Reply #85

In the discussion thread: I May be Going to Debtor's Prison [View all]

Mon May 7, 2012, 11:47 PM

grasswire (36,873 posts)

85. that may be so...

....but in an economy like we have today, the concept of imputed income is sometimes just a battering ram used by greedy courts and embittered spouses. The embittered spouse wants to ruin/destroy the non-custodial parent; the greedy court is an accessory to that.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

330 replies	Author	Time	Post
I May be Going to Debtor's Prison [View all]	The Doctor.	May 2012	OP
K&R	99Forever	May 2012	#1
Thanks.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#3
I certainly hope things get better for you...	99Forever	May 2012	#25
what is going to happen when the jails are run over with people like this? Where are they going	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#44
It's more complicated than that.	randome	May 2012	#46
What can you do if that is all that is out there. Lets face it if your in your 40s, 50s,60s you	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#47
HA! Tell us, please...how many?	ret5hd	May 2012	#170
I bet like 98% would love living in squalor just to get back at their x wives, he chose to be poor	Dragonfli	May 2012	#191
Some percentage would, for a time	treestar	May 2012	#308
There is a meaness afoot in the land.	annabanana	May 2012	#2
"Why should I pay for this and that"	sufrommich	May 2012	#14
What's with making shit up?	The Doctor.	May 2012	#22
Read this:	sufrommich	May 2012	#30
I would love to hear her side of this.	Pithlet	May 2012	#33
Yep, me too. nt	sufrommich	May 2012	#34
It's common on DU to jump on a bandwagon hearing only one side	treestar	May 2012	#81
I'm always guilty of that -- thanks for the reminder. And for those who are cautioning against	gateley	May 2012	#171
That glaring omission???? See post #116. nt	msanthrope	May 2012	#117
Not surprised in the least. n/t	Pithlet	May 2012	#121
Nope---completely unsurprising. nt	msanthrope	May 2012	#122
As I was saying.	lapislzi	May 2012	#139
$600 a month is all he's paying?	randome	May 2012	#35
male median income 2010 = $32K. $600 = 1/4.	HiPointDem	May 2012	#73
1/4? That's not nearly enough. It should be 2/3	Zalatix	May 2012	#90
Exactly, plus like it or not, it's not the other guy's responsibility.	Lionessa	May 2012	#59
Wow, you are really twisted.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#64
No, I'm not "twisted" nor do I	sufrommich	May 2012	#111
Yeah, he has to pay the court ordered amount	treestar	May 2012	#80
You seem terribly passive aggressive yourself. n/t	iamthebandfanman	May 2012	#135
This article raises more questions than it answers	lapislzi	May 2012	#138
What 'opportunities to act in his own defense' do you mean?	The Doctor.	May 2012	#148
He claims to have proof of his wife's perjury	lapislzi	May 2012	#283
So you didn't read it.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#292
I read it. Every tedious, self-pitying word.	lapislzi	May 2012	#296
Bullshit. If you had, you wouldn't have posted what you did.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#314
I'm sorry, but I cannot continue this discussion with you.	lapislzi	May 2012	#316
it's almost a "cool story bro" type of story, don't know what to believe on this one.	dionysus	May 2012	#280
Du rec. Nt	xchrom	May 2012	#4
Y'know this is nothing more really than "my ex-wife and life screwed me" rant.	Lionessa	May 2012	#5
Exactly.	Pithlet	May 2012	#6
you think your opinion on this might in any way be jaded?	snooper2	May 2012	#9
Yes the facts and reality definitely jade me. I don't see that as an issue.	Lionessa	May 2012	#19
Yet you are so willing to invent extraneous details not in evidence,	The Doctor.	May 2012	#156
What are you talking about?	Pithlet	May 2012	#158
It is based on the information presented therein, his own presentation	Lionessa	May 2012	#172
You are of course correct.	mysuzuki2	May 2012	#11
Should a man help pay for his children? This has	sufrommich	May 2012	#13
Sure.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#18
Right. But that wasn't up to him to decide that.	Pithlet	May 2012	#24
Yeesh you can't start a new business if you have child support payments?	dkf	May 2012	#36
Not if it means you can't meet your child support obligation.	Pithlet	May 2012	#37
At what level?	n2doc	May 2012	#26
I'm a wife and mother, and here's why I can't agree with you.	kag	May 2012	#225
Oh, barf. n/t	Pithlet	May 2012	#227
Thank you.	kag	May 2012	#307
I've heard that sophomoric crap before.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#15
I did not say it wasn't true, I said it wasn't the whole truth, and lacks any real owning of his	Lionessa	May 2012	#23
You said the story was unbelievable	Major Nikon	May 2012	#52
I guess when a person hears nearly this exact same rant from	Lionessa	May 2012	#57
I know plenty of divorced people	Major Nikon	May 2012	#61
You do know what jaded means right?	snooper2	May 2012	#123
Yes, but as mentioned above, if it's facts and reality of	Lionessa	May 2012	#142
"I realize you men all think women are the drama queens"	snooper2	May 2012	#147
He reminds me of a man I know with bipolar disease, who flits from one job to another	pnwmom	May 2012	#41
I was thinking the same thing	dana_b	May 2012	#219
Wow --	On the Road	May 2012	#98
One line summary - In the US you may be sent to jail if you can't pay your child support. n/t	PoliticAverse	May 2012	#7
Yep...	The Doctor.	May 2012	#17
if you can't, you go back to court. Like not paying your taxes, it doesn't just "go away".	crazyjoe	May 2012	#39
True.	HappyMe	May 2012	#164
When the revolution happens it'll start in places like this.	Initech	May 2012	#8
This message was self-deleted by its author	gratuitous	May 2012	#10
He's not going to "debtor's prison",he's going	sufrommich	May 2012	#12
Right, he couldn't pay a debt obligation, so he's going to jail.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#16
Only by those who want to minimize what the obligation is for.	Pithlet	May 2012	#20
No it is contempt of court	treestar	May 2012	#75
Right, not having enough money = 'contempt of court'.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#100
The law is that earning capacity is considered	treestar	May 2012	#107
Right, because he's 'supposed' to make more, he should be making more.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#112
It depends on the case	treestar	May 2012	#253
Collective punishment is wrong. And laws should not be written based on what 'some people did'	sabrina 1	May 2012	#131
What is better for children is not being raised in struggling single parent households	Pithlet	May 2012	#134
And having a parent thrown in jail benefits children, in what way? For most children it is	sabrina 1	May 2012	#244
It benefits them because the system needs some level of teeth.	Pithlet	May 2012	#247
Really? If someone simply cannot pay, sending them to jail will solve that? How?	sabrina 1	May 2012	#257
I get that jail isn't the solution for everything. I'm not a law and order type.	Pithlet	May 2012	#260
"Most fathers who are not paying child support are not paying because they CAN'T"	WinniSkipper	May 2012	#262
Feel free, not sure why it should be a problem. I have been to fathers groups with friends who	sabrina 1	May 2012	#268
Until you can put some stats behind your statement	WinniSkipper	May 2012	#277
I asked for stats and didn't get them yet.	sabrina 1	May 2012	#285
Well you could try to find some	WinniSkipper	May 2012	#289
No, I did not initiate this discussion. The obligation for proof is on those who made the initial	sabrina 1	May 2012	#294
You are actually the one with the right wing meme	WinniSkipper	May 2012	#299
Now you've really gone way off the tracks regarding this discussion. What a gigantic, humongous	sabrina 1	May 2012	#300
Easy	WinniSkipper	May 2012	#303
Since when do people on the left give a crap about what the Right, who are wrong about	sabrina 1	May 2012	#306
Maybe if we try this one by one	WinniSkipper	May 2012	#311
First of all there should not be a 'custodial' or 'non-custodial' parent.	sabrina 1	May 2012	#318
And we're done. nt	WinniSkipper	May 2012	#321
Lol, sorry to burst your bubble that we are not stuck with rightwing	sabrina 1	May 2012	#323
We're done because	WinniSkipper	May 2012	#325
He never tried to petition the court to adjust his payment to a level he could afford.	Kaleva	May 2012	#266
Yes, he did. You obviously did not read the comment section. He was denied.	sabrina 1	May 2012	#267
I agree in some ways.	laundry_queen	May 2012	#271
First, thank you for your post. I wish you and your children all the best. I am sure it is not easy	sabrina 1	May 2012	#273
"Can't pay" is his excuse	treestar	May 2012	#256
Courts often decide people can pay when in fact they cannot. Ever attend a father's rights group?	sabrina 1	May 2012	#259
Most states have to have formulas based on federal guidelines	treestar	May 2012	#293
It is not collective punishment to have a law equally applied to all	treestar	May 2012	#254
True enough, but semantics, much like fabreeze seeks to take away the bad odor /nt	Dragonfli	May 2012	#194
This is nothing but a long drawn	Texasgal	May 2012	#21
Recommendation: fathersandfriends.org web site and facebook page	grasswire	May 2012	#27
OP needs to edit this to include that it is due to failure to pay child support...	Earth_First	May 2012	#28
Really the biggest mistake he made was in not hiring the best lawyer he could,	n2doc	May 2012	#29
He was trying not to traumatize his kids. The family court version of	Zalatix	May 2012	#92
So he in effect surrendered.	n2doc	May 2012	#106
It's hardly pyrrhic. She won the jackpot. Literally.	Zalatix	May 2012	#145
She'll get no money	n2doc	May 2012	#153
This is true, but she'll get plenty of money from her new husband	Zalatix	May 2012	#155
I don't think they're engaged.	Pithlet	May 2012	#163
She left because she was supporting him.	Kaleva	May 2012	#327
You mean hire an attorney he apparently couldn't afford.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#99
Wow some of the replies are pretty tough.	dkf	May 2012	#31
Yep, Non-Custodial Parents are one of the untermenschen of modern society. No one cares about them	stevenleser	May 2012	#195
Thank you, I agree with you completely.	sabrina 1	May 2012	#286
The child support laws have been developed over time through good and bad	treestar	May 2012	#309
I can't argue with providing for your kids, but it seems to me that society could have benefited	dkf	May 2012	#329
Poorly-written "poor me" screed. He's facing jail for missing child support payments, not cc debt	REP	May 2012	#32
You know, I notice you have no pity for anyone.	Zalatix	May 2012	#93
Really? You've read all 14K+ of my posts?	REP	May 2012	#96
You are right, absolutes are seldom true. I can say though, that I have yet to see a post of yours	Dragonfli	May 2012	#196
I thought I was responding to someone else - sorry - edited	REP	May 2012	#221
Why thank you for noticing me these past 8 years! /nt	Dragonfli	May 2012	#222
I'm sorry; thought I was responding to someone else. I don't recognize you at all.	REP	May 2012	#223
No need to edit, one thing I am not is easily offended :-) /nt	Dragonfli	May 2012	#229
Right, because you know all the answers,	The Doctor.	May 2012	#103
I have obviously made better choices; I am not going to prison.	REP	May 2012	#151
I'm not the one making assumptions.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#161
That's odd - only you suggested others make the same decisions I do; I didn't	REP	May 2012	#220
"I slog through your Word Salads of Fury"	pintobean	May 2012	#261
foresight	Mason Dixon	May 2012	#38
He's wrong about the family courts being biased against fathers.	pnwmom	May 2012	#40
I agree with that.	randome	May 2012	#45
Maybe where you are ..	sendero	May 2012	#63
Well, I mean, you can just google and find some right off the bat...	Pithlet	May 2012	#65
Also, here's what a family lawyer in Texas says about father's chances in Texas:	Pithlet	May 2012	#67
Who told you that? A man who had been denied custody? A judge?	pnwmom	May 2012	#84
I think you were told wrong	Horse with no Name	May 2012	#87
Let me make a point here. After the close to TWENTY Motion Hearings	Horse with no Name	May 2012	#89
Link please.	lumberjack_jeff	May 2012	#71
And support is gender neutral, too.	treestar	May 2012	#79
They don't request support ecause if they demand mom's support for the kids, she'll demand custody.	lumberjack_jeff	May 2012	#88
Well the laws are gender neutral	treestar	May 2012	#108
My husband said that when he was suing for custody	Mariana	May 2012	#128
He says right in the OP that	sufrommich	May 2012	#160
We have an acquaintance here in NY	HappyMe	May 2012	#169
He's not wrong as the only person responding to you with a link pointed out.	stevenleser	May 2012	#197
It's called "The Tender Years Doctrine".	The Doctor.	May 2012	#202
From that very link:	Pithlet	May 2012	#243
Thank you, that's what I thought. I have asked for some links to prove what has been said here,	sabrina 1	May 2012	#265
Yes, you are not going to get any links because it is simply not true.	stevenleser	May 2012	#281
He knows he's wrong, he's got custody of one of his	sufrommich	May 2012	#200
Omniscience must be nice.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#203
I know as much of the story as you do, but if you're going	sufrommich	May 2012	#204
Making shit up again.... wow.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#291
"But I know your history well"	sufrommich	May 2012	#297
Do you have any data for that? That is not what I have found. .	sabrina 1	May 2012	#264
My ex is dumb as a hammer and crazy as a sack of bats.	LASlibinSC	May 2012	#42
I'm really sorry that these things happened to the author of the post.	JDPriestly	May 2012	#43
That was my impression as well -	TBF	May 2012	#50
We need to have a national discussion about the problem of divorce.	JDPriestly	May 2012	#201
Short story: He's going to jail for failure to pay child support.	Selatius	May 2012	#48
how do you pay child support from jail?	grasswire	May 2012	#49
I'm assuming he's serving jail time in lieu of failure to pay past child support.	Selatius	May 2012	#51
the jail time does not pay off the obligation	grasswire	May 2012	#70
It's very hard to get someone in jail for it	treestar	May 2012	#76
I know without reading that he's going to jail for back child support.	lumberjack_jeff	May 2012	#53
Exactly.	bluestate10	May 2012	#56
No they don't. Meet Charles Bruce.	lumberjack_jeff	May 2012	#66
Debtor's prison is for debts accrued on purchases and loans.	Starry Messenger	May 2012	#54
Maybe they think if the "debt" is discharged.	Pithlet	May 2012	#58
Imprisoning poor people after assigning them debts they could never pay is wrong	Taitertots	May 2012	#55
$7800 a year is outrageous?? Do you have a clue what it costs	Lionessa	May 2012	#60
So what, a person making $10,000 can't pay $7800	Taitertots	May 2012	#62
But he can live on the remaining $2,200!	Zalatix	May 2012	#94
It doesn't matter what it costs. The only thing that matters is what he can pay. n/t	lumberjack_jeff	May 2012	#68
$7800 = 1/4 of male median income. which suggests that there's a lot of men who are working	HiPointDem	May 2012	#74
Child support is a profit center for the courts.	lumberjack_jeff	May 2012	#69
and for the associated professions...	grasswire	May 2012	#72
It's for support of children	treestar	May 2012	#78
You didn't read the link.	lumberjack_jeff	May 2012	#86
No, they are decided by formula.	treestar	May 2012	#109
It is a figure based on his income and hers	treestar	May 2012	#77
sigh	grasswire	May 2012	#82
Well if those are the rules, they are applied to everyone	treestar	May 2012	#83
that may be so...	grasswire	May 2012	#85
The economy would be considered	treestar	May 2012	#110
B/C those guidelines cause poor people to pay an unreasonable amount	Taitertots	May 2012	#302
Give it away?	treestar	May 2012	#304
Of course there are no groups trying to change the formula...	Taitertots	May 2012	#319
$7800	tru	May 2012	#234
Fail to take care of your kids, go to jail	quakerboy	May 2012	#91
And then how do the kids get support if he's in jail? Or dead?	Zalatix	May 2012	#95
It amazes me how so many can form such strong opinions over something they didn't bother to read.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#101
Try again.	quakerboy	May 2012	#102
You just proved that you didn't read it.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#104
For all we know, she may not have commited perjury.	Kaleva	May 2012	#105
Your point?	The Doctor.	May 2012	#113
Check out post 116..there's a reason for his problems....nt	msanthrope	May 2012	#118
That is NOT a reason for his problems. Millions of people get DWIs. Btw, I see this was brought	sabrina 1	May 2012	#270
His explanation is bunk	quakerboy	May 2012	#252
That's a heartbreaking situation.	pacalo	May 2012	#97
That ex-wife sounds like a horrible nightmare	JNelson6563	May 2012	#114
You know what sickens me? Women who form opinions of other women	msanthrope	May 2012	#115
You're right, I should've prefaced with:	JNelson6563	May 2012	#130
There you go.	Horse with no Name	May 2012	#149
I thought he sounded like a nightmare.	Pithlet	May 2012	#132
I suspect this item on the POLICE BLOTTER might explain why the wife left....	msanthrope	May 2012	#116
Might explain his very erratic work history.	Kaleva	May 2012	#119
Well, I suspect it isn't just one....	msanthrope	May 2012	#120
I posted the question at Kos with a link to the police blotter.	Kaleva	May 2012	#124
I expect crickets. nt	msanthrope	May 2012	#125
Yes. I don't expect a reply.	Kaleva	May 2012	#127
and knowing too many people with drinking problems -	bhikkhu	May 2012	#129
Wow, posting his home address.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#159
Writer displays many traits typical of narcissistic personality disorder.	lapislzi	May 2012	#324
Well, that makes it alright to lock him up and throw away the key. He was pulled over for a DWI.	sabrina 1	May 2012	#133
I think the point is	Pithlet	May 2012	#136
such scenarios DO happen, trite as they may sound	grasswire	May 2012	#140
That may be.	Pithlet	May 2012	#141
How many DWIs does she have? Do we know? And suppose she does, what has that got to do	sabrina 1	May 2012	#241
No. We don't know. But we do know how many he has. At least one.	Pithlet	May 2012	#245
It might have much to do with his being unable to pay the child support...	Kaleva	May 2012	#144
And it might not. But don't let doubt get in the way of a nice character assasination.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#162
Well, the writer had no problem assassinating the character of his former wife.	lapislzi	May 2012	#298
And it might not. And if he was a wealthy Corporate CEO, the issue of DWIs would not even be raised.	sabrina 1	May 2012	#238
In this case it might.	Kaleva	May 2012	#242
That is very true.	lapislzi	May 2012	#326
Um, what are you talking about?	msanthrope	May 2012	#192
Don't be sorry for something you are merely speculating on. I pointed out	sabrina 1	May 2012	#240
You really think having an addiction has nothing to do with the ability to pay child	msanthrope	May 2012	#251
Who said he is an addict? But if he is, of cours it would affect his ability to pay support. Just	sabrina 1	May 2012	#255
I think his letter very clearly spells out his problems. Denial is a powerful thing. nt	msanthrope	May 2012	#258
This is what he said at Kos about the arrest:	Kaleva	May 2012	#263
So he admitted to drinking, but refused the breathalyzer that	msanthrope	May 2012	#274
Yes. He never did say why he refused the Breathalyzer.	Kaleva	May 2012	#276
Why did you bring this information over to DK? First, how is it relevant	sabrina 1	May 2012	#282
I didn't google him	Kaleva	May 2012	#287
Well, anyone in that thread at DK could have googled him, possibly they did. It doesn't	sabrina 1	May 2012	#290
I beg to differ	Kaleva	May 2012	#295
Well, I will tell you why most criminal defendants refuse a breathalyzer...it's because they are	msanthrope	May 2012	#301
Well , he says there was no finding that he refused a breathalyzer test.	Kaleva	May 2012	#305
No, it doesn't. It spells out a very common story in this country of someone who has been trying	sabrina 1	May 2012	#269
Well, they say the first step is admitting that everyone else has a problem.	msanthrope	May 2012	#275
Lol, I know that things like 'chronology' aren't important when trying to lambaste someone...	The Doctor.	May 2012	#157
You really think a drinking problem just popped up after his wife left? nt	msanthrope	May 2012	#189
They're not building those private prisons for nutt'n.	lonestarnot	May 2012	#126
no he's not	stupidicus	May 2012	#137
I don't think he helped his case by giving his name and publicly accusing his ex of perjury.	Kaleva	May 2012	#143
I think he's a whining dumbass	stupidicus	May 2012	#233
+1	Kaleva	May 2012	#278
The responses to this thread...	Unca Jim	May 2012	#146
... are indicative of the nation's attitude toward the poor and unfortunate.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#150
Do you know who the largest percentage of poor people are in this country?	Pithlet	May 2012	#152
Do you consider 'non-custodial parents' part of those single parent families?	stevenleser	May 2012	#173
Whether or not I consider them part of the family is irrelevant.	Pithlet	May 2012	#175
It's not irrelevant. You dont see the non-custodial parent as a parent and you are right.	stevenleser	May 2012	#177
I absolutely do see the non custodial parent as a parent. Because they are.	Pithlet	May 2012	#178
Then you misunderstood what I was asking (maybe I didnt phrase it well), but my point remains.	stevenleser	May 2012	#179
Yes. I was tying to explain that families run by a single parent are the poorest.	Pithlet	May 2012	#180
You WERE clear, hence my point. You dont think of the non custodial parent as a parent.	stevenleser	May 2012	#182
"You dont think of the non custodial parent as a parent."	Pithlet	May 2012	#183
You excluded them, I am just pointing out what is apparent from your own phraseology	stevenleser	May 2012	#184
Why would I do that?	Pithlet	May 2012	#185
I'm not sure what question you are answering since I asked about a dozen or more, but...	stevenleser	May 2012	#186
Right. Equal and shared custody doesn't exist.	Pithlet	May 2012	#187
Alas, now I have to tell you that you are wrong.	stevenleser	May 2012	#190
Uh, this proves that shared custody doesn't exist how? n/t	Pithlet	May 2012	#207
TO clarify even further	Pithlet	May 2012	#181
"Any question about how different some of these responses would be if this were a woman...	99Forever	May 2012	#166
Totally ignoring how often this agenda is anti woman, of course.	Pithlet	May 2012	#167
99% of the time???????????	99Forever	May 2012	#237
I've been on DU since 2001	Pithlet	May 2012	#239
Frankly...	99Forever	May 2012	#249
Then you can save your disingenuous claims of support for women, ok?	Pithlet	May 2012	#250
The contingency of people on DU with an agenda against men balances it out..	RedRocco	May 2012	#279
Um, no.	lapislzi	May 2012	#310
Your pseudo-neutrality is pretty apparent.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#313
His glaring holes	Kaleva	May 2012	#315
He constructed a very visually appealing cross to martyr himself on...	LanternWaste	May 2012	#154
Wow, he was right. I'm starting to like this guy.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#165
I don't suffer deadbeat dads.	LanternWaste	May 2012	#188
Right, he tried, he failed, he should be punished for failing to make enough money.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#193
Yep, we care about the 99%... unless they are a non-custodial parent. NCP's can go to hell.	stevenleser	May 2012	#198
Money is neither speech, nor support, nor being a parent. Also...	stevenleser	May 2012	#168
Having suffered at the hands of a sociopath	Horse with no Name	May 2012	#206
This is an easy question to answer. The bad parents you describe should have their parental rights	stevenleser	May 2012	#208
There is only one bad parent here...and on paper, it sounds easy	Horse with no Name	May 2012	#214
Yes.	laundry_queen	May 2012	#312
It would cost more to keep him in prison than to give him a job on a road crew or something.	limpyhobbler	May 2012	#174
You are so right, but that's not the point and I think you see it.	stevenleser	May 2012	#176
Divorce is ugly, especially when kids are involved	DaveJ	May 2012	#199
You would be surprised how many people become less mentally stable when you take their kids away	stevenleser	May 2012	#205
I do not agree at all with your "half-time" logic	DaveJ	May 2012	#209
Sure it does. Its only in the situation of a divorce when it doesnt. Consider	stevenleser	May 2012	#210
You are mistaken.	Pithlet	May 2012	#213
Nope, if they are then it is temporary during foster care. Once adopted, the payments stop.	stevenleser	May 2012	#224
Well, that's not what you said, is it?	Pithlet	May 2012	#230
That distinction isnt relevant to the divorce/custody situation, is it? nt	stevenleser	May 2012	#231
Not getting you n/t	Pithlet	May 2012	#232
It would take a LOT for me to be convinced...	DaveJ	May 2012	#217
Nope, I am saying that parents who would not have their children taken away if they were alone	stevenleser	May 2012	#228
Fine	DaveJ	May 2012	#248
Its important to remember that "Its for the children" has been used to justify some of the worst	stevenleser	May 2012	#272
I get where you are coming from and I get that with your emotion	Horse with no Name	May 2012	#211
The actual studies on the subject say the exact opposite. Everyone is happier in shared situations	stevenleser	May 2012	#212
I don't need studies to tell me anything.	Horse with no Name	May 2012	#215
OK, if we're discounting studies, we're done. nt	stevenleser	May 2012	#216
Yes I am because I KNOW that there are just as many studies	Horse with no Name	May 2012	#218
he's incoherent	tru	May 2012	#226
Lucky for his wife!!!!!????	kag	May 2012	#235
We don't know if he kept all of his promises to her.	Kaleva	May 2012	#236
If you read his journals at DU2 written about 3 years ago...	Kaleva	May 2012	#330
The US is being reconstructed as 1 vast open air debtor's prison	kenny blankenship	May 2012	#246
While that may be true, and I agree with you,	lapislzi	May 2012	#284
Unrec	brooklynite	May 2012	#288
I read through the comments.	The Doctor.	May 2012	#317
However, you were tooting his horn not long after he posted his story at DK	Kaleva	May 2012	#320
I'm raising two children who don't get support from the father.	Codeine	May 2012	#322
Yup, I with you.	RebelOne	May 2012	#328

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.