MensNewsDaily.com
And now for the feminist perspective: The "Fathers Rights Movement"
Exists to Dodge Child Support February 10, 2003
by Jim Untershine
The "No Spin Zone" continues to echo the feminist perspective
regarding the plight facing men who dare to have sex with women. The topic of
discussion was the unfair advantage that the courts grant to a pregnant woman,
regarding their exploitation of unplanned children for money. Glenn Sacks was
attempting to make a distinction between men who consciously decide to be
fathers, and men who become fathers due to an unprotected "poke in the
whiskers":
The National Organization for Women (NOW) has portrayed a father's fight for
child custody as "the fathers bitterness about being required to pay child
support" \1
"The 'Father's Rights Movement' is all about men who are attempting to
avoid supporting their children" \2 spewed the stand in for Bill O'Reilly,
capping off the interview with Glenn Sacks. The stand in, John Kasich, is a
former member of the House of Representatives, where he built a reputation as an
attacker of bloated government. All members of the House of Representatives
believe child support demanded by each state is the same as that state's welfare
benefits. \3 Mr. Kasich has been deceived into thinking child support is
reasonable in all states.
Bill O'Reilly entitled a previous segment "Is it your constitutional
right to have babies and not support them?" \4, regarding a Wisconsin man
who was ordered by the court to "cease and desist" impregnating women.
When the California governor, Gray Davis, vetoed a bill to end paternity
fraud, the Bill O'Reilly interview with Dianna Thompson was mysteriously
postponed. It seems that Bill O'Reilly is still snake bit from the interview
with Stephen Baskerville, who proceeded to lay down the family law, defending
Deadbeat Dads, and made Bill O'Reilly like it. \5
The hypocrisy of this "No Spin" perspective becomes glaring if you
are familiar with the many crusades launched by Bill O'Reilly concerning
charities not handing over money to the intended recipients. The public
misperception seems to be that a child has a legal right to the money paid for
its support. As if to say "There is no incentive for a woman to get
pregnant seeking child support, since she would have nothing to gain".
A father earning $53,000/yr net income in California must pay $1,100/mo to
the mother of his child (tax-free, regardless of the mother's income, for at
least 18 years, never account for a dime). \6 If the mother is on welfare in
California, the taxpayers pay her $384/mo and $243/mo for the child for a total
of $627/mo (food stamps, work requirements, strict accountability). \7
The public misperception as a function of circumstance may be described as
follows: * $473/mo - Father dared to raise children - pays for the mother and
child. ($1,100 - $627). * $857/mo - Father didnt wear a rubber - pays only for
the child. ($1,100 - $243). * $1,100/mo - Father is not the father - must not
pay for the child ($1,100 - $0).
The public perception of a "Deadbeat Dad" seems to revolve around a
father's inability to keep his family off the welfare roles. The state's
perception is that if Dads don't fall behind in child support the state will
lose all federal funding. The federal perception should be that the states must
implement the child support guidelines as reported to the House of
Representatives in the Greenbook. \3 If the state child support guideline were
the same as the state welfare benefit then the public perception would equal the
truth.
If I were a former member of the House of Representatives (John Kasich) and
learned that the financial demands forced on my constituents were fraudulently
reported to hide the common denominator to welfare reform, I would demand to
"make it accurate, or make it law". The family law solution is already
in place at the federal level and is waiting for our legislators to demand that
we enforce it. \3
Gone are the days when a woman would attempt to get pregnant to guilt the man
of her dreams into marrying her. Now getting pregnant represents a tax-free
windfall for at least 18 years without any responsibility to account for a dime.
This very lucrative arrangement provokes gullible women to: * Dissolve a
marriage. * Instigate an out-of-wedlock birth. * Commit paternity fraud. *
Motivate their own murder (in California).
These startling revelations may raise more questions: * If the public
perception is that child support is fair, then why is Dad expected to kill Mom
in California? * Why would a woman stop instigating children when there is no
limit to this tax-free money? * Why would a woman choose to buy the cow, when
she can milk it through the fence? * Why should lesbians be paid to raise a
family at the expense of their chosen host, while gay men must rely on pride
parades to acquire new family members?
Jim Untershine
_________________________________________________________________
Citations:
\1 NOW Family Court Report 2002. http://www.canow.org/fam.html, The complete
PDF document is at the following link http://www.canow.org/fam_report.pdf
\2 FoxNews, John Kasich vs Glenn Sacks, "30 Years After Roe v. Wade, How
About Choice for Men?"
\3 Interstate child support guideline data was obtained from Table 8-2 of the
US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means 2000 Greenbook, Section
8, entitled "Amount Of Child Support Awarded By State Guidelines In Various
Cases.", Pirog, Klotz, and Buyers (1997) have examined the differences in
child support guidelines across States. Their approach was to define five
hypothetical cases of custodial mothers and noncustodial fathers that capture a
range of differences in income, expenses, and other factors that influence the
amount of child support payments computed under the guidelines adopted by the
various States. State 1997 guidelines were then applied to each of the five
cases to compute the amount of child support that would be due. In each of the
five cases, the mother and father are divorced. The father lives alone while the
mother lives with the couples' two children, ages 7 and 13. The father pays
union dues of $30 per month and health insurance for the children of $25 per
month. The mother incurs monthly employment-related childcare expenses of $150.
The income of the father and mother that is entitled "Case D"
specifies a father = $4,400/mo and a mother = $1,760/mo.
\4 Bill O'Reilly, FoxNews, 10-10-02, "Is it your constitutional right to
have babies and not support them?" >>>>
\5 Bill O'Reilly, FoxNews, 10-16-00 "The O'Reilly Factor":
"Deadbeat Dads", http://www.dadi.org/b-factos.htm
\6 Interstate child support guideline data was obtained from AllLaw.com and
assumes 0% custody, $4,400/mo NCP net income (Vermont and New Hampshire are not
included in the analysis since you must pay to find out how much you would owe
in these states), http://alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/
\7 TANF benefits across all states was extracted from Table 7-9 of the US
House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 2000 Greenbook, Section
7, entitled "Maximum Combined TANF And Food Stamp Benefit For Families Of
One To Six Persons, January 1, 2000." Food stamp calculations assume that
the family does not receive an excess shelter deduction. In very low benefit
States, combined benefits shown reflect the maximum food stamp allotment for the
family size, but in some States the excess shelter deduction would increase food
stamps (by up to $83 monthlymore in Alaska and Hawaii). Calculations assume a
single-parent family with no earned income and use normal rounding rules. Table
prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
_________________________________________________________________
Jim Untershine holds a BSEE from Mississippi State University and has 13
years experience in feedback control system design. Mr. Untershine is currently
using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the teachings of Henry David
Thoreau (civil disobedience) to expose Family Law in California as the
exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual
taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country. Visit his website here.
[http://www.geocities.com/gndzerosrv/]
