You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #90: Birth Control Responsibility [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU
michiganlady Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #71
90. Birth Control Responsibility
I disagree that birth control is entirely the mans responsibility.
In fact since it is the woman that will get pregnant, it is more her responsibility to protect herself.

I'm a woman and if I don't want to get pregnant, I'll make sure I'm protected, or I will abstain. I would never depend on a man to take care of that, and any woman that does needs to have her head examined.

Women have to be responsible for themselves. Yep, I'm a woman and I'm saying it.

Does that take responsibility off the man if a child results from unprotected sex? No, of course not. It happened and both parents have to own up to their responsibility to the child/children.

The problem with the state of Michigan is that there is no fairness once you end up in the child support system.
I understand both sides, the custodial parents and the non-custodial parents. Even the ones that make irrational statements that come from anger and resentment, which do nothing to help the situation, but nontheless, I understand.

Why I feel the state of michigan does not care about the kids of non-custodial parents, and why I feel child support laws in michigan are outlandish, ignorant, and unfair.

NOTE: (My comments of unfairness in the system do not apply to deadbeats. You know you are in the wrong)

1) As someone mentioned somewhere else in this discussion, if the parents were together and the father lost his job, the family would simply have to do whatever they can to make ends meet. The father would not be placed on a deadbeat fathers list, nor would he be taken before the court and placed on a payment system, arrearages and court fees included, with the risk of being sent to jail for inability to make the payments. Nor would he have his drivers license revoked, which in the state of michigan can happen.

Why should it be any different for a father that is not living with the childrens mother? (assuming he is a father that is involved in his childrens lives? This should not be happening. That father should have the same rights as any father that is living with his children. He should be entitled to keep his drivers license, and go look for work without living in fear that he will be taken to jail... The children of non-custodial parents should not have to live in fear that their parent will be taken from them for inability to pay.

The state of michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the country. It's all over the news all the time. Depending on where you live in Michigan, your situation may be more difficult than other areas. I was born and raised in Flint. I remember when the Flint Journal employment section was at least several pages long during "hard times". Open it up today and you won't find even half a page of job listings, and another small area devoted to those with medical degrees.

Times are tough indeed, and the state of michigan knows this. Yet, still, anyone can be affected by the problem without penalty EXCEPT a non-custodial parent. These are the only people that are penalized for the unemployment problem.

I can hear the irrational voices now- "then MOVE if it's so bad". Before anyone goes off on a rant about that, remember, it takes $$$$$ and plenty of it to move. Lack of money is the problem to begin with. If you happen to be fortunate enough to have family that can help you get things straight, be very thankful. Many people do not have that.

2) When custodial mothers are out of work, the state helps them by giving them money, paying their bills, shelter included, helping with food and medical, and the work first program helps them with job placement. If the job does not pay enough, the state still helps them.
What if the state decided to haul these custodial parents off to court and put them in the same position that they do non-custodial parents? Everyone would be up in arms about that.

Why is one parent given help and the other is treated like a criminal?

You may be thinking, well, the custodial parent is living up to his/her obligation to their kids. No they aren't. Not if you want to view the obligation the same way as the state of michigan does. To the state it's all about the money. Nothing else.
Keep in mind that many non-custodial parents have their children with them at least half the time, and in some cases more than half the time. So where do you draw the line? Why is the unemployed non-custodial parent considered a deadbeat that belongs in jail?

Why should inability to pay be punished by losing their drivers license, and spending time in jail?

What is this accomplishing?

There is so much focus on the money that no one has mentioned the fact that children and thier non-custodial parent are being ripped apart in this rediculous, circus of a system.

What happens to these kids? Yes they have to eat, yes they need clothes, shoes, medical, etc...
They also need both parents! Loss of a job should not cause them to lose a parent to the SYSTEM! Once you are in the system, it's a vicious cycle that for some is almost impossible to get out of. You will need to find a way to make a LOT of money to get out of it.
Dare you try education to fix the situation. If you are picked up on a warrant, there goes all of your time and effort. You can be right in the middle of learning a trade and have it ripped out from underneath. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to be out of jail in a week or two, and won't have your license revoked, allowing you to get back to where you left off. Maybe...

Imagine how it must feel to the kids that have a close, loving relationship with their non-custodial parent to know they are sitting in jail because they didn't have the money to own up to the courts rediculous judgement. For the irrationals that are ready to pounce I KNOW that money is needed to pay for food and clothes, bills and shelter! I KNOW! I'm 47 years old and have raised 4 kids of my own. I'm fully aware of life necessities.. But we need a solution to the problem. The system as it is, is NOT a solution. The courts are in the middle of the family situation and they are not helping matters.

Maybe it makes certain people feel good to see a non-custodial parent sitting in jail.. I fail to see what it accomplishes. It does you no good, it does the children no good. No one wins.

Jails are for criminals- drug dealers, theives, child molestors, rapists, murderers, etc ...

Being down on your luck is hardly a crime...

Why is it ok for custodial parents to lie to get more money tacked onto the non-custodial parents arrearages? Isn't this illegal?

I know someone that told her caseworker she works 30 hrs a week, paying 20 dollars a day for childcare when in fact she was working 15 hrs per week. Then she quit working altogether, and refuses to tell her caseworker she has no child care expense. The father has an order for child support for one child, and also an order to pay an additional 250.00 per/mo. for non-existent child care costs.

The father went to see a judge about it, and the judge told him to let the caseworker know. He called the caseworker and was told that the mother had to let him know if thats the case. She says she won't tell them. Any other time fraud is illegal, but not when it's against non-custodial parents. Custodial parents can claim anything they like with no burden of proof.

The system is very flawed, and in child support cases the cards are stacked against non-custodial parents. I personally think the state should be sued. It's not impossible to do.

Shame on the State Lawmakers!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -Child support laws in Michigan are unreasonable... KingChicken  Jan-14-05 07:29 AM   #0 
  - Do you have the text of the law?  proudbluestater   Jan-14-05 07:35 AM   #1 
  - While he is unemployed, possibly for months, he still must pay...  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 07:48 AM   #2 
  - Perhaps you missed the part where he was unemployed for a while  ET Awful   Jan-14-05 07:50 AM   #3 
  - What do you base that "feeling that they rarely face jail time" on?  BR_Parkway   Jan-14-05 07:55 AM   #6 
  - You are correct about non payment of child support leading to  Rainbowreflect   Jan-14-05 09:06 AM   #20 
     - A local guy was picked up for non payment last year...  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 09:27 AM   #23 
        - That's a bench warrant  lwfern   Jan-14-05 09:50 AM   #27 
           - Yeah bench warrant, but eventally you will be arrested just the same.  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 10:32 AM   #33 
              - "eventually"  lwfern   Jan-14-05 11:07 AM   #39 
                 - Why do you keep citing child homelessness, and not being fed?  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 12:04 PM   #40 
                    - the reason they aren't risking homelessness/wellbeing  lwfern   Jan-14-05 12:17 PM   #42 
                       - How can you say that?  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 12:50 PM   #47 
  - Sounds like the kids should quit eating and expecting shelter.  IdaBriggs   Jan-14-05 07:51 AM   #4 
  - He is extremely responsible, he does everything...  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 07:59 AM   #7 
  - I disagree with you.  IdaBriggs   Jan-14-05 08:13 AM   #14 
     - She is doing fine, not homeless by any means...  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 08:38 AM   #17 
        - "She's raking in the cash --" because his $1K is SO MUCH MONEY.  IdaBriggs   Jan-14-05 09:48 AM   #26 
           - Her job, her husbands job plus his support.  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 10:14 AM   #31 
              - ROFLMA -- Its ANOTHER man's job to support HIS kid?  IdaBriggs   Jan-14-05 10:36 AM   #34 
                 - Of course it's another man's job  lwfern   Jan-14-05 10:54 AM   #37 
                    - I guess that makes sense -- if you're sleeping with her,  IdaBriggs   Jan-14-05 11:01 AM   #38 
                    - I will argree on that, I don't know if thats the money for the car....  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 12:20 PM   #44 
  - Interesting that the OP is going out of their way to make certain  kgfnally   Jun-03-07 08:07 PM   #67 
     - Take my time, when you respond to a post from TWO YEARS AGO?  IdaBriggs   Jun-04-07 11:17 PM   #68 
     - Child Support  exacta   Jan-17-10 07:52 PM   #101 
     - Death, Incarceration, Quadraplegia  Demeter   Jun-16-07 01:21 PM   #72 
  - Married unemployed fathers don't get to put supporting their kids  elehhhhna   Jan-14-05 07:52 AM   #5 
  - Don't be ingnorant, not all single fathers are deadbeats...  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 08:03 AM   #9 
     - I said nothing about or implying Deadbeat Dad syndrome...  elehhhhna   Jan-14-05 08:22 AM   #16 
  - On the other side of the issue...  displacedtexan   Jan-14-05 08:02 AM   #8 
  - He can petition the court, however it takes months...  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 08:06 AM   #11 
  - A father who reduces his income to avoid support  Dangerous Felon   Jan-17-05 11:40 AM   #52 
     - Source for that claim?  lwfern   Jan-17-05 04:31 PM   #54 
     - That's not true.  GreenEyedLefty   Jan-20-10 11:17 AM   #102 
  - whatever you do in the dark soon comes to light.. so in the long run  sam sarrha   Jan-14-05 08:04 AM   #10 
  - I agree totally, but everyone is young at some time.  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 08:11 AM   #13 
  - I'm not sure how it works in Michigan but.....  eternalburn   Jan-14-05 08:10 AM   #12 
  - Too idealistic, reality is harsh, things usally don't work for the best...  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 08:15 AM   #15 
  - That's how it works in Michigan also  lwfern   Jan-14-05 08:41 AM   #18 
     - You're not paying attention, he pays for things like daycare...  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 08:48 AM   #19 
     - The system always sides with the mother?  lwfern   Jan-14-05 09:08 AM   #21 
        - Buddy, the court is not gender neutral...  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 09:31 AM   #24 
           - The mother's are favored...  dlcloum31   Jul-21-07 07:10 PM   #74 
              - True - mothers are favored  michiganlady   Mar-19-08 11:28 AM   #97 
              - I actually found that rather unfair.  GreenEyedLefty   Jan-20-10 11:20 AM   #103 
              - the CUSTODIAL parent gets to claim the deduction/tax credits  Scout   Jan-20-10 03:52 PM   #104 
     - Extra Gifts?  michiganlady   Mar-18-08 03:12 PM   #91 
        - You've just confused "gifts" with "needs".  lwfern   Mar-18-08 08:49 PM   #92 
           - Needs vs Gifts  michiganlady   Mar-19-08 10:51 AM   #93 
           - Needs vs gifts  lwfern   Mar-19-08 11:11 AM   #95 
           - Part of the problem  michiganlady   Mar-19-08 11:08 AM   #94 
              - The expenses when a child is at the other parents house  lwfern   Mar-19-08 11:22 AM   #96 
                 - Agree to disagree  michiganlady   Mar-19-08 11:52 AM   #98 
  - The child support laws need to change.....  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 09:24 AM   #22 
  - There's nothing extreme in the solution  lwfern   Jan-14-05 09:36 AM   #25 
  - The guy is 28, what do you want?  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 09:54 AM   #28 
     - What do I want?  lwfern   Jan-14-05 10:04 AM   #30 
  - Let's try the new system for a while before we change it.  IdaBriggs   Jan-14-05 10:03 AM   #29 
     - He can't have custody.....  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 10:27 AM   #32 
        - You do seem to have a victim mentality here  lwfern   Jan-14-05 10:44 AM   #35 
        - There is no victim here, i'm not claiming a victim, just unfair...  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 12:36 PM   #46 
        - Incorrect. Michigan is VERY gender neutral.  IdaBriggs   Jan-14-05 10:46 AM   #36 
           - Stop using sensationalism to sell your point...  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 12:16 PM   #41 
              - Stop using sensationalism to sell your point  lwfern   Jan-14-05 12:19 PM   #43 
              - Do you have any suggestions? What's the solution?  KingChicken   Jan-14-05 12:30 PM   #45 
                 - The statistics say I'm right  lwfern   Jan-14-05 01:30 PM   #48 
              - Stop using ignorance to ignore reality.  IdaBriggs   Jan-15-05 08:08 AM   #49 
              - Deleted message  Name removed   Jan-17-05 11:35 AM   #51 
                 - That IS what happens  lwfern   Jan-17-05 04:54 PM   #55 
              - Your friend needs a lawyer.  hickman1937   Jan-17-05 02:52 PM   #53 
  - If you have never dealt with the system do not speak of it.  sarcasmo   Jan-16-05 06:53 PM   #50 
  - Michigan is NOT the toughest in the Union  lwfern   Jan-17-05 05:03 PM   #56 
  - Maybe both abortion and murder should be easier....  stavka   Jan-17-05 09:30 PM   #57 
  - When the child support gestapo comes to your door then talk to me.  sarcasmo   Jan-25-05 10:03 AM   #58 
     - hopefully you love your kid  lwfern   Jan-25-05 03:30 PM   #59 
        - Love for my kid is not in question, If you have kids and Divorce then your  sarcasmo   Jan-26-05 08:52 AM   #60 
           - Kids don't "become" a case number  lwfern   Jan-26-05 11:37 AM   #62 
              - Friend of the Court does nothing right away, LMFAO.  sarcasmo   Jan-27-05 09:32 AM   #63 
                 - You think I haven't dealt with them?  lwfern   Jan-27-05 12:52 PM   #64 
                    - where is my childs house,i pay for?  bummer   May-31-07 12:10 PM   #65 
  - methinks thou dost protest too much!  Scout   Jan-26-05 11:09 AM   #61 
  - If they throw you in jail  michreject   Jun-02-07 07:52 AM   #66 
  - I worked for a temp agency once, in their office, and it is bad.  knitter4democracy   Jun-05-07 09:10 PM   #69 
  - His children continue to live regardless of the situation. Something  MrsGrumpy   Jun-13-07 06:19 AM   #70 
  - I read through all the posts and he is blaming the woman for not taking the pill  LisaM   Jun-14-07 01:24 PM   #71 
     - Birth Control Responsibility  michiganlady   Mar-18-08 12:08 PM   #90 
        - Welcome to D/U and enjoy the many great forums.  sarcasmo   Mar-21-08 10:14 AM   #99 
  - Child Support Laws ARE unreasonable...  dlcloum31   Jul-21-07 06:34 PM   #73 
  - Seven children is a lot to support.  lwfern   Jul-21-07 11:52 PM   #75 
  - Here is a math suggestion for you --  IdaBriggs   Jul-27-07 10:33 AM   #76 
  - no math suggestion!  dlcloum31   Jul-30-07 08:11 PM   #79 
     - It doesn't sound to me like your husband's getting screwed by the state  lwfern   Jul-31-07 12:03 PM   #80 
     - You can whine all you want -- I think the situation is perfectly reasonable.  IdaBriggs   Jul-31-07 05:06 PM   #81 
        - I would hardly say I am selfish...  dlcloum31   Aug-03-07 07:21 PM   #83 
           - I will expain to you once more why I think YOU are selfish.  IdaBriggs   Aug-05-07 09:31 AM   #84 
           - your whole attitude DRIPS selfishness and now you're trying to play the martyr...  Scout   Aug-05-07 10:27 AM   #85 
           - It does look a little selfish  lwfern   Aug-06-07 09:43 AM   #86 
  - Lots of whining in here ...  Scout   Jul-27-07 11:51 AM   #77 
  - Why do so many people have children they can't afford?  skipos   Jul-28-07 03:30 PM   #78 
  - Sounds like an argument for just not having kids at all  bluestateguy   Aug-01-07 08:05 PM   #82 
  - My Son turned 18 on Friday, I am done!  sarcasmo   Sep-01-07 06:05 PM   #87 
  - Hopefully if he needs help  lwfern   Sep-01-07 07:00 PM   #88 
     - Done with the Court system. Does that sound better for you?  sarcasmo   Sep-02-07 03:43 PM   #89 
  - Mothers pay child support as well - I am one of them n/t  addreamgirl   Mar-26-08 12:05 PM   #100 
  - We never had to wait "months" for a "hearing"  noamnety   Jan-26-10 05:48 PM   #105 
  - To all of those who want to jail someone over the almighty dollar  Chucky_The_Freak   Feb-07-10 12:48 AM   #106 
  - Mike Cox is that you?  sarcasmo   Nov-15-10 09:05 AM   #110 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-29-10 08:28 PM   #107 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-01-10 09:26 PM   #108 
  - Hello  Lions_fan   Nov-14-10 03:57 PM   #109 

Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC