' America's Most Wanted Deadbeat Dad' Arrested After Fleeing To Thailand

[I Like Thai]

Child support should only be paid under the following conditions:

1. You are the father. Proof by DNA test.

2. You were not tricked into fatherhood against your will.

3. Mother doesn't prevent contact to your children.

4. Reasonable amount of money. Proof that money is used for child alone.

These conditions match around 20% of child support cases. In the majority, fathers have no legal rights at all, in some countries not even the right to test for fatherhood.

That's why a "dead beat father" is rare. Most men in such a situation just protect themselves and deserve all our sympathy.

I suggest to change 2 as follows: father to be must be included during the early pregnancy in the decision making of whether to have the child or not, if he doesn't want but the woman decides to have it nonetheless, the child forgoes any claims against the father.

Why should someone else have the right to decide what a child who is 100% innocent in this situation should forego.

Why do you think that a father should have the right to bring a child into this world then decide that he can forge his responsibility to feed and take care of that child.

[rgs2001uk]

Child support should only be paid under the following conditions:

1. You are the father. Proof by DNA test.

2. You were not tricked into fatherhood against your will.

3. Mother doesn't prevent contact to your children.

4. Reasonable amount of money. Proof that money is used for child alone.

These conditions match around 20% of child support cases. In the majority, fathers have no legal rights at all, in some countries not even the right to test for fatherhood.

That's why a "dead beat father" is rare. Most men in such a situation just protect themselves and deserve all our sympathy.

I suggest to change 2 as follows: father to be must be included during the early pregnancy in the decision making of whether to have the child or not, if he doesn't want but the woman decides to have it nonetheless, the child forgoes any claims against the father.

Why should someone else have the right to decide what a child who is 100% innocent in this situation should forego.

Why do you think that a father should have the right to bring a child into this world then decide that he can forge his responsibility to feed and take care of that child.

Thats why abortions were invented.

The father isnt bringing the child into the world, the mother is deciding to go ahead with the pregnancy with or without the fathers consent.

Why is the mother exempt all responsibility?

[EarthAlien]

...If you refute the facts I alluded to then by all mean be my guest and disprove them!...

How can i refute your facts when you simply don't offer any??

You dont get it and you dont give up do you?

I have alluded to facts which you simply ignore.

But never mind... despite your forum name "BookMan" which suggests you are male, I have concluded that you are either a female or feminist sympathizer that has zero compassion for men who suicide when relentlessly pursued by an unfair, biased and unethical system!

[I Like Thai]

Child support should only be paid under the following conditions:

1. You are the father. Proof by DNA test.

2. You were not tricked into fatherhood against your will.

3. Mother doesn't prevent contact to your children.

4. Reasonable amount of money. Proof that money is used for child alone.

These conditions match around 20% of child support cases. In the majority, fathers have no legal rights at all, in some countries not even the right to test for fatherhood.

That's why a "dead beat father" is rare. Most men in such a situation just protect themselves and deserve all our sympathy.

I suggest to change 2 as follows: father to be must be included during the early pregnancy in the decision making of whether to have the child or not, if he doesn't want but the woman decides to have it nonetheless, the child forgoes any claims against the father.

Why should someone else have the right to decide what a child who is 100% innocent in this situation should forego.

Why do you think that a father should have the right to bring a child into this world then decide that he can forge his responsibility to feed and take care of that child.

Thats why abortions were invented.

The father isnt bringing the child into the world, the mother is deciding to go ahead with the pregnancy with or without the fathers consent.

Why is the mother exempt all responsibility?

She's not, they are both equally responsible. in the OP there are three children involved if I remember correctly.

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool me thrice, ????

Whatever the circumstances between the parents, they picked each other(excluding acts of violence). The children had no choice in the matter, Their rights should be 100% paramount, therefore equal to at least 50% care and responsibility from both parents.

[saakura]

Would have been good if your parents had thought about this.

I could never understand why people would ever marry or have children. Such a voluntary waste of time, energy and efforts is beyond me.

Everyone with logic can see beforehand that it's total crap, but they do it anyway, thinking it will turn out differently for them.

Now they have to pay for life. To each his own I guess.

[JUDAS]

Child support should only be paid under the following conditions:

1. You are the father. Proof by DNA test.

2. You were not tricked into fatherhood against your will.

3. Mother doesn't prevent contact to your children.

4. Reasonable amount of money. Proof that money is used for child alone.

These conditions match around 20% of child support cases. In the majority, fathers have no legal rights at all, in some countries not even the right to test for fatherhood.

That's why a "dead beat father" is rare. Most men in such a situation just protect themselves and deserve all our sympathy.

I suggest to change 2 as follows: father to be must be included during the early pregnancy in the decision making of whether to have the child or not, if he doesn't want but the woman decides to have it nonetheless, the child forgoes any claims against the father.

It really doesn't need to be that complex Potosi. The male can just wear a condom if he doesn't want to be a father simple really.

[sbk]

Ridiculous derogatory generalization about women removed.

[Postmaster]

Tommophysicist **flame removed** Ladyheather is right. If you make kids you have to support them. Your ethics are way out. Ok If the awards are wrong contest them, don't run away. The kids need food and clothes and schooling. You must suppoirt your kids. Don't leave the state to do it on minimum funding. Pay-up laddie. Go home do the decent thing.

Edited December 23, 2012 by sbk
keep it civil, thanks

[BookMan]

...If you refute the facts I alluded to then by all mean be my guest and disprove them!...

How can i refute your facts when you simply don't offer any??

You dont get it and you dont give up do you?

I have alluded to facts which you simply ignore.

But never mind... despite your forum name "BookMan" which suggests you are male, I have concluded that you are either a female or feminist sympathizer that has zero compassion for men who suicide when relentlessly pursued by an unfair, biased and unethical system!

You said the following:

Take a good look into the suicide rates of ex husbands that have been persecuted by the system to the point that they took the option of ending their lives because of the emotional strain of it all and the humiliation and persecution & hoplessness that goes with it,.. the numbers will shock you

I'm asking you for your evidence of this statement. It is clear you do not have any, so what you are saying is just your opinion and not fact.

The fact is there is no evidence to support your claim makes your post come across as being just another opinion by a bitter and unhappy individual hoping to add some sensationalism to a topic.

Edited December 22, 2012 by BookMan

[MongersSyndicate]

Would have been good if your parents had thought about this.

I could never understand why people would ever marry or have children. Such a voluntary waste of time, energy and efforts is beyond me.

Everyone with logic can see beforehand that it's total crap, but they do it anyway, thinking it will turn out differently for them.

Now they have to pay for life. To each his own I guess.

Absolutely. The best state is non-being, as the Buddha said. Just keep your sperm in your balls or in the condom and avoid reproducing your own suffering into the body of someone else.

[Rancid]

Well I divorced and raised my children from a young age on my own, worked and took care of them. The ex wife never contributed 1 dollar. Does that mean I would want to see her chased down by Inerpol and arrested? Of course not, some people just get on with it, others are parasites looking for an angle. Does because I am a male make the sutuation different in any way?Thing is of course with child support who guarantees how much actually goes to the kids and how much goes into the personal entertainment fund?

[TommoPhysicist]

Well I divorced and raised my children from a young age on my own, worked and took care of them. The ex wife never contributed 1 dollar. Does that mean I would want to see her chased down by Inerpol and arrested? Of course not, some people just get on with it, others are parasites looking for an angle. Does because I am a male make the sutuation different in any way?Thing is of course with child support who guarantees how much actually goes to the kids and how much goes into the personal entertainment fund?

I believe you being a male does make a difference, from what I have seen men generally seem to have a more 'forgive and forget' attitude towards failed relationships. While a greater number of women appear to allow failed relationships and 'revenge' to dominate a larger part of their lives.

Edited December 23, 2012 by TommoPhysicist

[cup-O-coffee]

There is a lot of usage of the word "if" in these posts. Beyond that; it's their life and that's the way it is. It's kind of like the issue of dogs in Thailand. You can keep your mouth shut and deal with it on your own, or you can make a public show of it and get the whole package deal, including the corrupt letter of law and the idiot brigade.

[cup-O-coffee]

Alright I can see this is going to require some stepping on of toes. I would use the term gentlemen but I don't really think it applies here. You WILL drop the rabidly misogynistic crap here immediately. I do hope I am making myself very very clear.

see what happens when u put a woman in charge...it goes to their head

this is meant to be a joke so dont send me emails about getting suspended or banned eh

Count yourself lucky I saw it and not another mod.

Regardless, this is about a man skipping on child support payments, not alimony. And skipped on three kids from two wives for 16 years. Lets do remember this when posting.

And why is that so important to publish? Why is it so important to publish an article that, to me, is simply about a father who is at the head of a government list for fathers who fail to pay court ordered child support?

I think the answer, way deep down, is in order to incite flaming and bitterness, because there really is no room for the truth here if we begin with words like "deadbeat dad", "a man", and "America's most wanted" and then are encouraged to stick to the OP. Where is there any room to be diverse in opinion with such a biased article as this; other than singing with the choir or singing out of tune and getting abused?

Why try to respond to articles like this and to use every polite and intelligent skill at our command, when the article is clearly designed to show bias and not give a dam_n about being polite and skilled at an intelligent level?

Why is it so important to use the word "man" instead of "parent", "father", or "husband", or "abandoned" instead of "deadbeat" or "skipped"? Regarding this issue, the word "man" somehow loses its objectivity when it is uttered by someone who goes on to show bias of any sort against the father or husband in question.

I am certain that somewhere out there in Amerika there is a mother who has abandoned her husband and children, and she is at the head of a list for mothers who fail to pay court ordered child support, hence making her "America's most wanted deadbeat mom".

Why is that so unimportant? Why is it so unimportant to dismiss any gender which harms the well being of a child?

And with that in mind, why is it so important to focus primarily on the father regarding the welfare of his child and his wife's child? Is there some godlike importance that the father is not aware of, such that when he abandons his children and wife, that the whole world falls apart? Is this importance more than that of the mother, who does the same? I think the answer is an emphatic no. I think the children cry when their mommies and daddies are not together and holding them in their arms.

If the welfare of children are the focus here (and it should be) then why would it be so difficult to engender some real lively and fresh discussion by doing an article on deadbeat moms (my apologies to mothers out there who fail to pay court ordered child support and who wish to remain anonymous). That is to say, if we were to remain biased and avoid the more polite, ethical and moral use of the term "parent". It may not happen as often as with fathers who abandon their children, but if we all really care about the children, then one is as good as one hundred.

The point of this article then is to cause bickering and quarreling among adults and genders and to fuel it by using words that do not give respect to the persons portrayed in these articles.

There are parents, both mothers and fathers, who do things that harm the welfare of their children. There really is not much more to say, or more in depth opinion and fact to discuss if the status quo targets only one gender. When we insult either parent, we are insulting that child's mother or father. We are encouraging the child to choose one or the other, instead of to love both equally.

Were this article before me in print, it would be relegated to the trash heap. I've no time for idiots who get their kicks by ganging up unfairly and making it house rules.

Edited December 24, 2012 by cup-O-coffee

[Spaniel]

Mr Sand looks familiar. Was he by chance doing business in Pattaya and advertised hi business on TV? Not too smart if its the guy I'm thinking of...

It was mentioned in another post that he was the guy selling Platinum motorcycles.

[BookMan]

Alright I can see this is going to require some stepping on of toes. I would use the term gentlemen but I don't really think it applies here. You WILL drop the rabidly misogynistic crap here immediately. I do hope I am making myself very very clear.

see what happens when u put a woman in charge...it goes to their head

this is meant to be a joke so dont send me emails about getting suspended or banned eh

Count yourself lucky I saw it and not another mod.

Regardless, this is about a man skipping on child support payments, not alimony. And skipped on three kids from two wives for 16 years. Lets do remember this when posting.

And why is that so important to publish? Why is it so important to publish an article that, to me, is simply about a father who is at the head of a government list for fathers who fail to pay court ordered child support?

I think the answer, way deep down, is in order to incite flaming and bitterness, because there really is no room for the truth here if we begin with words like "deadbeat dad", "a man", and "America's most wanted" and then are encouraged to stick to the OP. Where is there any room to be diverse in opinion with such a biased article as this; other than singing with the choir or singing out of tune and getting abused?

Why try to respond to articles like this and to use every polite and intelligent skill at our command, when the article is clearly designed to show bias and not give a dam_n about being polite and skilled at an intelligent level?

Why is it so important to use the word "man" instead of "parent", "father", or "husband", or "abandoned" instead of "deadbeat" or "skipped"? Regarding this issue, the word "man" somehow loses its objectivity when it is uttered by someone who goes on to show bias of any sort against the father or husband in question.

I am certain that somewhere out there in Amerika there is a mother who has abandoned her husband and children, and she is at the head of a list for mothers who fail to pay court ordered child support, hence making her "America's most wanted deadbeat mom".

Why is that so unimportant? Why is it so unimportant to dismiss any gender which harms the well being of a child?

And with that in mind, why is it so important to focus primarily on the father regarding the welfare of his child and his wife's child? Is there some godlike importance that the father is not aware of, such that when he abandons his children and wife, that the whole world falls apart? Is this importance more than that of the mother, who does the same? I think the answer is an emphatic no. I think the children cry when their mommies and daddies are not together and holding them in their arms.

If the welfare of children are the focus here (and it should be) then why would it be so difficult to engender some real lively and fresh discussion by doing an article on deadbeat moms (my apologies to mothers out there who fail to pay court ordered child support and who wish to remain anonymous). That is to say, if we were to remain biased and avoid the more polite, ethical and moral use of the term "parent". It may not happen as often as with fathers who abandon their children, but if we all really care about the children, then one is as good as one hundred.

The point of this article then is to cause bickering and quarreling among adults and genders and to fuel it by using words that do not give respect to the persons portrayed in these articles.

There are parents, both mothers and fathers, who do things that harm the welfare of their children. There really is not much more to say, or more in depth opinion and fact to discuss if the status quo targets only one gender. When we insult either parent, we are insulting that child's mother or father. We are encouraging the child to choose one or the other, instead of to love both equally.

Were this article before me in print, it would be relegated to the trash heap. I've no time for idiots who get their kicks by ganging up unfairly and making it house rules.

You make some good points cup-o-coffee.

if you google the story you will notice that many articles referred to the story as 'Most Wanted Deadbeat Parent'.

Of course this article does specifically refer to a parent , who is male, and who is the dad. So it seems justified to call him a deadbeat dad.

The US government website lists these people, who owe large sums of child support, as simply 'deadbeats' or 'parents'. Perusing the website it would seem most of these deadbeat parents are in fact male.

https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/child-support-enforcement/

[sbk]

And why is that so important to publish? Why is it so important to publish an article that, to me, is simply about a father who is at the head of a government list for fathers who fail to pay court ordered child support?

Err why don't you ask the OP why he posted it? I simply moderate this forum.

[cup-O-coffee]

Take a good look into the suicide rates of ex husbands that have been persecuted by the system to the point that they took the option of ending their lives because of the emotional strain of it all and the humiliation and persecution & hopelessness that goes with it,.. the numbers will shock you!

If you have some stats and numbers then show them, or the link.

It's hard to be shocked by idle speculation.

Alright. If I may. These are just a few. And in case you happen to be a decent human being, about 3 fathers committed suicide in the time it took me to copy paste your request...

Unable to pay child support, poor parents land behind bars

Judges can jail alleged defaulters — who are not covered by the presumption of innocence — without a trial

Also from same article: "In June, a New Hampshire father and military veteran, Thomas Ball, died after dousing himself with gasoline and setting himself ablaze in front of the Cheshire County Court House.

In a long, rambling letter to the local Sentinel newspaper, the 58-year-old Ball stated that he did so to focus attention on what he considered unfair domestic violence laws and because he expected to be jailed at an upcoming hearing on his failure to pay up to $3,000 in delinquent child support, even though he had been out of work for two years."

----------------------

Dad Who Attempted Suicide is Declared “Voluntarily Underemployed” for Child Support Purposes

------------------------

CSA staff member tells fathers to commit suicide: “what a joke – a load of blokes who cudnt keep their pants on and expect to get away without paying. Id pay some of them to jump off some ver tall buildings with their batman suits on – then we’ll see how man they are lol”

-------------------------

Male Suicide Rates in Australia

---------------------

Distraught Father's Courthouse Suicide Highlights America's Male Suicide Epidemic: Monday, December 24th, 2012: "A distraught father struggling with overdue child support obligations and adverse family court decisions committed suicide on the steps of the downtown San Diego courthouse Monday. Angrily waving court documents, 43 year-old Derrick Miller walked up to court personnel at the entrance, said "You did this to me," and shot himself in the head."

--------------------------

Child Support Casualties

Randy Orville Brouse, 33, of Illinois

Trevor Goddard, 37, of North Hollywood, California

Unknown man, unknown age, of Kendallville, Indiana

Robert R Steadman, 33, of Sewickley Township, Pennsylvania

Reinaldo Rivera, 25, of New Jersey

Mark Edward Dexel, 42, of Canada

Derrick K. Miller, 43, of San Diego, California

Carl Tarzwell, Jr., 37

James Gunter, 45

Randy Johnson, 34, of Sommerset, Kentucky

Darren Bruce White, 34, of B.C., Canada

Dimitrius Underwood, 22

David Guinn, 38

James A. Poore, 33, of Bristol, Tennessee

Kenneth Taylor, 40, of Nebraska

Every year 24,000 men commit suicide. Every 22 minutes one male commits suicide. Based on the fact that a divorced male is 2.5 to 3 times more likely to commit suicide than the average male, the estimate for divorced men, most likely fathers since there is tremendously more trauma placed on them, committing suicide every year would be 15,000 to 18,000 men.

-------------------------------

Suicide dad unable to pay child support

----------------------------

Man killed at court was upset over child support

--------------------------------

Deadbroke Dads by Donna Laframboise

Pilloried, broke, alone

George Roulier is fighting to regain money wrongfully taken from his wages by the Ontario child-support collection agency.

Alan Heinz, a Toronto firefighter, has gone bankrupt fighting for the return of his daughter, 3, from Germany. No one will help him, but German authorities are trying to collect child support from him.

Divorced fathers get a bad rap for not supporting their children. The truth is, many can't. And, tragically, some are driven to desperate measures, including suicide

In his suicide note, Jim, the father of four children, protests that "not all fathers are deadbeats." Jim hanged himself because he couldn't see any alternative. Even now, his children are unaware of the circumstances of their father's death.

Whenever fathers and divorce are discussed, one image dominates: the "deadbeat dad," the schmuck who'd rather drive a sports car than support his kids. Because I write about family matters, I'm regularly inundated with phone calls, faxes, letters and e-mail from divorced men. It's not news that divorced individuals have little good to say about their ex-spouses. What I'm interested in is whether the system assists people during this difficult time in their lives, or compounds their misery. From the aircraft engineer in British Columbia, to the postal worker on the prairies, to the fire fighter in Toronto, divorced fathers's tories are of a piece: Though society stereotypes these men relentlessly, most divorced dads pay their child support. Among those who don't, a small percentage wilfully refuse to (the villains you always hear about).

What you haven't been told is that the other men in arrears are:

• Too impoverished to pay,

• Have been ordered to pay unreasonable amounts,

• Have been paying for unreasonable lengths of time, or

• Are the victims of bureaucratic foul-ups.

Here are the stories of fathers who have been driven to suicide by a system deaf to their pleas. We'll introduce you to a man who is still paying child support for a 23-year-old employed daughter. We'll tell you about an executive with take-home pay of $7,455 a month who is left with $302 after handing over child support and alimony to his ex-wife.

[cup-O-coffee]

You make some good points cup-o-coffee.

if you google the story you will notice that many articles referred to the story as 'Most Wanted Deadbeat Parent'.

Of course this article does specifically refer to a parent , who is male, and who is the dad. So it seems justified to call him a deadbeat dad.

The US government website lists these people, who owe large sums of child support, as simply 'deadbeats' or 'parents'. Perusing the website it would seem most of these deadbeat parents are in fact male.

https://oig.hhs.gov/...rt-enforcement/

Yes. You are correct. The United States government has made up all of these things without any voter consent. So, what is your point; that it only seems justified? Well, is it or isn't it?

Incidentally, do you want to know what I think of the US government? I'll put a twist on Jesse Ventura's quote by replacing the word "my" and say, "I love my country, but I hate (that) government."

So, anyway; what's your point?

[looping]

How we love to judge, one way or another.

I'm sure there are various elements to this case, as any, which we cannot presume to know.

Whether or not he's a scumbag or she's a money grabbing bitch, maybe only they can truly know.

Either way, it seems that the kids didn't starve.

BTW, Just out of interest, what would now happen to the money, if he pays? Would she get the lump sum for herself???

[BookMan]

You make some good points cup-o-coffee.

if you google the story you will notice that many articles referred to the story as 'Most Wanted Deadbeat Parent'.

Of course this article does specifically refer to a parent , who is male, and who is the dad. So it seems justified to call him a deadbeat dad.

The US government website lists these people, who owe large sums of child support, as simply 'deadbeats' or 'parents'. Perusing the website it would seem most of these deadbeat parents are in fact male.

https://oig.hhs.gov/...rt-enforcement/

Yes. You are correct. The United States government has made up all of these things without any voter consent. So, what is your point; that it only seems justified? Well, is it or isn't it?

Incidentally, do you want to know what I think of the US government? I'll put a twist on Jesse Ventura's quote by replacing the word "my" and say, "I love my country, but I hate (that) government."

So, anyway; what's your point?

The US government has made up what? You have totally lost me.

My point was that the website refers to parents (being male or female) not just men, as deadbeats

[BookMan]

Alright. If I may. These are just a few. And in case you happen to be a decent human being, about 3 fathers committed suicide in the time it took me to copy paste your request...

Unable to pay child support, poor parents land behind bars

Judges can jail alleged defaulters — who are not covered by the presumption of innocence — without a trial

Also from same article: "In June, a New Hampshire father and military veteran, Thomas Ball, died after dousing himself with gasoline and setting himself ablaze in front of the Cheshire County Court House.

In a long, rambling letter to the local Sentinel newspaper, the 58-year-old Ball stated that he did so to focus attention on what he considered unfair domestic violence laws and because he expected to be jailed at an upcoming hearing on his failure to pay up to $3,000 in delinquent child support, even though he had been out of work for two years."

----------------------

Dad Who Attempted Suicide is Declared “Voluntarily Underemployed” for Child Support Purposes

------------------------

CSA staff member tells fathers to commit suicide: “what a joke – a load of blokes who cudnt keep their pants on and expect to get away without paying. Id pay some of them to jump off some ver tall buildings with their batman suits on – then we’ll see how man they are lol”

-------------------------

Male Suicide Rates in Australia

---------------------

Distraught Father's Courthouse Suicide Highlights America's Male Suicide Epidemic: Monday, December 24th, 2012: "A distraught father struggling with overdue child support obligations and adverse family court decisions committed suicide on the steps of the downtown San Diego courthouse Monday. Angrily waving court documents, 43 year-old Derrick Miller walked up to court personnel at the entrance, said "You did this to me," and shot himself in the head."

--------------------------

Child Support Casualties

Randy Orville Brouse, 33, of Illinois

Trevor Goddard, 37, of North Hollywood, California

Unknown man, unknown age, of Kendallville, Indiana

Robert R Steadman, 33, of Sewickley Township, Pennsylvania

Reinaldo Rivera, 25, of New Jersey

Mark Edward Dexel, 42, of Canada

Derrick K. Miller, 43, of San Diego, California

Carl Tarzwell, Jr., 37

James Gunter, 45

Randy Johnson, 34, of Sommerset, Kentucky

Darren Bruce White, 34, of B.C., Canada

Dimitrius Underwood, 22

David Guinn, 38

James A. Poore, 33, of Bristol, Tennessee

Kenneth Taylor, 40, of Nebraska

Every year 24,000 men commit suicide. Every 22 minutes one male commits suicide. Based on the fact that a divorced male is 2.5 to 3 times more likely to commit suicide than the average male, the estimate for divorced men, most likely fathers since there is tremendously more trauma placed on them, committing suicide every year would be 15,000 to 18,000 men.

-------------------------------

Suicide dad unable to pay child support

----------------------------

Man killed at court was upset over child support

--------------------------------

Deadbroke Dads by Donna Laframboise

Pilloried, broke, alone

George Roulier is fighting to regain money wrongfully taken from his wages by the Ontario child-support collection agency.

Alan Heinz, a Toronto firefighter, has gone bankrupt fighting for the return of his daughter, 3, from Germany. No one will help him, but German authorities are trying to collect child support from him.

Divorced fathers get a bad rap for not supporting their children. The truth is, many can't. And, tragically, some are driven to desperate measures, including suicide

In his suicide note, Jim, the father of four children, protests that "not all fathers are deadbeats." Jim hanged himself because he couldn't see any alternative. Even now, his children are unaware of the circumstances of their father's death.

Whenever fathers and divorce are discussed, one image dominates: the "deadbeat dad," the schmuck who'd rather drive a sports car than support his kids. Because I write about family matters, I'm regularly inundated with phone calls, faxes, letters and e-mail from divorced men. It's not news that divorced individuals have little good to say about their ex-spouses. What I'm interested in is whether the system assists people during this difficult time in their lives, or compounds their misery. From the aircraft engineer in British Columbia, to the postal worker on the prairies, to the fire fighter in Toronto, divorced fathers's tories are of a piece: Though society stereotypes these men relentlessly, most divorced dads pay their child support. Among those who don't, a small percentage wilfully refuse to (the villains you always hear about).

What you haven't been told is that the other men in arrears are:

• Too impoverished to pay,

• Have been ordered to pay unreasonable amounts,

• Have been paying for unreasonable lengths of time, or

• Are the victims of bureaucratic foul-ups.

Here are the stories of fathers who have been driven to suicide by a system deaf to their pleas. We'll introduce you to a man who is still paying child support for a 23-year-old employed daughter. We'll tell you about an executive with take-home pay of $7,455 a month who is left with $302 after handing over child support and alimony to his ex-wife.

That is a lot of fluff you posted there cup-o-coffee obfuscating your lack of evidence in weighty and emotional links that still do not provide evidence of my original question.

To restate the original post I questioned

Take a good look into the suicide rates of ex husbands that have been persecuted by the system to the point that they took the option of ending their lives because of the emotional strain of it all and the humiliation and persecution & hopelessness that goes with it,.. the numbers will shock you

You still do not provide any evidence whatsoever of a high suicide rate linked to ex husbands persecuted by the system.

Let me take just one of the links you provide. You give the example of suicide rates in Australia. The link you provide is way out of date from 1990 & 1998 (and is from a vested interest group) and the figures are double what the figures for 2009 are. Here is a factual non biased link

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by+Subject/4125.0~Jan+2012~Main+Features~Suicides~3240

There are about 2000 male suicides each year in Australia -- this being an approximate ten year average. The HIGHEST suicide rate group if for men 85 years and over! I hardly think these guys are driven to suicide by child support payments and persecution by the system.

There are in between 40,000 - 50,000 divorces in Australia each year.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30March+Quarter+2012#DIVORCES

How many of the male suicides result directly from the child support payments and persecution through the court system? 10? 20? 30? Hardly shocking numbers.

I cannot say for sure how many there are and I doubt you can either. What I can say for sure, based on the total amount of claims for child support and the total suicides is that the number is extremely low.

[cup-O-coffee]

Bookman. Let's agree to disagree and cut it short. My statistics are quite right. They are statistics. You can read the obituaries. The articles answer your question. I don't want to get into it with you because it will get my blood pressure up, and I don;t want to do that. We simply disagree. You love that government, and I do not. Your citing of their statistics tells me that you are either baiting me into regaling you with the underlying driving forces in that government, or you really are too ignorant to be enlightened in one post. You couldn't even get the message from my links, so I am not convinced you would get it if I sang it to you in a song. Have a good day full of warmth, friends, cheer and good food.

[IrishIvan]

Whats missing in every country with child support is accountability, such as showing receipts when the spouse collects the cash to look after the kids. It would solve a lot of fights at the door on custody days.

[thaibeachlovers]

If a man has taken care of his wife and let her stay home all those years and they get divorced for whatever reason, it is his legal responsibility to continue working to support her in her current life style and also his children who will likely be given custody to his wife. Failure to do so will result in a prison sentence.

It's attitudes like that that would have stopped me getting married to a western woman.

While I can see a reason for contributing to the support of his children, though they will almost certainly be living with their mother, unless they are below school age she can get off her bottom, and get a job.

Men don't marry women to give them a life of luxury while they work their butt's off every day.

Would it make a difference if she'd been playing away and treating him badly?

[thaibeachlovers]

Child support should only be paid under the following conditions:

1. You are the father. Proof by DNA test.

2. You were not tricked into fatherhood against your will.

3. Mother doesn't prevent contact to your children.

4. Reasonable amount of money. Proof that money is used for child alone.

These conditions match around 20% of child support cases. In the majority, fathers have no legal rights at all, in some countries not even the right to test for fatherhood.

That's why a "dead beat father" is rare. Most men in such a situation just protect themselves and deserve all our sympathy.

I suggest to change 2 as follows: father to be must be included during the early pregnancy in the decision making of whether to have the child or not, if he doesn't want but the woman decides to have it nonetheless, the child forgoes any claims against the father.

It really doesn't need to be that complex Potosi. The male can just wear a condom if he doesn't want to be a father simple really.

If a man wanted to use a condom, there would be no point in getting married.

Even if he does use a condom, there could be a failure allowing pregnancy.

[thaibeachlovers]

Child support should only be paid under the following conditions:

1. You are the father. Proof by DNA test.

2. You were not tricked into fatherhood against your will.

3. Mother doesn't prevent contact to your children.

4. Reasonable amount of money. Proof that money is used for child alone.

These conditions match around 20% of child support cases. In the majority, fathers have no legal rights at all, in some countries not even the right to test for fatherhood.

That's why a "dead beat father" is rare. Most men in such a situation just protect themselves and deserve all our sympathy.

The only way to avoid future problems of being a "cukoo" father would be to have a dna test done on the child before signing the paperwork as the father. Once the paperwork is signed, I understand the legal position is to regard the man that signed as the legal father, and therefore liable for support payments in the event of divorce.

[BookMan]

Child support should only be paid under the following conditions:

1. You are the father. Proof by DNA test.

2. You were not tricked into fatherhood against your will.

3. Mother doesn't prevent contact to your children.

4. Reasonable amount of money. Proof that money is used for child alone.

These conditions match around 20% of child support cases. In the majority, fathers have no legal rights at all, in some countries not even the right to test for fatherhood.

That's why a "dead beat father" is rare. Most men in such a situation just protect themselves and deserve all our sympathy.

I suggest to change 2 as follows: father to be must be included during the early pregnancy in the decision making of whether to have the child or not, if he doesn't want but the woman decides to have it nonetheless, the child forgoes any claims against the father.

It really doesn't need to be that complex Potosi. The male can just wear a condom if he doesn't want to be a father simple really.

If a man wanted to use a condom, there would be no point in getting married.

Even if he does use a condom, there could be a failure allowing pregnancy.

You don't need to get married to have to pay child support. Nor do you need to get married to have a child.

So if you do not want to financially contribute to a child, take precautions

[Scott]

One of the reasons that the gov't is strict with support payments is that a lot of these children end up being supported by Welfare programs. They have no health insurance and end up covered under Medical Assistance programs. Very often this is only because of a vindictive parent.

Children who are on welfare, but who have parents who owe child support are pursued by the state, not the custodial parent.

I've known quite a few people who had court ordered child support payments. All of them were reasonable payments. The ones who get in trouble are the ones who get behind on those payments. Unlike a car, your children do not get repossessed if you don't make the payments.

[F430murci]

One of the reasons that the gov't is strict with support payments is that a lot of these children end up being supported by Welfare programs. They have no health insurance and end up covered under Medical Assistance programs. Very often this is only because of a vindictive parent.

Children who are on welfare, but who have parents who owe child support are pursued by the state, not the custodial parent.

I've known quite a few people who had court ordered child support payments. All of them were reasonable payments. The ones who get in trouble are the ones who get behind on those payments. Unlike a car, your children do not get repossessed if you don't make the payments.

Very true. Most child support obligations are extremely reasonable unless domestic or substance abuse history and father spends no time with child. If father spend minimum of 80 days or more a year with child, the support payments in US get much smaller.

I know from my experience that my child support payments were much less that what I actually spent on them while they were under my roof 24/7.