Tons Of Farang In Thailand Are In Trouble

[chinthee]

Ok, here's a hypothetical for you. American guy was very rich. He divorced American wife. She got huge alimony and child support payments. American guy fell on hard times and was no longer rich. American wife used that against him and prohibited him from having a long term relationship with his kids. He became a criminal because of this.

Fair?

BTW, this is not me ######s.

that word was w.a.n.k.e.r.s.

Edited August 23, 2007 by chinthee

[TAWP]

Real men support their kids.

Quoted for safekeeping.

[buffcoat]

Ok, here's a hypothetical for you. American guy was very rich. He divorced American wife. She got huge alimony and child support payments. American guy fell on hard times and was no longer rich. American wife used that against him and prohibited him from having a long term relationship with his kids. He became a criminal because of this.

Fair?

BTW, this is not me ######s.

that word was w.a.n.k.e.r.s.

In this case the father would go back to court and demonstrate his new financial situation,the court is empowered to set aside the existing arrangement and would therefore not put the father in a position where he becomes 'a criminal', through no fault of his own.

The two issues of financial support and access to your kids are sadly not linked (although I personally feel they should be) and many fathers and their children are harmed by this.

[chinthee]

buffcoat, that's a pretty good reply, but glosses over the reality. To the extend that the loser ex husband has a lot of money to spend for lawyers, yes, he can go back in and petition the court for a reduction. However, if that same sad git is stuck in someplace like Thailand, the costs of doing so are sometimes crippling. Meanwhile that same deadbeat dad can go on paying lots of money for child support monthly and still be a criminal due to strict construction of the terms.

[TAWP]

Isn't child support amount a set amount per kids and age, and isn't affected by the other parents income level during the marriage?

[simon43]

In the UK, child support is calculated as a % of the 'donating' parent's income - up to a ceiling. Once the amount is agreed, (either by the courts or as an agreement directly between both parents and rubberstamped by the courts), then that amount cannot be altered unless the dontating parent petitions the court. Furthermore, the amount is set usually on an annual basis. So if the donating parent has an income that fluctuates from month to month, he/she cannot petion the court for a reduction in amount, just because they have had a low income for that month. They must continue to pay the previously agreed monthly amount for at least 1 year after the divorce agreement....

Simon

[buffcoat]

buffcoat, that's a pretty good reply, but glosses over the reality. To the extend that the loser ex husband has a lot of money to spend for lawyers, yes, he can go back in and petition the court for a reduction. However, if that same sad git is stuck in someplace like Thailand, the costs of doing so are sometimes crippling. Meanwhile that same deadbeat dad can go on paying lots of money for child support monthly and still be a criminal due to strict construction of the terms.

I quite agree that the practicalities can be daunting,particularly if you are not in your home jurisdiction.

Being from the UK can only comment on our system where the family courts are fairly accesible and not unduly expensive (not that I enjoyed paying for my lawyers and hers!).

Justice and The Law are sadly not the same thing and individuals do most certainly get shafted on occasion.The only consulation you can take from that is that the courts are doing their best(?) to ensure the children are taken care of.

I have every sympathy with fathers who circumstances change and are then caught on the teeth of the justice system but would happily see fathers (and the occasional mother) who run away from their children rigorously pursued and made to comply with their obligations and also made to pay an extra penalty for their evasion.

[chinthee]

Yes, 100% agree with you fathers should support the kids, but in the US, unfortunately, there are many cases where the father gets the shaft by a vengeful exwife who withholds the kids as a weapon. There is a big counter movement there on this issue.

[SiamSquare123]

my best friend in thailand had a child in the usa. only he found out the child wasn't his child. it was another mans. he stood before the judge and the judge looked him in the eyes and said, you owe this women X dollars about for your child. the man said, wait, its not my child. its another blokes child. the judge said, no, he calls you dad. you are his father. if you dont pay you will lose your right to vote drive and can be sent to jail.

a few months later his wife took in another man who would beat his son. his wife filled a false police report against my friend and he can only see the child in front of a supervisor. his wife is now pregnant with an illegal mexican's child.

thank you for your closed minded opinions.

[Jingthing]

my best friend in thailand had a child in the usa. only he found out the child wasn't his child. it was another mans. he stood before the judge and the judge looked him in the eyes and said, you owe this women X dollars about for your child. the man said, wait, its not my child. its another blokes child. the judge said, no, he calls you dad. you are his father. if you dont pay you will lose your right to vote drive and can be sent to jail.

a few months later his wife took in another man who would beat his son. his wife filled a false police report against my friend and he can only see the child in front of a supervisor. his wife is now pregnant with an illegal mexican's child.

thank you for your closed minded opinions.

Didn't I see your friend on the Jerry Springer show?

Your story amplifies what I have been saying. There are already laws on the books about this. Now, its no passport. How about castration? Yes, you say?

Edited August 23, 2007 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

They keep taking our civil liberties away!

[JimmyCA]

I have a solution for those who are complaining about the way the mothers are spending the money. Go home and be there for your children. Take care of them, fight for your share of custody. There are millions of perfectly happy kids that don't live on a lot of money. They don't need money so much as they need their parents. It's inexcusable the amount of "men" who think that by sending money to some woman who is assuming 100% of the parenting responsibilities that they are doing their share of parenting.

As far as I'm concerned if you are on a barstool in Phuket, Pattaya, Korat, or wherever everytime your kid is sick, or comes home with their first date, or scores their first goal, you're just as much a deadbeat as the one who never sends the checks.

Spoken like a person who has never been in the situation.

Sorry, I just can't agree with what you say at all, but then I'm not going to explain my personal circumstances to you.

Agree with Toad. cnd is talkin trash

[Sunderland]

OMG! HELP!!! Abandon ship! May Day! May Day! SOS!!!!!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ....

[britmaveric]

Yes, 100% agree with you fathers should support the kids, but in the US, unfortunately, there are many cases where the father gets the shaft by a vengeful exwife who withholds the kids as a weapon. There is a big counter movement there on this issue.

Hopefully not like these nutters....

[DurianChips]

Of course, you need a passport to board any flight.

You also now need a passport for Mexico and Canada, because you need one to return.

So denying a passport means you are a prisoner of the US borders.

I do understand the emotional reaction to wanting to get justice for children against deadbeat parents.

However, no, absolutely I do not consider the right to travel internationally a privilege. I consider it a birth right of all Americans. And to do so you need a passport. It is not a driver's license. That is a privilege and not a right. There is a huge difference. Aren't convicted felons also able to get passports? I think they are, as well they should be, as they are citizens. Restricting citizens from leaving their own country is something totalitarian states do. Now it is child support, what's next?

This is just ridiculous. Does the US government prevent you from boarding a plane for an international flight if you don't have a passport? Of course not! The airline does, and they do so because the FOREIGN country that you are traveling to won't admit you without one. I'm sorry if this sounds legalistic, but law is the subject of discussion here. The US government will not restrict you if you wish to leave the country. You want to find out: get in a boat and start rowing. They won't stop you. A passport, on the other hand, is an official certification from one government to another that you are who you say you are. Here the government isn't just allowing your travel, it is actively helping it, and the government has absolutely no obligation to do that, especially if you are in violation of US law.

By your logic, it would be unconstitutional to charge passport fees! After all, doesn't this interfere with the right to travel of poor people? I don't have to pay a fee to exercise my right to due process, and my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure isn't contingent on forking over money to the government. Regardless of what you might think, or what you might feel to be the case, having a passport is simply NOT a right under US law. Never has been. It says right inside the passport that it is the property of the US government, and can be retracted at any time.

[cdnvic]

Agree with Toad. cnd is talkin trash

Care to elaborate with your own rebuttal or is a poorly written "me too" your best effort?

[Jingthing]

Of course, you need a passport to board any flight.

You also now need a passport for Mexico and Canada, because you need one to return.

So denying a passport means you are a prisoner of the US borders.

I do understand the emotional reaction to wanting to get justice for children against deadbeat parents.

However, no, absolutely I do not consider the right to travel internationally a privilege. I consider it a birth right of all Americans. And to do so you need a passport. It is not a driver's license. That is a privilege and not a right. There is a huge difference. Aren't convicted felons also able to get passports? I think they are, as well they should be, as they are citizens. Restricting citizens from leaving their own country is something totalitarian states do. Now it is child support, what's next?

This is just ridiculous. Does the US government prevent you from boarding a plane for an international flight if you don't have a passport? Of course not! The airline does, and they do so because the FOREIGN country that you are traveling to won't admit you without one. I'm sorry if this sounds legalistic, but law is the subject of discussion here. The US government will not restrict you if you wish to leave the country. You want to find out: get in a boat and start rowing. They won't stop you. A passport, on the other hand, is an official certification from one government to another that you are who you say you are. Here the government isn't just allowing your travel, it is actively helping it, and the government has absolutely no obligation to do that, especially if you are in violation of US law.

By your logic, it would be unconstitutional to charge passport fees! After all, doesn't this interfere with the right to travel of poor people? I don't have to pay a fee to exercise my right to due process, and my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure isn't contingent on forking over money to the government. Regardless of what you might think, or what you might feel to be the case, having a passport is simply NOT a right under US law. Never has been. It says right inside the passport that it is the property of the US government, and can be retracted at any time.

No, my position is not ridiculous.

Actually, what you suggest is ridiculous. Only an insane person would get in a boat and travel to another country without a passport, or a refugee fleeing a totalitarian state. The latter it seems is what you want the US to be.

My position represents true American values, the good ones, which are about freedom and about eschewing totalitarianism. Sadly, the dark forces of totalitarianism are winning in the US. The warning given by Dwight Eisenhower in 1961 that we would have to be vigilant to protect our country from being taken over by the military industrial complex were ignored.

All US citizens have a RIGHT to a passport. Period. It is your required ID for international travel. It is not a privilege like a drivers license, it is a right.

Don't believe me?

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/passport.html

Why apply for a United States passport?

* It is your right as a U.S. citizen to have a U.S. passport

Edited August 23, 2007 by Jingthing

[ColPyat]

The warning given by Dwight Eisenhower in 1961 that we would have to be vigilant to protect our country from being taken over by the military industrial complex were ignored.

Ehem.

I don't think that Ike meant fathers escaping the child care duties when he talked about the military industrial complex...

[DurianChips]

No, my position is not ridiculous.

Actually, what you suggest is ridiculous. Only an insane person would get in a boat and travel to another country without a passport, or a refugee fleeing a totalitarian state. The latter it seems is what you want the US to be.

My position represents true American values, the good ones, which are about freedom and about eschewing totalitarianism. Sadly, the dark forces of totalitarianism are winning in the US. The warning given by Dwight Eisenhower in 1961 that we would have to be vigilant to protect our country from being taken over by the military industrial complex were ignored.

All US citizens have a RIGHT to a passport. Period.

Don't believe me?

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/passport.html

Why apply for a United States passport?

* It is your right as a U.S. citizen to have a U.S. passport

What is this webpage supposed to show? Perhaps you missed where it says "An Independent Organization, not a US government agency"

People are forced to surrender their passports all the time if they are awaiting trial and pose a flight risk. Are their constitutional due process rights being violated because they haven't been convicted of a crime yet? Of course not. Because.... there is no right to a passport. Or perhaps Michael Vick can recoup his lost football earnings by suing the federal government for violating his right to travel? No? Why not?

I also consider myself to be a libertarian. But I apparently understand the idea of legal rights very differently than you do. Freedom of speech means that, if I say something, the government won't arrest me for it. It doesn't mean that the government is obliged to give me a television show. Freedom of assembly means that I can gather with my friends, and the government won't arrest us for it. It doesn't mean that the government is obliged to build us a meeting hall at taxpayers expense. A passport is an official document produced by the government that you can use to identify yourself to foreign governments, in order to obtain entry. There is no legal obgliation on the part of the government to provide you with this document. I ask again, if it were really a right, why do we have to pay a fee for to get one?

Looking at the website for the US state department (an actual government agency), passport revocation or denial is a routine, and indeed crucial, law enforcement tool.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html

[Jingthing]

Durian,

we will have to agree to disagree because this is getting tiresome.

The supreme court appears to be on my side, favoring the basic right of Americans to have passports, particularly the case of the communist in the 50s. The fee is nominal and proves nothing. If you can't afford that small fee, you can't afford a hotel night in Cleveland, not an issue at all. The passport is key to international travel, without the passport, you cannot legally cross the border into any foreign country. The more any country restricts passports to its citizens, the more that country is a prison to its citizens. Of course, I can see there are exceptions, such as someone on bail who is a criminal flight risk. You might make the case that child support violators are also an exception. Fair enough. So what class of people is next? Remember Soviet Russia and how hard it was for their citizens to travel out of there? The less the US is like that kind of place the better.

However, I never said I am a pure libertarian, but I think a pure libertarian is always on the side of LESS GOVERNMENT and more personal choice and freedom. Favoring expanding the classes of people who are denied passports and made prisoners in their own country is not libertarian at all.

I see dark signs of neo-fascism in America. Electing Bush twice. Starting wars based on lies. Horrible health care. More people in actual prison than any advanced country. For the people not in prison, lets not make the borders a prison too. Are the border walls being built to keep people out, or keep people in (just kidding there, but you get my point)?

Edited August 23, 2007 by Jingthing

[cdnvic]

Ok, if you want to debate this on an aspect of libertarianism and keeping the government out of people's lives then lets stop looking at one side of it and look at the full picture:

Scenerio A: A delinquent parent is jailed for non support of their children (as the law allows in many cases). This brings in government intervention in the way of prison staff, parole supervisors, appeal courts, etc. The family is dependant on the federal or state welfare systems, involving social workers, daycare, training personel, and the whole big government blob of accompanying bureaucracy.

Scenerio B: A delinquent parent wants a new life in Thailand. They are denied a passport after a simple check shows they are arrears in child support. The application is rejected, and government involvement is stopped. The delinquent parent can now opt to work and pay the support, lessening the burden on the state and need for the government to support their children, and keeping the justice system more or less out of it. Their freedom to be at large and make a living is not compromised as in scenerio A.

[Jingthing]

In Scenario B, Scenaria A would still totally apply. If the guy was going to be jailed for not doing child support, why would having his passport application rejected reform him?

Nice try, but really kind of silly.

I am not really comfortable being put in a role of supporting child support non-payers, which I don't. Cheers.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Jingthing

[cdnvic]

No, you completely missed the point. Scenerio B negates the need for the harsher measures in scenerio A, leaving the government more or less out of it, making it difficult for the subject to travel, but not locking up the subject and leaving the state to support the family.

Funny how these so-called "libertarians" cry foul when the government intrudes a little to ensure children get support from their parents, but have no problem seemingly with the state supporting the family of the delinquent parent while they sit in bars in Thailand. Libertarians of convenience when it supports their point of view. No mention from them of socialism picking up the tab for the freedom of these deadbeats to escape their responsibilities.

Edited August 23, 2007 by cdnvic

[Jingthing]

You're making it more simplistic than it really is. For like the fourth time, I am not a pure libertarian by any means. If there was a pure libertarian society there wouldn't be any welfare programs anyway. My feeling on passport freedoms is more about respecting the constitution and the supreme court's interpretation of it and rejecting moves toward totalitarianism. The libertarian side of me is mostly about social issues like legalize marijuana, legalize prostitution, legalize gay marriage.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Jingthing

[cdnvic]

The US constitution allows the government to deny liberties to persons through due process of the law. By the time anyone's passport application is rejected that process has already taken place and a judgement has been made. I don't see why you would think that a legal process which can lawfully imprison someone cannot deny that same person a passport, which is a much gentler restriction on the subject's personal liberties.

The constitution that states individuals have the right to life and liberty has not overturned the death penalty, nor imprionment so it goes to prove that no rights are absolute if you do not live up to your responsibilities. The process of law can take away your life, your liberty, and yes, your passport.

[JimsKnight]

Issues over child support are not always that clear-cut. My ex receives up to 200,000 baht a month in child support from me. But she also gets an income from my father's estate AND my mother's estate AND her mother's estate. The result is that she is richer than all of my family and has absolutely no incentive to work......

Oh - she also got an 800,000 pound house in the divorce settlement whilst I was left with the debts from our failed UK business.

Simon

I can not understand these figures .

I had a clean break settlement uk split house sale and all money/assets 50/50 and maintained the kids untill the last one was 18 .

With clean break settlement IF i went earned a mllion pounds after the clean break split then that would be mine , we signed a contract with lawers to say exactly that . If things are as bad as what you have posted above then you did not do your homework and you also had a crap lawer taking care of you .

JB

Simon's kids probably not 18 yrs old yet... hence the child maint.

[canadiangirl]

The constitution that states individuals have the right to life and liberty has not overturned the death penalty, nor imprionment so it goes to prove that no rights are absolute if you do not live up to your responsibilities. The process of law can take away your life, your liberty, and yes, your passport.

Sorry to jump in mid-thread, but I felt that your point was so right on, it merited comment. Rights are only one side of the coin; the other is responsabilities.

Well said, cdnvic.

[wolfmanjack]

I'd say that most of the opinonos are based on over simplification of the facts. There are many different scenarios that parents find themselves in, and unfortunatley relationships do go wrong.

I think the biggest problem in the UK has been the application or lack off by the CSA depending on circumstances. Very little discretion is ever made and some parents find themselves completly cornered with very little chance of starting a new life after they have earning attatchment orders placed on them.

So, before anyone accuses' me of being a deabeat, along with a new car, house and a nice cash settlement that she got initially I do still provide money, clothes, presents etc for my children, but I am also more than wary of some of the ways that laws like these can be applied by government departments and how also often large amounts of child support are squandered by mothers on themselves or freinds rather than the children. If settlements were more realistic and less restrictive then there might not be so many people avoiding paying in the first place.

Here here Well said.

My brother was bonking his girlfriend with the understanding that she was on the pill. After a couple of years she stopped taking the pill to try and force him to marry her and got pregnant. He was warned that she was the type of person to do this but his little head got in the way of his big head. Any way after the baby was born he doted on the kid. Not only did he take care of this kid he also took care of the 2 other kids she had by 2 other men she had never been married to. After a couple of years of him taking care of the kids she decided she wanted to be vindictive about the whole thing went to child care services. they ordered him to pay her $10,000 per month child support. This was based on his gross income not his net. He had to go to court to prove that his net was only around $8,000 per month and the court ordered him to pay $5,000 per month for child support. this is more than most people make as a married couple let alone support for a single child. Also he was ordered to pay back child support for 2 years even though he supported the entire family for that time. He was allowed to deduct some things that he actually kept receipts for but most was declared as gifts. He tried to get custody of his kid but the courts in the united states almost always side with the mother unless you can prove beyond a doubt that she is an unfit mother. She runs around with all kinds of other guys in the bars and my brother babysits not only his kid but her other 2 also.

It seems to me this beeeetch has made a pretty good living by being a baby factory and getting child support from 3 different fathers. Something that the courts did not take into consideration either in the amount awarded or the custody hearing. After all does it cost $5,000 to raise a 2 year old kid ??? Is this even reasonable ?? In my opinion there should be an amount paid based on the age of the kid. A 10 year old is going to need more than a 2 year old.

[cdnvic]

My brother was bonking his girlfriend with the understanding that she was on the pill. After a couple of years she stopped taking the pill to try and force him to marry her and got pregnant. He was warned that she was the type of person to do this but his little head got in the way of his big head.

Says it all there.

This topic is about parents who don't pay support at all, but too many are hijacking the topic to complain about their and other's ex's. The fact that she was some trailer park trash has absolutely nothing to do with the duty of the father to the kids. Unfortunately there are just too many neanderthals out there that don't get it. If this is the level of intelligence they rise to I completely understand how their ex's got the best of them in court.

Maybe the kids are better off without them.

[UnknownPoster]

Mass exodus?

5% of the visitors to Thailand are from the USA and maybe 1% of them are behind on child support?

Just a guess.

I don't think many deadbeat dads from the USA are traveling the world.