have been something wrong with them for that to happen according to your previous posts.
-
I'll do al little example for you:
Dad earns $4,000 a month.
Mom earns $2,000 a month
Both have child 50% of the time. or 182 days.
Based on formula, dad pays mom $257 a month.
If role was switched, mom pays dad.

Spark, What part of the judge can deviate from the formula don't you understand? I can't help you anymore, either. Nor do I have the time. Please get a life and see a therapist.

jvillerdr - I read what you said and its wrong. Jesus. I can't help you understand this anymore. Everyone I know that has 50-50 placement still pays some child support, unless they agreed not to do so personally. Not the judge. It's based on income. What part don't you get? Your friends obviously got screwed.
-
Shared Parenting Guidelines

There are also adjustments based on shared parenting time. This portion of the law has changed significantly. When both parents have placement for 25% of the time or 92 days per year, the percentage of time each parent has with the child is calculated by including the number of overnights as the numerator and 365 as the denominator. If each parent has the child over 25% of the time, child support is determined by taking the gross income of each parent and multiplying it by the child support guidelines and then multiplying that resulting figure by 150% and then multiplying that result by the percentage of time that the parent does not have the child in their care. The two obligations are then offset.

Spark, you are again not reading carefully. I said judges these days typically insist on 50-50 placement and that often means no support. That is often true and even where the formula says otherwise, judges can and do order no support in split-time situations if they think that's more fair than the formula. Second, if you don't get 50-50 placement that does generally mean there is a problem because the Court assumes 50-50 placement unless there is a reason not to do that. I think you are the one who thinks you have to be "right" here and are angry because I'm not agreeing with you. Again, a therapist may be able to help. I'm sure you are just a wonderful father.

jvillerdr - Again, what have I complained about? I pay child support and always will. I think dads that don't pay are "deadbeats." You seem to be a little confused on how the system works and I was pointing that out to you. This has nothing to do with me or me complaining about support. If the women you know got shafted, they should have hired a better lawyer. Remember, this is unfortunately a no fault state. Child support is based on a formula which calculates how much each parent makes and the placement time. The parent that makes more, pays more. Sometimes that could be the mom. If you don't believe me, call a lawyer. And yes, you're right, they can adjust the formula and it's usually for more.

Hey Spark, they have these big metal things that fly called airplanes, and judges actually do expect parents to use them to share placement these days. Also there are smaller metal things that drive on the ground.

I have personal knowledge of many women who have been through divorce and you have no knowledge of my qualifications. Meanwhile, your qualifications for making generalizations are apparently based on your own personal grudgefest.

I don't deny that some dads, like paidmydues2 have jobs that make it hard to care for kids. But others, like you, seem to just want to complain and blast all women. Maybe a therapist could help.

jvillerdr - Because I called you an idiot, it has nothing to do with the type of dad I am or parent. I'm a fantastic father. You're pissed because I called you out on your ignorant classifications about dads and support.

you said - insist on 50-50 placement and no child support UNLESS the father is proven unfit, a drunk or an abuser or says he doesn't want the kids. (FALSE)

you also said - And the way the system works today, if you don't have 50-50 placement, that means the Court found there is something wrong with you as a parent. Period. (FALSE)

I never once complained about support or the system, I was simply pointing out you were wrong about how it works.

It also has to do with the job the parents have. I was a truck driver, therefore I couldnt have my kids on a 50/50 placement. My ex had a better paying job than I did but yet anytime I didnt "give" enough to support her, she went ballistic!
I asked one time for receipts to know where my support was going and the judge told me that wasnt possible. Its up to the custodial parent to disburse the funds to care for the children. So who knows where the money goes! In some cases it is obvious that its not going for the welfare of the children, but what can be done when it takes money to fight it and I know I dont have that much to try.

By the way, are you saying that a dad that may live a little further away so the mom has more placement time is a dead beat and something is wrong with him as a parent? Even though he pays full child support like he's suppose to? That's what I thought. You're not divorced and have never received child support, therefore you aren't remotely qualified to speak on behalf of others that have personally dealt with it.

Spark, if you think name-calling is effective argument, that says it all -- about you, not me. I was pointing out how the system actually works -- formulas are not everything and if you have been in Court, you should know that. This article and people posting like you are seeking to perpetuate a myth: That fathers always get the shaft in divorce. Well, I know plenty of women who have been screwed big time. So get off your male soapbox, stop whining, and take your fatherhood responsibilities like a man if you claim to be one.

jvillerdr - You're an idiot. I've never whined once about child support and the FACT is if the court finds for more than 50-50 that doesn't mean there's something wrong with the dad. I know plenty of people that have 60-40 or whatever and both parents are perfectly fit. Get off you female soapbox. I have my child 50% of the time and I don't fall into any the categories that you apparently classify as whether you pay child support or not. I also pay A LOT in child support. I was simply pointing out how the system ACTUALLY works.

Sorry jvillerdr. No offense intended. However, I know many Dads who get shafted at the Mom's profit. In those cases, the Dad is a much better parent hands down.

Sorry Swisschick, you assumed too much. I'm not divorced and have never received child support in my life. I am simply appalled by whiny dads who claim to love their kids but scream about paying anything to support them. And the way the system works today, if you don't have 50-50 placement, that means the Court found there is something wrong with you as a parent. Period.

Sounds like someone on the receiving end of a child support check defending the inequality of this fiasco. And by that I mean I agree with the good Dads' getting a bad deal.

BTW Spark, you may want to read more carefully. I said that placement is 50-50 unless there is abuse, alchoholism, etc. That drives the support calculation, by your own admission. And why are you expecting people to feel sorry for the small percentage of parents who make so much money that they still have to pay substantial child support despite 50-50 placement?

Spark, the Court still has the authority to deviate from the percentages if it thinks the result is unfair to either parent. And if you don't think that happens all the time in favor of fathers who are sharing placement, you are the one living on another planet.

jvillerdr - I've read your posts regarding this matter and you are completely wrong. You may want to be careful with who you're calling ignorant. Child support has nothing to do with abuse, alcoholism, etc, etc. It has to do with placement and how much each parent makes. Call any lawyer or judge and they will tell you the same thing. Not sure where you're getting your info from.

Below is the link to the formula that used by the state of WI in all cases
that figures out the percentage of child support to be paid.

http://www.dwd40calculator.com/

jvillerdr - 50-50 placement and no child support? What planet are you living on? Regardless of placement, you still have to pay child support if you make more than the other parent. There is a formula that is used that factors in the time you have the child and the amount of money both parents make. That's how they come up with child support.

jvillerdr: it's not ignorance of the law. it's direct experience with the "system" over the last decade that shows that it is not always fair or even in the best interest of the child.
In many cases it would appear that the main reasoning for many judges decisions is to make sure that the county and state do not end up paying for a child's rearing. The childs best interest is applied second and being fair and reasonable toward the parents falls to the wayside.

And by the way -- has anyone ever considered that one reason neither men nor women have to account for what they spend child support on is that the system acknowledges that taking the time to take care of the kid is providing a benefit to the other parent in child care and that the parent who has the kid devotes his or her time to do that? In other words, it's more than just the STUFF that the kid uses, it's the TIME devoted to caring for the kid that the non-custodial parent doesn't have to worry about and therefore, the benefit that the non-custodial parent receives. I'm sure this will be a difficult concept for some of the gripers here to grasp.

You guys don't know what you are talking about. The system that was in place 20 years ago is NOT the same as the one today. Thanks to statutory commands, judges now virtually insist on 50-50 placement and no child support UNLESS the father is proven unfit, a drunk or an abuser or says he doesn't want the kids. If you have to pay spousal support, that is an entirely different matter that is dictated by different considerations. How ignorant of the law can you people be?

I think the court system for Rock County totally sucks. The father of my grandchild hasn't paid support in the 5+ years since the child has been born. Everytime he goes to court he gets to sit his butt in jail to so call "pay off" his debt.While there he gets his meals and a warm place to sleep all at the taspayers expense. Then he gets all the visitation he wants and a free lawyer. Tell me how that is fair!!!! He is the meaning of a "deadbeat"

Rather than blindly giving the child support to one parent or the other, why doesn't the state setup a spending account? For example: dad pays into the account 17% of income per year for 10 years (when kid is 8 to 18). At $40k per year salary this would amount to $68,000. Mom then needs to provide receipts to get the money out. She then can't get her nails done with money that should be used for the child. Weekly groceries would be covered. Clothes for the kids would be covered. A portion of rent would be covered. A 16th pair of shoes for mom: not covered. She would have to prove that her vacations were taken WITH the child. Gifts for her new boyfriend would not be covered, etc. If the account still has money in it when the child turns 18, then the payer would GET THE MONEY BACK. Is this too straight forward to work?

And yet you're also supposed to pay for things above and beyond child support. What the hell is child support for then? It's not supposed to be for car payments and your own needs. It's supposed to be for the kids.

Kudos to the gentlemen who wrote this piece. Yes, there are dead-beat parents regardless of the gender, but fathers, at least here in WI, more often get the shaft.

As men we need to stand up and fight for our kids I would and will fight to my dying breath for myt kids I won't let my ex or some judge dictate when I see my children!!! Don't be a spineless worm like I said they are just as much ours as they are hers standup for yourself!!

I think the system is disgustingly biased against the man and for the woman in the case of courts. It's very hard to get any sort of 50/50 settlement, as long as the woman cries wolf or makes a big deal out of it. It doesn't matter much fo what the man says, unless the woman is obviously on drugs or a poor enviroment. But any woman who has a black heart has a good chance of sticking the ex, even if he pays for everything he should, and has the child 50% of the time. Its ridiculous.It's a part of the system that gets away with being sexist and biased, and it's "ok"
Why?

There's definitely a flaw in the system.

I have my son everyday and everyother weekend, so I pretty much have 50/50 placement. I still have to pay my ex support because she chooses to work a worthless job. I was told by the judge that since I make good money I would have to pay her more support. I think that some crap. And a side note I straight up told the judge there is no way he is going to sit and tell me when I'll see my son!! I think more dads should fight a little harder sometimes the child is just as much ours as it is the mothers!! So if you chose not to see your child more I think you deserve the title deadbeat because really thats what you are!! Parenting is not just a weekend gig!!

A dollar behind and you’re a dead beat dad but she can smoke and drink the child support money away and there’s nothing you can do. You give the x almost half or your take home pay but still have to buy the kids winter coats. Dad I want to play football this year but mom won’t pay the fee. Try recouping anything that she owes you (half the medical bills) you’re more likely to win the lottery. Absolutely no accountability on her side.

lvmyslt: check out the actual child support code at http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/dc...

Chapter DCF 150
CHILD SUPPORT PERCENTAGE OF INCOME STANDARD
(8) EXPRESSION OF ORDERED SUPPORT. The support amount shall be expressed as a fixed sum unless the parties have stipulated
to expressing the amount as a percentage of the payer’s income and the requirements under s. 767.34 (2) (am) 1. to 3., Stats., are satisfied.

I don't think spending child support money on brand-new car payments and weekly hair and nails classifies as parenting and taking "care" of kids.

blood- maybe if the "parents" take the responsibility of taking care of the children left behind to be raised by one parent, then our system will change. Dont blame the judges, they have to have some sort of way to keep deadbeats to a minimum. Yes our prisons are overcrowded, but it is the sexual offenders and drunk drivers that fill them, not the deadbeats. Maybe our punishment for these heinous crimes should be revamped so that the statistics of the children who are violated will be reduced and or eliminated (much rather they be eliminated)

It is NOT only DAD's, it is MOM's too. The "deadbeat" is one who gets fired from a good paying job, leaves the state-no forwarding address, stops all contact, stops paying child support in its entirety, fathers another child, gets caught years later, and STILL has to pay the money, so what was the point in the "vanishing act" because now there is 12% interest added to the amount owed? THAT is a DEADBEAT, dad or mom, doesnt matter. Also, the State of Wisconsin does NOT get paid "their" portion. There is a fee each year, not much, but a fee that the payor has to pay for the state having to manage the garnishment because the DEADBEAT doesn't take responsibility to pay it on their own. By the way, yes I do have personal knowledge.

It would help a lot, too, if "family court" actually would be what it tries to say it is instead of the financial support system for career gov't operatives that it actually is.
.
Most of the time the children don't matter, its just "get the money so we get our cut".....Isn't that WONDERFUL!?
.
Nobody says it has to be spent on the children, either....SICK!!

In the last 25 years the Legislature changed the understandings and definitions of divorce and child custody. We no longer call it visitation, it is placement; and it is not mother and father, but parents, two equal parents. There were also changes in marital property laws making the everything accumulated in the marriage 50/50 ownership. These changes in the law were designed so that men couldn't run off with the family finances, which allowed them to hire the best attorney while mom often went pro se, and women didn't get soley stuck with raising the children. They were progressive changes in combating the problems of divorce and child custody in our modern society. The courts in Rock County, however, often ignore the spirit of these progressive changes and continue to make unequal custody assignments therefore putting one parent in the position of seeing their children 4 days per month and paying child support. The state determined that it is in the best interest of the child, the parents, the county and the state if both parents equally share the responsibility of raising the child, both in relationship and finances. Most divorce court judges in Rock county don't follow that logic and continue to assign primary placement to the mother, leaving the dad to support two households. Then if the dad can't pay the total amount they threaten to put him in jail, as if we have ample room in our county jail to house more non-violent prisoners. It becomes the equivalent of a debtor's prison! If you want to eliminate "deadbeat parents" then we need judges who will abide by the law and assign 50/50 responsibility and placement to the parents regardless of gender. I know in some cases that is not possible, but in the majority it is.

SarahB1: Something you may not have considered is that people change on their own. I was with my ex for years before our daughter was born and he was not who he is now. I could not control the person he turned into, nor could I forsee it.

I have to put my opinion in here now. When I divorced I had to pay a 25%/or $100 a week which ever was greater. My job was pretty much seasonal but year round work. During the summers I paid an average of $250 weekly, winters were hard hard to make the minimium. If I got behind my ex had me in court DEMANDING that I get caught up! I paid extra after that each week. After several appearences to have my support raised each time I got a raise, the judge finally ordered a set amount. This probably wouldnt have happened had my ex not told the judge that $320 was not enough for one week, the most I ever sent her on percentage! After I moved out of state, for family medical reasons, I had to supply round trip air transport for my 2 sons for the summer AND still pay support!
After the divorce my ex is driving brand new cars, nice clothes, hair done every week, and solo vacations. I drive junkyard vehicles, Salvation Army clothes, and no vacations. My kids werent dressed to the hilt, didnt have all the bells and whistles for toys, or get to go anywhere fancy. Now after my support has stopped due to my boys graduating high school, her new car got re-poed, and she is barely making it. This all just goes to show that alot of the money I paid over the years went to the betterment of her not my kids. Before anybody asks, yes I did have alot to do with my kids during the years. I may have only had alternate weekends for visitation, but I tried to make the best of it.

Now on the other hand my wife now is divorced also. Her ex was ordered to pay $50 weekly. He is now approx $20,000 in debt! We have tried to get him in court so many times. The judges slap him on the hand and tell him to try better. How much more can he get away with? I have paid my support and supported my step-sons for many years. If anyone deserves the name of "Deadbeat Dad" this a-hole does! Have a good day!

realitybytes, you are wrong, my sister works for eau claire county child support and it is still a percentage. unfortunately rock county has judges that can't figure percentages so they just opt for a set amount. you know these HORRIBLE judges are elected officials, i think its time to vote in some that actually give a S**T...

My brother and I were raised by a single mother. We are very close in age and our father left us at a very young age. He lived in the same town that I grew up in but I never met him until I was an adult, and that was an accident. Our mother never recieved one red cent from the dirtbag, but she never once complained. She raised us by working 2 jobs. Ive often asked her why she didnt go after him for support and she always says "if he didnt want to be in my childrens lives then I didnt want his money". One of my business partners was raised the same way, only by his father(his mother ran out on them).

Oh its definitely screwed up TopherD. The vast majority of child custody cases are rewarded to the mother. Why? Because for some reason thats who the court system believes the child should be with. Doesnt matter if the mother is a total deadbeat. From what Ive seen it takes ALOT, and I mean ALOT, for the father to get primary placement. I dont disagree that some men are total jerks and wont support their child, and they should be punished. But some people just wont admit that women can be jsut as bad as men. You just dont hear about it as much because 90+% of the time the woman is awarded custody and is the one collecting child support.
_____

This is always such a touchy subject simply because everyone has their own experiences. I have a 3 year old with my ex and at first she would alloow me to have anything to do with my daughter unless I paid her support. I told her that I would not give her money however I would supply her with diapers, food, clothes or if my daughter had other needs I even gave her 3 bags FULL of said items and she dropped them back off at my door. I saw my daughter all of half a dozen times in the first 8 months. And those were only on nights mommy wanted to go party with friends. We went to court the judge gave me one day a week and ordered $75 a week from my check. Now mommy had more money to get her hair done and party more so yes I did get my child more and we went back to court. Judge gave me 3 days and kept the amount the same. I kept track of every event and time I had my daughter which soon become 2/3 of time and went back to court for full custody and placement and settled for 50/50 with no support. My ex lost her job and took me back to court. Got pregnant again and quit looking for work. There is much more in the story but tell me how the system is screwed up!

Actually, Kay13, he wont take it back to court because his ex already tells his kids that she doesnt get much money from him. Which is a bold faced lie. IMO nearly $190 a week is a pretty good sum considering she buys NOTHING for those kids. So he lives with it and doesnt complain because he cares about his KIDS, not about the money. My point was, that women can be just as "deadbeat" as men can, it just doesnt get brought up because of people like you. You know, the "woe is me" men are the devil and can do no right type.

lovethemidwest, it sounds like your brother doesn't have issues with this arrangement - but you do. If he had a problem, he has the choice to go to court to modify their custody, child support, and tax arrangements. No one is taking advantage of him without his permission.

midwest...yep, no law says child support has to be used for the children it's supposed to be "supporting".......RIDICULOUS!!

Sorry, work not word.

There is a difference between joint custody and primary placement. My brother and his girlfriend split up and they went to court. The judge gave joint custody, however the mother has "primary placement". Thus with primary placement going to the mother he has to pay child support. Last I knew he was paying just shy of $190 A WEEK in child support for their two kids. He didnt argue the amount of support or any of the stipulations(health, dental, vision insurance, and whatever else I cant remember), he feels it is for his kids and thats all that matters. Well, its SUPPOSED to be for his kids. But he buys them ALL of their clothes, shoes, school supplies, pays for DR. expenses not covered by insurance, etc. She always claims to be broke(she works full time). Then when tax time rolls around, EVERY YEAR since they split, his ex takes her big fat tax return(thanks to the 2 kids) and goes to HAWAII without the kids!
______
This makes ME so mad! She is using those kids just to get the money from him and its always going to word because all he wants is to be a part of his kids lives. I guess my point is that its not just MEN who can be the deadbeats.

I too can agree that there are such things as deadbeat father as well as deadbeat mothers. I spent the afternoon in the Rock county courthouse a few weeks ago for my ex's failure to pay child support. Our case was the last case so I got to sit for a few (unpaid) hours and listen to everyone elses child support cases. The courtroom was mostly men but there were a few women waiting their turn. One guy that was there was 1500.00 behind in his child support. I wasn't sure if this was alot for him to be behind or if it had only been a month or two since he paid (we pay 200/wk so it could have been just a few months), until the judge read his court order of child support which was only 17.00/week. This man had not paid any support for over a year and a half at only 17.00 week. It was unbelievable. This man also admitted that he lived on his own and paid rent but didn't have a job. How is that possible (I know how it is possible but I've never seen a line on a tax return for gross drug sales). I don't think that the term deadbeat dad is used too much, I just think the term deadbeat mom isn't used enough.

I do have a problem with one statement used in this article which states "Most single fathers are either on schedule or at least making their best efforts to pay their court-ordered obligations". This is great that most are on schedule, but the exspenses to raise a child for the custodial parent do not stop because the noncustodial father or mother can't "afford" the make their child support obligations.

Is this an op-ed piece? If so, why did the Gazette not insist that the author support his assertions with facts and data?
*
There are a number of sweeping statements here, including, "The average, wage-earning father can ill afford to maintain his separate household with wage deductions of 19 percent or more, as well as a share of medical and educational expenses for his children" and "Most single fathers are either on schedule or at least making their best efforts to pay their court-ordered obligations." I'd like to see the data to back this up from a neutral, third-party research study.
*
And personally, I do strongly disagree with this statement, "It’s doubly insulting to call a man a deadbeat dad in the public arena." I know far too many men who shirk their child support, who get paid money under the table to avoid increases in child support, and who abscond any involvement in their child's life. These men are dead beat dads. Not all single fathers are, and most people are smart enough to recognize the difference.
*
As a mother and a feminist, I do take issue with this statement, "Feminists often complain that gender bias and wage disparities in the workplace prevent women from becoming self-sufficient and realizing their full potential as contributing members of society." According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women *still* make only .75, on average, per every dollar that a man makes. Whether a woman has primary or equal child placement will not affect this.

The state got rid of child support payments that were based on a percentage of income (apparently the state's computers were having a problem calculating percentages LOL). Now they use a fixed amount per week. If you dont work because you are laid off you are still expected to pay. No paycheck means you are now behind on payments.

And how can anybody actually "miss" a payment? Years ago, it was changed to come directly out of the parent's paycheck and sent by the employer to the courthouse. Now it goes to Milwaukee in one big drop and gets dispersed. The only time a "missed" payment would come is if the parent is self-employed. Or do I not have this correct? I've done payroll for businesses for quite a number of years so that much I have experience with.

He goes to court next week so we are hoping for the best

A big problem is the Child support agency as a whole. My boyfriend pays $65 a week on his 4 year old son, who he had share placement and that little boy is at our house more than his mother's. But CS told him two years ago because she is on state help he has to pay. We have friends in the same situation who dont pay? Every case is different. On the topic of dead beat dads, you may have the few, but like said before look at the mothers too. His ex sat on her butt for 4 years without a job, because she didn't want one but lives off the state, now she has a job, but still on help. Spends her whole check if not more on clothes. But then complains when she gets her son back half the time or calls early for his dad to take him back because she can't handle him. Now who is the better parent? Not the one getting the money every week, while we are getting behind in bills by the month.

It seems neither the author of this article nor the majority of people posting here has any idea what actually goes on in most divorce courts in WI. Courts will generally assume that the parents will get 50-50 placement, which means nobody gets support, unless there is domestic abuse involved. Many fathers who have had virtually no involvement or interest in raising kids during marriage use this legal presumption to avoid paying child support. This means that mothers who have been primary caregivers raising their kids suddenly have to for several days a week surrender the kids into the "care" of fathers who have little or no actual interest in ensuring their kids' welfare just because the judge wants to be "fair" as between the parents and because the father doesn't want to pay child support. The old days of mothers typically collecting child support and caring for kids are largely over. Didn't anyone else get that memo?

Sometimes being a deadbeat parent has nothing to do with child support. My ex hasn't missed a payment in years, but he shows no interest in his daughter's life. Court order allows him to take her much more than every other weekend. I've asked him to at least call her during the week. That happened once after I said something. How can someone call himself a parent if he willingly spends only four days a month with his child?

I'm not sure that the reporter really did his homework with this article. Wage deductions in Wisconsin start at 17% for one child not 19%.

Should be called Dead Beat parent. Having dealt with an ex husband who moved state to state to avoid child support. What happened to the 10 day court order of giving notice of moving? Never notifying Child support. When they catch up with them through the new hires, they transfer the case. The case worker I had would always have an excuse, Oh I trust him, How can she trust him? he moved with no notifications. He ended up in IL and they let him get by without paying, they couldn't serve him cause there was no mailbox on the house? He is now deceased and owed over $20,000 in back child support at the time of his death. Collect anything from the estate? His girlfriend hid everything.Rock County needs to start taking a stand and Start doing what is right for the children. Haul the Dead beats in and charge them with with child neglect, If the other parent wasn't giving the child food,clothing a home they would be charged with child neglect and or child abandoment. Isn't this what the dead beat is doing?

Most single fathers are either on schedule or at least making their best efforts to pay their court-ordered obligations.
.
The one's that don't fall under the "most" category are in fact, "dead beat."
.

thank you to those who call localboy out for his again foolish post. sry for you ladies, but those peeps you describe are def what i would call a deadbeat dad. you tell me localboy...since i quit drinking YEARS ago i have NEVER been late for child support, or my rent, or car pmt, fridge food or any of the other bills most houses have two incomes to pay. i quit my job and moved to a new state to be next to my kids. when they are not in school i have them 50% of the time...i sacrafice that time during the school year cuz its easier for my kids. my kids dont remember me EVER smoking a cigarette or EVER drinking a beer. my kids have NEVER seen me smoke pot. but i digress...if me being open about my pot consumption makes me a dead beat dad in yo eyes so be it. good news for you tho...the housing market is slow so you could probably get someone out there to fix that glass house lickety split;)

the main issue with current divorce rulings is that they tend to follow precident set forth in the 50s. In those days you had full time housewives with no skills getting divorced. They needed child support and alimony just to make ends meet.
Flash foward to 2009: two professionals each making 50k a year get divorced. there is no reason that each parent shouldn't get 50% placement and ZERO child support or alimony is awarded.
However, that is not what happens in many cases. For some reason mom gets child support (and in fewer cases even gets alimony) even with shared placement. Now dad gets to work his butt off to he can live in a small apartment and feed his kids mac-n-cheese while mom gets a new car, new house, and can take her kids out to eat every night. not exactly fair to dad OR the kids.

I agree, what in the world does smoking pot have to do with child support? How about beer or cocaine or whatever, does that consider into child support? I think not!!! My ex always and still is doing some kind of drug. I raised 3 children on my own, never any weekends with dad, no holidays, no nothing. Even when his grandkids were born, he couldn't care less. I received $50 a week (which is low for 3 kids) for 18 years. Now, just this morning my kids (all adults and parents themselves) received a call from my ex's wife saying he is at the hospital, possibly going to have open heart surgery, he is only 47! My kids care enough about him being their dad, to go to the hospital to give their moral support. They learned their ways from me, not him. Maybe this will wake him up and realize life is too short to be an a__hole!

lvmyself. I agree with you 100% as I am in the same boat. My ex should be the poster child for a deadbeat dad. I do love my children with all of my heart and can't imagine how a man can just blow them off. He can get away with not paying child support because he is a lazy ignorant ass. He knows how to play the poor me I can't find a full time job card at 50 years old!! Am I bitter about this? Yes I am.

localboysince1968: What does smoking pot have to do with deadbeat dads? There are probably many people smoking pot daily including doctors, lawyers, deadbeat dads and moms and many more. If it's the price you are concerned about, then what about those same people smoking regular cigarettes. (that's probably more costly in the long run) Unless you are in a custody situation, you don't have a clue what goes into it. I was a divorced mom so I have been on the end where I got 150.00 a month (yes month) because I didn't want to burden my ex with large payments. I was more concerned with him spending time with his son than trying to squeeze money out of him. Every situation is different so don't be so judgemental---you don't know the whole story. Yes not every case is fair--but you know what--life isn't always fair.

It is sad how many deadbeat dads and moms there are here in Rock County, and if that is what you want to be this is the PERFECT county for that. I am a single mom, after my separation the burden of every aspect of raisng a child became soely mine. I have been to court so many times I can't even count anymore. The last time he found guilty for felony failure to pay childsupport. He has not seen his child in over a year and he lives 1 mile away. In fact when his daughter called him in Jan. he told her he had no use for her. As for the felony failure to pay, well he was convicted of that this past July he has made 2 payments since then, one for $62 and the other I just recieved yesterday for $6.50!! I have had him back to court 2 times since July and they slap him on the wrist, because he says he is going to pay, they take his word for it even after knowing his track record for being such a wonderful dad both emotionally and finacially. Unfortunately I know of so many similar stories both male and female. Oh my ex he has 1 hell of a wardrobe and he is at the bar at least 4-5 nights a week. Look around people, take a poll with people you know in your life, single mom or dad. You will be shocked to find that when a couple splits up how many deadbeat parents there are out there. One more thing the courts today will gladly give the deadbeat dad 50/50 placement of the child if that what he wants, so what does that tell you... THEY DON'T WANT IT.

..Funny,too, how "child support" can be used for anything but and NO gov't agency holds the custodial parent accountable.

The problem with the term "deadbeat-dad" is that political factions and much of the media use the term so loosely...The general public doesn't seem to be smart enough to differentiate dads that have legitimate financial problems and often paints them all with the same brush...In effect, a political snow job.
.
Not only that, but courts often order such ridiculous "support" amounts that are, in reality, "exwife lifestyle support", EVEN when the exwife was the cause of the divorce.
.
The root of these problems is "no-fault divorce".....just like a "no-fault" car wreck....an absolutely absurd notion.

Do "deadbeat dads" include ones who openly smoke pot??

good posts and good story. as a divorced father who has made several life changing sacrafices to be next to my kids, i have no problem with the term 'deadbeat dad'. maybe not every 'deadbeat dad' deserves the label...but that doesnt change the fact that there are such people.

"Women’s advocates often claim that divorced or separated mothers are quickly reduced to poverty, while newly single fathers enjoy large increases in their standards of living."
When my parents divorced, she got the 3 bedroom ranch house on the south side of town and he lived in a 1 bedroom apartment on Linn St. Not sure Dad really saw an increase in his standard of living.

What we often hear about is the poor single mother while forgetting that for every single mom, there's a single dad. It's even tougher being a single Dad in my opinion, because of the stress of having to pay child support. I even know one guy who could have collected from her, but out of pride did not, but stayed in poverty.

As a society we expect so much more out of men - its a wonder any of them get married or have children. The horror stories of men in poverty have scared many of them away from this often one sided financial obligation. And we wonder why they don't want to commit!

NeoBartly - I would praise you on your efforts, but you already have received the satisfaction of doing the right thing. After watching my Uncle raise 3 by himself, it is hard to explain the difficult time he had. This maybe "stereotyping", but I think it is harder for a man to raise them on his own then a woman. You will never receive the credit you deserve from others, but your children will give it to you as they become parents themselves. God Bless you....

A Nice brief. Since we are on the subject of a parent not fulfilling obligations, may we also lite on the women that are court ordered to provide support in the feministic era now? ( And run away out of state to avoid such care and concern for their children?)
What does this bring to a household? Does the single Father raising children feel any less impact? Do these children in a now reversal role-on-parent grow and develope any different than said Mothers on board?
I haven't heard the term Dead-beat Mother yet? I raised my two from 5yrs./ and 1 yr. alone.(Now 30-24 yrs.) Court ordered support. When I went to pursue recieving my expected due? I got a run-around from the system. This provided time for her to run off. She runs. I get ziltch. Is that justice? Is that equil? Is that proper to support? As a society we need to stop the use of sterio-type statements and begin to call it what it is. Make the financial obligation more serious a matter, and open up country wide prosecution of violators. If your not allowed to run from IRS? You should not be able to run away from your children. The playing field *IS* equil now, I have had enough of hearing about a dead-beat anybody-change the laws to punish the Dead-Beat Parent! Gender put aside.