From: marks@igor.tamri.com (Mark Sequerth)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: RE: "Deadbeat Moms" was: (Custody In Colorado?)
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:44:25 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA


>
>In article <scotts.1nh6@hotcity.COM> scotts@hotcity.COM (Scott Scribner) writes:
>>
>>
>>I am a father who "took" his child out of a state while I was married. As 
>>Anne Mitchell said...I am entitiled to my child as much as the other parent.
>>I have the right to seek custody of my child and to live my life with that
>>child. Which by the way I have done. I have custody of my child and the mother
>>does not pay her child support payments. Most people are not interested in the
>>fact that many women do not pay there payments as well as fathers.
>>
>>Scott Scribner
>
>After reading the above, the term "Deadbeat Moms" came to mind.  It's funny I 
>have never seen this term in print, even here.
>Perhaps a concerted effort on our part to see the term "Deadbeat Moms" 
>used as often as the term "Deadbeat Dads" in conversation and media would
>do much to educate people to the inequity of the current situation.
>
>joel
>
>
>
I have to agree with what you say about "Deadbeat Moms."  Our "impartial" 
Justice system is anything but "impartial."  It has been four years since 
my ex-wife has allowed me any contact with our three children, a real 
"Deadbeat Mom".  I have tried every legal method for visiting our children 
I can think of.  The police won't or can't help, the court system asks, 
"Are you paying your child support?" When I answer "yes," they find another 
reason to dismiss the charges I levy against my ex-wife.  The courts 
profess it's for the "greater good of the children."  I have come 
to the conclusion, the "political justice system" only cares enough 
or for the reason to keep somebody else off welfare, a very good reason 
in itself.  The political justice system does not care at all about 
the greater good of the children. If they really did care about the 
children, would our schools be suffering the criminal lack of 
funding they now suffer?  Politico's care ONLY about being (re)elected.

I have given up, I will continue to pay my child support 
because my children are important to me.  However, I must 
ask, why is the contract that awards her child support and 
me visitation rights, only a binding document when it 
concerns child support?  In most contracts, if one party 
breeches, the contract can be nullified. Prior to the last 
time I took my ex-wife to court she extended an invitation to me, 
to abrogate my rights as a father, in return she would 
relinquish all rights to child support, I of course refused.  In 
retrospect, I should have accepted.  True, I wouldn't have 
access to my children .... so, nothing would change, except I 
wouldn't have to pay for the privilege of not seeing them. 

I have come to the conclusion that have been relegated to 
the role of second or third class citizen.  I have the right to pay
child support, I have no other rights concerning my children.  Those
rights weren't taken away in court.  They were taken away unilaterally
by my ex-wife.  I may get full citizenship back in eight years.  
I use the word may because the trend is against us "Deadbeat Dads."   
A great many of the reasons we had a revolution in 1776 are reoccurring in 
our society today.  Are polities required to take history in 
college?  Obviously, anyone with an IQ over 10 is instantly 
disqualified for political office.

To the "netters," I apologize for being so long winded.

Mark 
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2441 alt.child-support:3473 soc.couples:3906 soc.men:17553 misc.legal:18430