Another Man Sued for C/S after Release from Prison due to DNA Exoneration

I wonder if and how often this woman brought the child to visit this guy (if he's really the father) while he was in jail.

Men are only fathers when their wallets are desired?

I wonder. Must the child support, if awarded, be computed based on what this guy was making 18 years ago when the child was born? Can a woman wait 18 years to file for child support and receive it for the entire 18 year period based on his income level at the end of the 18 year period? Can child support for the past 18 years be based on income received after the 18 year period is up?

Seems to me that this money that this guy is getting should not even be allowed to be used in child support computations, if the court says he has to pay child support.

that title could be the motto of the NOW sows.

maybe a visit to one of the two BIG O shows w/ some well placed tears will get the victim train running down the money tracks for her.

IMHo this looks like compensation/repayment for a loss, like insurance.
loss of years
loss of children
loss of earnings
loss of potential

this list could go on and on.

just like compensation from wrongful death or something like that.

definitely not earned income. i predict scumbag judges and lawyers will try to
get some money flowing. his lawyer will probably get most of what he gets from the state. such an honorable profession.

I'll go against the usual here and say she absolutely deserves income. A father not working doesn't absolve him from all responsibility to pay for his kids.

Now before anyone hits 'reply' to bash me, since the state was preventing the father from earning any income, it should be the state reimbursing the mother for those 18 years of support payments. And it should be above and beyond what he got for compensation for being in prison, not taken out of that.

In addition, $360,000 for that many years in prison is just ridiculous. Should be half a million a year if the state did everything 'by the book', double that if the prosecutor can be shown to have played dirty, manipulated evidence, etc.

I guess that by "she shouldn't get any money" in this context, we here would men "not get any money FROM HIM".
Just an observation. Plus this takes care of my daily one entry minimum on the board :-)
-ax

Child alimony needs to be eliminated. This woman does NOT deserve any money. She got to raise his child while he did hard time. Perhaps she would have liked to trade places with him?

Of course, whether the man is in prison or not, the mother still gets the benefit of raising the child, why would any mother given this gift want money?

Why should any man work to give his money away at the threat of prison? Why are men expected to accept slavery with a smile?

My Board: [URL=http://z3.invisionfree.com/AntiFeministing/index.php?act=idx]Antifeministing[/URL]

Why should any man work to give his money away at the threat of prison? Why are men expected to accept slavery with a smile?

Because parents do have an obligation to support their children. Infact I'd say the kid is owed money personally (not C/S, compensation) from the state for the pain and suffering of not having the father around. Considering the son went to live with his dad, this doesn't seem like the type of family structure we usually criticize. Mom isn't keeping the kid away from dad here. The state owes this family big time.

Hi Dan,

Do you believe in equal rights? Only for women?

Do you believe in choice for women? Choice for men?

Do you believe that a woman should be able to place her child at a hospital or fire station within a certain number of days after birth and thereby absolve herself of all responsibility for the child? But not for men?

Do you believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion if the father wants to keep and raise their child and collect child support from her? Where's the equal right for men?

Do you believe that a woman's choice to have a child is between herself and her doctor? Where's the father in that equation?

Does anyone in this world "deserve" income even though they haven't earned it? Choosing to have a child automatically makes her deserving of income? If a man wishes to bring up the child, where does he deserve income from? The mother? Society as a whole?

Do you think that if a woman collects child support, she should have to maintain records to prove that she not only is spending all the money on the child but that she is contributing an equal amount herself (not from her parents, relatives or the government) to her child's support? Should she go to jail if she doesn't?

Do you think that there should be no ceiling on child support and that it should be based on a percentage of a father's income? Do you also think that a woman should be able to collect child support from an unlimited number of men at the same time giving her an unlimited amount of income support as long as she has each child from a different father, while men are limited to how many children they can have (if not married and having their children with one woman) because an unlimited amount (percentage) of his income is deducted from his income for each child?

Are women really not equal to men because at every juncture, they require being taken care of and/or supported by men and society as a whole? OK, OK. I know there are exceptions. Exceptions to the rule don't count. There are exceptions to every rule.

Do you believe that women are just basically different from men and should only get equal rights when they want them (like a lunch buffet) and not when they don't because their situation is different in those cases?

Just curious. I could have probably gone on if I tried, but then everyone's eyes would probably start to glaze over and they'd no doubt start to fall asleep being that they've all heard all this before.

I started to respond to all your questions, then I realized how irrational most of them were. Point out exactly where I said I don't believe in equal rights for both parents. Equal rights and responsibilities means the father had a responsibility to care for the children. Because the state took away his ability to do that, and did so wrongfully, they should be obligated to provide that back support.

Yes, I think it's a horrendous injustice the way fathers are treated in this country, but we can't win that battle with people running around saying "well men aren't being treated fairly so we shouldn't have any obligation to our children".

Does anyone in this world "deserve" income even though they haven't earned it?

Yes, children that people bring into the world deserve "income", in the sense that they deserve to be cared for until they can care for themselves. That's what child support is supposed to be.

So stop using feminist tactics. Read any of their blogs or websites and you'll see a massive number of them love the "you either agree with us 100%, or you're our enemy" tactic. I fully agree with almost all the points you were making, but even if I disagree with you on some, that shouldn't make me your enemy. You're capable of higher levels of thinking than that.

This victim of the rape hysteria rampant in Western culture is only going to be compensated a measley $360,000 for spending 18 years of his most productive years in prison. I would not doubt that the government will tax it too. Some dumb McDonalds employee got several million dollars in a lawsuit judgement against McD's for falling for a phone prank that made her take her clothes off for a phoney strip search. $360,000 isn't jack squat for what he went through! And now the system wants to take that paltry sum for back mommy support?

How can this victim be responsible for child support when the state prevented him from working? Let the state pay for its crimes, not this innocent man.

Of course the money the state have paid him in compensation should be net,and the state should have to
pay the back alimony if they haven't ALREADY.We do not know if and what benefits she was on during that 18 years
and whether or not she could afford to look after the kid
on her own earnings.What I do know is that he should not be involved,they may have agreed loss of earnings but this hardly compensates for the trauma,his representative should take it back to square one otherwise the state becomes a deadbeat dad as they like fathers known as.

...Be bold men, and broach the conversation with a friend or colleague, and make sure they have a few web addresses to educate themselves!! I went to kinkos and made a thousand business cards to hand out...With web adresses on them!!

I feel I'm doing my share to raise awareness if I'm reaching out to people that don't even know mensrights activists exist!!

Hey Dan,

When the family courts start treating men equally in regards to custody (and of course child alimony) then and only then can child alimony be considered fair.

Dan, don't play the "it's for the children" card with this crowd. We know it is not for the children as there is no accountability, fairness or logic in how child alimony is handled by the family courts.

My Board: [URL=http://z3.invisionfree.com/AntiFeministing/index.php?act=idx]Antifeministing[/URL]

You've got to be kidding. Or you're reading into my meaning meaning that isn't there.

When someone purports to be "for the children", it's just a smokescreen 99% of the time and what they really mean is "for the woman" and damn the man if his needs differ in any way. And since you're for the children who are basically helpless, whatever others (the man) want that doesn't agree with what you believe is best for the children, is against the children. Whatever the woman wants, it's up to the man to provide it. After all, his primary job in any relationship is "provider". Don't believe it? Ask most women. Furthermore, I don't buy the attitude that whatever is good for the child is what should happen, regardless of the needs of the parents. Everyone's needs within the family unit are equally important because it's not possible to hurt one member of a family and not hurt all the others within that family.

That last comment of mine was basically why I asked you all those equality questions. Irrational? I think every question was totally rational. What I consider irrational is a man on this site trying to give everyone here the impression that he is so wonderful and magnanimous and in touch with his feminine side because he is "for the children".

Sorry, on this site that garbage just doesn't fly. You sound no different than all the sick feminists who are in the process of totally destroying this country... for the children.

It's not even within the family unit. It's men being forced to subsidize their ex-wives' new boyfriends. Why should any man commit to a marriage or to fatherhood when he has no rights and is only there to be a future target for exploitation by the legal system?

Serving your country in Iraq is becoming more expensive for the all-volunteer (98% male) corps.

Too many fathers returning from Iraq intact or with a few limbs missing are getting prosecuted for alleged back child support.

(Example) -

"Bobby Sherrill, a divorced father of two from Parkton, N.C., was a casualty of that war. Mr. Sherrill, who worked for Lockheed in Kuwait before being captured and held hostage by Iraq for nearly five harrowing months, was arrested the night he returned from the Persian Gulf War. Why? For failing to pay $1,425 in child support while he was a captive."

See -
http://www.glennsacks.com/families_and_the.htm

What kind of women/wives aided by what kind of vile system/government commits these kinds of crimes against fathers and gets away with them?

Well, ordinary women.

And an increasingly fascist government.

And we look down on the Iraqis, as if we're better than them.

It always makes me laugh when I see Americans advocating our dating and marriage customs as the best way of doing things, and that other countries should adjust their customs to ours, while we have a 50% failure rate for first marriages and 66% failure rate for second marriages.

Speaking of arrogance!