jailed for not paying support on 23 kids

[kiryan]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/michigan ... 999&page=1

This guy is a true idiot for sure, he apparently has about 23 kids, and has never paid much if anything in child support. So they are throwing him in jail for 23-48 months.

I thought we outlawed debtors prisons?

or are we now making it a criminal offense to have babies if you don't have enough money to afford the support / child support? Does that mean we now have a right to contraception or did we lose the right to have sex unless we can afford contraception?

Something is ridiculous here and its not that there were at least 12 women dumb enough to hook it up with this guy.

There is another guy, I think its a different guy, who has something like 21 kids... he had 4 kids with 4 different women in the same 12 months, twice. That guy has reached the level of epic pimp. He's hassled by child support enformcement too and i think they can only take 50% of his pay which means each kid gets like 3$ a month.

[teflor the ranger]

I think they put him in jail to keep him from having more kids.

[Sarvis]

Religious persecution at it's worst! Did not the Bible say "Be fruitful, and multiply!?!"

[teflor the ranger]

The bible says a lot of things.

[Corth]

I don't do family law and really know nothing more about child support than the average happily married Joe. But my recollection is that the child support formulas usually take into account expenses from other child support obligations, and also have an aggregate cap. So for instance, no more than 50% of salary (or some other arbitrary percentgage) can be allocated towards all child support obligations - or something like that. So the more kids, the less go to each kid, but it still doesn't rise to a 'debtor's prison' scenario because it's not like your obligation can ever exceed your income.

[Pril]

I don't do family law and really know nothing more about child support than the average happily married Joe. But my recollection is that the child support formulas usually take into account expenses from other child support obligations, and also have an aggregate cap. So for instance, no more than 50% of salary (or some other arbitrary percentgage) can be allocated towards all child support obligations - or something like that. So the more kids, the less go to each kid, but it still doesn't rise to a 'debtor's prison' scenario because it's not like your obligation can ever exceed your income.

Corth, from my limited knowledge the way they calculate is actually interesting. Basically lets say you have a kid with Jen..

Whatever the state where the kid lives deems as acceptable for your child to be raised based on your guys combined income. then that number is divided into two percents based on how much you earn vs how much she earns taking into account who has custody etc.

Now lets say you have another kid with Mary...

Same formulas applies with the addition of the fact that the second kid takes into account that you are already paying child support for kid one. The amount you pay to kid one doesn't change as the state sees it that you chose to have a second kid and the current kid shouldn't be penalized for this.

23 kids later.... You're paying 3 bucks a month per kid :) I don't know how the formula works exactly as I said but basically each time when the state calculates your income vs girls' income % wise they reduce your income by how much child support you are already paying. (Numbers below).

You make 100k girl makes 50k. Together you make 150 state says that with this income lvl a child should have 15k a year to live on. so you pay 10k girl pays 5k (It will actually be more skewed since the kid lives with her probably more like 12k and 3k.

You knock up another girl. You make 100k girl2 makes 50k. Same state says the child needs 15k a year. Now your income as the state sees it for % is only 90k girl makes 50k so you pay only 11k a year and she has to pay 4k.

23 kids later....

Your income after all the child support is close to 0 There may be a cap but as I said I don't know the laws just know that the prior children aren't effected by new children so even if there is a cap some of those kids are getting 0.

[kiryan]

btw both of the guys i was talking about appear to be african american.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pport.html

Heres a story that includes a UK dad (he's white). It also confirms that veal really hasn't worked; looks like debtors prison to me. (Veal is the dad from the original article).

"Like Macdonald, Veal has barely worked over the years, instead choosing to live largely on benefits. When he had a job for a few months last year, some money was taken from his wage to pay for his children, but it barely made a dent in what he owed."
...
"Like Macdonald, Veal told the court he was contributing money from his unemployment benefit and had never refused to pay."

Are you ready for "reasonable" restrictions on reproductive "rights?" I bet 95% of Americans agree fathering 23 children is wrong, so the next step would be to pass a law criminalizing it. RIGHT?

[Ragorn]

Are you ready for "reasonable" restrictions on reproductive "rights?" I bet 95% of Americans agree fathering 23 children is wrong, so the next step would be to pass a law criminalizing it. RIGHT?

It's laughably hard to tell what your stance in this thread is.

You don't want him jailed for failing to pay child support, but you sarcastically oppose legislation capping reproductive rights. I assume you're also against child support in general, preferring the conservative motto of "personal responsibility" and putting all responsibility for raising the children on the stupid mother who got herself knocked up by an untrustworthy male.

So what exactly do you support, kiryan?

[kiryan]

I'm against debtor prison

I'm taking a jab at folks who would undoubtedly support laws restricting these men's behavior.

I'm also taking jabs at african americans since the only 2 cases I'm aware of dead beat dads with 20+ children are both african american. although taht britian with 14 kids from 12 moms is pretty impressive in that both the other guys tend to have multiple children with fewer women.

I'm taking a very small jab at socialist policies that make this possible. 23 kids and a dozen women on welfare, octomom's million dollar delivery, polygamists who have 10 wives and 50 children on welfare and aggregate the money to have a comfortable lifestyle.

Instead of realizing whats wrong (your involvment and support), you're too busy writing new laws to close loopholes or criminalize behavior that takes advantage of those loopholes.

[Sarvis]

We should nip things in the bud and just castrate all males at birth.

[Ragorn]

I'm against debtor prison

I'm taking a jab at folks who would undoubtedly support laws restricting these men's behavior.

I'm also taking jabs at african americans since the only 2 cases I'm aware of dead beat dads with 20+ children are both african american. although taht britian with 14 kids from 12 moms is pretty impressive in that both the other guys tend to have multiple children with fewer women.

I'm taking a very small jab at socialist policies that make this possible. 23 kids and a dozen women on welfare, octomom's million dollar delivery, polygamists who have 10 wives and 50 children on welfare and aggregate the money to have a comfortable lifestyle.

Instead of realizing whats wrong (your involvment and support), you're too busy writing new laws to close loopholes or criminalize behavior that takes advantage of those loopholes.

I didn't ask what you were against.

I asked what you support.

Also, polygamists are mostly christians, so there you go.

[kiryan]

We should nip things in the bud and just castrate all males at birth.

Don't worry your socialist friends / environmentalists will get around to it eventually.

[kiryan]

I was addressing your comment about what my "stance" was in this thread.

As far as what I support, in the context of this thread, I support this mans right to exercise the freedoms he has as an American citizen. I furthermore support his right to use and exploit the system to whatever degree is constitutional.

[Ragorn]

I was addressing your comment about what my "stance" was in this thread.

As far as what I support, in the context of this thread, I support this mans right to exercise the freedoms he has as an American citizen. I furthermore support his right to use and exploit the system to whatever degree is constitutional.

Ok, so you support a man having 23 kids and skipping out on child support.

That does sound pretty christian.

[Sarvis]

Those women deserve what they (don't) get for tempting him into sin in the first place!

[Corth]

Sarvis,

I know you were being sarcastic when you said those women deserve what they get. But there really is something to it. From the perspective of society - we don't want people having babies who cannot afford to take care of them. Sure we take care of babies in unfortunate circumstances to the best of our abilities as individuals and society. But we do it out of necessity, not because it's something we want to be doing. So if you think about it, it's not the worst thing in the world for women to think twice before having a baby with this type of scumbag. If you are going to get knocked up, it doesn't hurt for you to try and do it with someone who has some cash.

[Ragorn]

Says the lawyer ;)

[Ambar]

Strikes me funny in the OP that Kiryan in some way blames the women for sleeping with the guy (or comes across that way) .. you seem to assume they all know each other and are aware of the fact that he has fathered scads of kids and slept with him anyway? Yeah it is friggin dumb to have sex with anyone *new* these days without using protection but .. yeah ..

Don't do the deed if you cant support the product .. this goes to both men and women

There is a preponderance of women AND men who have kid after kid on our tax dollars so I am not saying the woman is innocent either!

[teflor the ranger]

If you are to believe the feminists: it's their bodies.

[Sarvis]

Ambar's basically right: These women each had a couple kids with the same guy. It's the guy who had 23 kids, and most likely the women didn't know about it. Wouldn't even be remotely surprised if he was engaged or married to several of them at the same time without their knowledge.

That's the funny thing Corth, people make decisions on limited information... and there's a very high chance that these women didn't have the right information to make decisions about having kids with this guy.

That information ranges from his perceived level of commitment to information about safe sex that these women may never have been presented with.

You basically want them penalized for being lied to.

[kiryan]

I'm confused, when did I say that this was the women's fault? On some level it is, because women bears the immediate results of the "joint" decision, they naturally should be more sensitive and careful about it. I've always been very careful about it too because I know I'll bear the financial responsibiltiy, but not everyone can be that forward thinking apparently. The douche bag here is obviously the man (i use that term man very liberally).

However, what I'm trying to tease out of you all is someone going on record saying this should be illegal because he can't support the children. Thank you Ambar, taht was close enough.

Now, can we move on to defining how rich you have to be in order to have sex, or to have children since its no longer a right? Right after that we can start talking about subsidies to the poor so they aren't denied their right to reproduce.

[Sarvis]

It's really too bad that it's impossible to have sex without causing pregnancy...

[kiryan]

you're jumping the gun, reversible sterilization at birth comes a little after you all start agreeing to "reasonable" restrictions on reproductive rights.

[Corth]

That's the funny thing Corth, people make decisions on limited information... and there's a very high chance that these women didn't have the right information to make decisions about having kids with this guy.

That information ranges from his perceived level of commitment to information about safe sex that these women may never have been presented with.

You basically want them penalized for being lied to.

Ok - I'll concede the point with respect to information about contraceptives. Not much you can do about that if your partner lies to you. As for perceived level of commitment. Commitment for what? To have sex? To have a baby? It's pretty easy to tell if someone is commited enough to have babies with you. They agree to marry you. Why anyone would accept any level of commitment below that before purposefully having children I can't say.

[Sarvis]

That's the funny thing Corth, people make decisions on limited information... and there's a very high chance that these women didn't have the right information to make decisions about having kids with this guy.

That information ranges from his perceived level of commitment to information about safe sex that these women may never have been presented with.

You basically want them penalized for being lied to.

Ok - I'll concede the point with respect to information about contraceptives. Not much you can do about that if your partner lies to you. As for perceived level of commitment. Commitment for what? To have sex? To have a baby? It's pretty easy to tell if someone is commited enough to have babies with you. They agree to marry you. Why anyone would accept any level of commitment below that before purposefully having children I can't say.

You really don't think anyone would lie about getting married to get laid? Hell, for all you know this guy DID marry some of the women but didn't honor his commitment by cheating on them, or simply leaving them after a while. Maybe they started living together but didn't think they "needed" marriage, but planned to have kids.

[Kindi]

Black, the 38-year-old mother of two of Veal's children, ages 16 and 11, was delighted to see Veal going to prison, but she said getting the money would have been better.
"I'd rather have him pay the money," she said. "Now my taxes will go to support him in prison."
She said she met Veal in Grand Rapids when she was a young woman and he took care of her until it came time to support their children.
"My daughter doesn't even know him," she said.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/ ... ren_w.html

[Corth]

That's the funny thing Corth, people make decisions on limited information... and there's a very high chance that these women didn't have the right information to make decisions about having kids with this guy.

That information ranges from his perceived level of commitment to information about safe sex that these women may never have been presented with.

You basically want them penalized for being lied to.

Ok - I'll concede the point with respect to information about contraceptives. Not much you can do about that if your partner lies to you. As for perceived level of commitment. Commitment for what? To have sex? To have a baby? It's pretty easy to tell if someone is commited enough to have babies with you. They agree to marry you. Why anyone would accept any level of commitment below that before purposefully having children I can't say.

You really don't think anyone would lie about getting married to get laid? Hell, for all you know this guy DID marry some of the women but didn't honor his commitment by cheating on them, or simply leaving them after a while. Maybe they started living together but didn't think they "needed" marriage, but planned to have kids.

Again - perceived level of committment to have sex or have a baby? One doesn't necessarily mean the other. I can see someone lying that they want to marry a girl in order to get laid. Not many people would lie about wanting to get married in order to induce a woman into having his baby. And fewer would actually enter into a marriage in order to knock her up and then jet.

[Sarvis]

That's the funny thing Corth, people make decisions on limited information... and there's a very high chance that these women didn't have the right information to make decisions about having kids with this guy.

That information ranges from his perceived level of commitment to information about safe sex that these women may never have been presented with.

You basically want them penalized for being lied to.

Ok - I'll concede the point with respect to information about contraceptives. Not much you can do about that if your partner lies to you. As for perceived level of commitment. Commitment for what? To have sex? To have a baby? It's pretty easy to tell if someone is commited enough to have babies with you. They agree to marry you. Why anyone would accept any level of commitment below that before purposefully having children I can't say.

You really don't think anyone would lie about getting married to get laid? Hell, for all you know this guy DID marry some of the women but didn't honor his commitment by cheating on them, or simply leaving them after a while. Maybe they started living together but didn't think they "needed" marriage, but planned to have kids.

Again - perceived level of committment to have sex or have a baby? One doesn't necessarily mean the other. I can see someone lying that they want to marry a girl in order to get laid. Not many people would lie about wanting to get married in order to induce a woman into having his baby. And fewer would actually enter into a marriage in order to knock her up and then jet.

But many would do everything they can to get bareback ride.

[Corth]

There is a difference between having sex and trying to have a baby. You convince her that a condom is unnecessary and then fail to pull out as promised - well I sympathize with her. That's the part where I said I would concede the point concerning contraception (or lack thereof). Sure the woman bares some responsibility - she shouldn't have left it up to somebody else - but, as you would say, the information she used to make her choice was incorrect. However, a lot of these women are purposefully having babies with insufficient committment from the guy. Those are the women I am referring to - and they bear a significant amount of blame. Yes, in large part it is her fault - and there are serious consequences. It is a big fucking deal to have a baby, and yet a certain segment of the population seems to consider it trivial. Basically, if you purposefully have children out of wedlock you are asking for a shitload of trouble - and if that is what you get then how is it not your fault?

[Sarvis]

"Yeah baby, I'll be with you forever. We'll get married right away. It'll be allllll right!"

[Corth]

That is something he says after he didn't pull out in time. :)

Again purposeful vs. accidental. Big difference.

[Sarvis]

I was picturing talking her into going bareback, but either way the girl thought the guy was going to stick around, right?

[Corth]

She shouldn't have a baby in reliance upon her guy promising to stick around. Get a ring first.

[Kifle]

It shouldn't even matter whether or not there will be a marriage. Having babies should only be dependent upon financial security and the ability to raise a child -- having a partner in the matter should be considered as peripheral.

[Corth]

It takes two right?

Well some single parents can afford it. But more often than not these days it takes two adults working to earn enough money to raise a child. And if you are going to RELY upon a partner's financial contribution then why would you move forward with such a proposition in the absence of a marriage contract?

[Corth]

Example. I had a client who was in a long term relationship with a guy, but not married. She had three children with him. Inevitably he got sick of her and dumped her. It didn't take long before he sent her an eviction notice. The problem is, although the house was in his name (he had better credit), she was the one making the primary financial contribution towards the household/mortgage. In fact it never occurred to her that the house wasn't hers until this guy sent her an eviction notice. From a legal perspective this was a difficult case because whereas in divorce there is an 'equitable distribution' of assets between the parties, even if title is held in one or the other - in the absence of a marriage contract, this dissolution of a long term relationship created no special rights in either party towards the other's assets. We had to ask the court to issue a 'constructive trust', which is very difficult given caselaw in NY. Ultimately the case settled, and in light of the uncertainty of litigation should we have gone forward, the outcome was likely a lot less beneficial towards the woman than it would have been if she had been married to the guy.

So again, if you are going to have children with someone, why would you not get a marriage contract?

[kiryan]

because your stupid and liberals have turned common sense upside down with the hookup culture.

you would have kids with someone you aren't married too because your stupid and liberals have turned common sense upside down with the hookup culture.

Didn't mean you're stupid corth.

[Ragorn]

because your stupid and liberals have turned common sense upside down with the hookup culture.

1/10

His stupid what?

[Kifle]

Example. I had a client who was in a long term relationship with a guy, but not married. She had three children with him. Inevitably he got sick of her and dumped her. It didn't take long before he sent her an eviction notice. The problem is, although the house was in his name (he had better credit), she was the one making the primary financial contribution towards the household/mortgage. In fact it never occurred to her that the house wasn't hers until this guy sent her an eviction notice. From a legal perspective this was a difficult case because whereas in divorce there is an 'equitable distribution' of assets between the parties, even if title is held in one or the other - in the absence of a marriage contract, this dissolution of a long term relationship created no special rights in either party towards the other's assets. We had to ask the court to issue a 'constructive trust', which is very difficult given caselaw in NY. Ultimately the case settled, and in light of the uncertainty of litigation should we have gone forward, the outcome was likely a lot less beneficial towards the woman than it would have been if she had been married to the guy.

So again, if you are going to have children with someone, why would you not get a marriage contract?

Perhaps I was a bit too vague in my statements. I was trying not to be as long winded as I usually get.

In your case, the issues has less to do with the children's well being and more to do with the fairness of spent income. I'm not arguing that marriage is not beneficial to secure proper dispersal of assets in the event of a split. What I am saying, that in the realm of child rearing, the only necessary criteria which need to be met are financial security and the mental ability to raise a child as to not screw them up -- be it mentally, physically, or emotionally. If the woman is able, willing, and financially secure, marriage is peripheral to the equation in that it is completely unnecessary.

Now, if this woman is with a man and wants to quit her job to pursue another career which will drop her financial security as a single woman, yes, marriage would be necessary; however, this is consequence rather than antecedent. On the other hand, marriage to a man might carry more importance with children only due to the way in which custody is handled by the justice system and its gender bias towards women. Again, I say might because I'm not actually sure, but if the conditions are true, the argument is valid.

Again, I'm not arguing the utility of marriage as a contract to protect each party from legal consequences. In life, you can never be too careful when you give something up for another which may lead to debilitating consequences when the verbal contract becomes null and void; regardless, this contract bears no significant recourse on the birth or upbringing of a child.

[teflor the ranger]

Marriage provides all sorts of protections that come with the official establishment of said relationship as licensed by the state. For example, the immediate determination of custody of children in the event of death, inheritance determination in absence of a will, medical power of attorney, social security benefits and survivorship, etc., etc., etc...

Society is setup for the nuclear family. Those who don't buy into the scheme miss out on a raft of benefits and protections that come with the license.