Second contempt in Ohio

[Jade]

>Mist
>you apparently don't have a clue. other than your OPINION.
>which is not based on the facts or court reality.
>
>my ex hasn't paid child support in over 4 years and makes
>$87,000 a year, yes she's the "FEMALE".  I've paid over $8000
>to have my case heard in court to order her to pay child
>support and I haven't even had a hearing yet and it's been 8
>months. The judge keeps allowing her atty continuances for
>hearings. If it was a Father that was delq. on chid support in
>approximate amount of $43,200 the dad would be sentenced to
>jail but a 'Mother" is ok with not paying.
>
>based your comments on facts not your opinion.


You may want to revise your "opinion".  I work with a woman whose ex doesn't pay child support at all.  And isn't in jail.  And nothing is being done to collect child support, including the thousands in arrears.  The child in question is 13 years old.  The arrears is greater than the amount that you mentioned above.

The judge may be allowing the continuances, but you can't conclusively state that it is from a gender bias.   That is just your opinion.  

[John-J-Jay]

The courts are biased. Women are also assumed to be the "FIT" parent in 90% of the divorce cases across our country and this isn't an opinion. It's a fact. A dad doesn't have a chance if the mother wants custody, the courts give the children to the mothers just because.

In my case the mother walked out when our child was 2. Now 8 1/2 yrs later. I'm trying to get the child support paid and now she wants custody.  If i left her alone she would be very happy the way things are. but gee ask for child support and she wants custody. BS

[Jade]

>The courts are biased. Women are also assumed to be the "FIT"
>parent in 90% of the divorce cases across our country and this
>isn't an opinion. It's a fact. A dad doesn't have a chance if
>the mother wants custody, the courts give the children to the
>mothers just because.
>
Again, this is just an opinion.  Because I have read differently in cases where custody is in dispute.  

>In my case the mother walked out when our child was 2. Now 8
>1/2 yrs later. I'm trying to get the child support paid and
>now she wants custody.  If i left her alone she would be very
>happy the way things are. but gee ask for child support and
>she wants custody. BS

The fact is that you as the father and the primary caretaker of your child are going to retain custody.  And the mother will be ordered to pay child support.  

Why?  Because a judge isn't going to change the status quo of a child who is thriving.  As you have been told numerous times.

Your fear is coloring your opinion and you are imagining a gender bias where one doesn't exist.  

[mistoffolees]

>Mist
>you apparently don't have a clue. other than your OPINION.
>which is not based on the facts or court reality.
>
>my ex hasn't paid child support in over 4 years and makes
>$87,000 a year, yes she's the "FEMALE".  I've paid over $8000
>to have my case heard in court to order her to pay child
>support and I haven't even had a hearing yet and it's been 8
>months. The judge keeps allowing her atty continuances for
>hearings. If it was a Father that was delq. on chid support in
>approximate amount of $43,200 the dad would be sentenced to
>jail but a 'Mother" is ok with not paying.
>
>based your comments on facts not your opinion.

Instead of going off on a tirade and making a fool of yourself, why don't you look at what I wrote rather than what you want me to have written?

I simply said that there didn't appear to be gender bias in this case (since the mother sat in jail for not paying support) and that one should only complain about bias when there really IS bias.

Now, I didn't take a position on whether bias actually occurred or not - I simply said that it didn't appear to be the case - that is, the OP didn't provide any evidence that it occurred. For me to be wrong, there would have to be evidence in the original post that proved that bias exists.

SO, instead of launching into a tirade and making a fool of of yourself, all you have to do is show where in the original post there's proof of bias. Until then, you owe me an apology.

[mistoffolees]

>
>You may want to revise your "opinion".  I work with a woman
>whose ex doesn't pay child support at all.  And isn't in jail.
> And nothing is being done to collect child support, including
>the thousands in arrears.  The child in question is 13 years
>old.  The arrears is greater than the amount that you
>mentioned above.
>
>The judge may be allowing the continuances, but you can't
>conclusively state that it is from a gender bias.   That is
>just your opinion.  


That's my point. There's no evidence of bias. Even more importantly, in the OP's post, the woman DID get thrown in jail for not paying, so it sure doesn't look like bias.

My point - which he completely ignored - is that there IS bias out there, but it's not going to be solved when people are running around in circles screaming 'gender bias' all the time (whether the bias exists or not). The way to fix the problem is to pick the cases where there IS evidence and correct them.

[mistoffolees]

>The courts are biased. Women are also assumed to be the "FIT"
>parent in 90% of the divorce cases across our country and this
>isn't an opinion. It's a fact. A dad doesn't have a chance if
>the mother wants custody, the courts give the children to the
>mothers just because.
>
>In my case the mother walked out when our child was 2. Now 8
>1/2 yrs later. I'm trying to get the child support paid and
>now she wants custody.  If i left her alone she would be very
>happy the way things are. but gee ask for child support and
>she wants custody. BS


Funny how you attack me for expressing the view that people need to support opinions rather than flying off half-cocked - and your 'support' is a completely unfounded opinion.

Note that I never said that gender bias doesn't occur. NOr did I ever claim that it doesn't occur in your case (although you are still a long way from proving that it does). I said that people shouldn't be screaming about gender bias (or any other bias, for that matter) without real evidence rather than wishful thinking.

Your post is a prime example of why I take that view.

[mistoffolees]

>>The courts are biased. Women are also assumed to be the
>"FIT"
>>parent in 90% of the divorce cases across our country and
>this
>>isn't an opinion. It's a fact. A dad doesn't have a chance
>if
>>the mother wants custody, the courts give the children to
>the
>>mothers just because.
>>
>Again, this is just an opinion.  Because I have read
>differently in cases where custody is in dispute.  
>
>>In my case the mother walked out when our child was 2. Now 8
>>1/2 yrs later. I'm trying to get the child support paid and
>>now she wants custody.  If i left her alone she would be
>very
>>happy the way things are. but gee ask for child support and
>>she wants custody. BS
>
>The fact is that you as the father and the primary caretaker
>of your child are going to retain custody.  And the mother
>will be ordered to pay child support.  
>
>Why?  Because a judge isn't going to change the status quo of
>a child who is thriving.  As you have been told numerous
>times.
>
>Your fear is coloring your opinion and you are imagining a
>gender bias where one doesn't exist.  

That's the funny thing - he's a clear example that a father CAN get and retain custody of hsi children, but he's spending all this time screaming about gender bias where there's no evidence.

Now, if the mother gets custody and it's solely because she's a woman, he would have a point. But that hasn't happened.

[mistoffolees]

>but I don't believe that they are necessarily gender biased
>either.  
>
>I think that the courts do whatever is easier for them.  It's
>the person that doesn't pay, doesn't want to pay, and hides
>that they don't bother with. In your case, it happens to be
>the woman.
>
>My ex (the man) owes over $34,000 in back child support and
>they do nothing to collect anything from him.  They don't
>sentence him to jail the few times that they do arrest him.
>They bring him before the judge and he promises to pay only 1
>week's child support (even though he owes over $34,000) and
>they let him go the very same day (just because he made a
>promise).  then......when he is let go, he NEVER pays the
>week's worth of cs that he promised that he would pay.
>
>I am so sorry that you are going through this and I can
>sympathize.
>
>Good luck to you!
>

Good luck with your case. As the original post in this thread indicates, it doesn't always work that way. There is a HUGE discrepancy between courts in this area.

I strongly feel that support is not enforced enough in this country. There shouldn't be any question. If someone has been ordered to pay support, they should have to show the proof of payment or some very strong reason (inability to work for health reasons, perhaps) why they can't. This game of bouncing from one place to another and ducking support by changing jobs needs to stop.

For both men and women.

[janM]

the magistrate asked her if she tried to get an attorney, she said she had talked to a few (if she did, I doubt they'd touch it lol). Every time they go to court she gets time to find one or apply for a PD (which she never qualified for before or just didn't apply), in spite of the fact they had 6 weeks notice of the hearing.

She said she was getting set up with a phone line for a home based business and the first pays would go to CS. She asked if that was the case, what would happen (probably meaning would the contempt go away). He said it was up to the prosecutor.

So there will be another hearing in 45 days.

[jenjen]

Make sure your son attendeds all hearings even if u are told that you dont have to show up. you control the csea there working on your behalf so find an alternative solution to make the ncp comply, see if you can find someone that is willing to hire her, and present it to the judge and ahve the judge order her to report to work or find out what other options are available, remember your goal is to get the necessary relief of child support. not to cause her to be unemployable due to countless arrests. it appears that the state and or county, city is exploiting this whole family there the only one making money from this