As substantiation to the Father Vs. The Government study of Child Support; Afromerica is publishing public opinion on the issue to raise a new and more logical level of thinking about how this system is dealing with non-custodial parents, who are mainly men, and more detrimental, Black men.

Below are comments to an article published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) on 5/12/2005 entitled "Child support panel off balance", where the journalist reported on how Georgia has made changes to the Child Support laws, yet the article was tainted with feminist biased, as the public reveals below.

You can follow the Afromerica series on this topic and weigh in yourself.

*************************************************************

Thanks to all those who have written the AJC with their responses. For those of you who haven't written - why haven't you? It only takes a few minutes. You know that if this article was adverse to feminist views, the AJC phones would be ringing off the hook the AJC email lines would be burning and the AJC mail would require an 18 wheeler to deliver it!

The silence of men has gotten them into the child support mess! "Silence is acceptance" Write the AJC and let them know how you like their articles that are adverse to NCPs! Email YOUR opinion to letters@ajc.com or CLICK HERE Be professional and polite! If you want a chance to have it published, keep it brief - 3 or 4 sentences and include contact information including phone.

More Recent Responses....

*************************************************************

The obvious non-custodial parent bashing sentiment in your editorial regarding recent changes in GA child support laws is typical of a wounded person seeking revenge, and is exactly why the laws needed to be modified. The system was punishing the non-custodial parent, instead of allowing for a fair and shared approach to supporting the children's needs.

Child support shouldn't be a dictate for punishment, nor should your editorial be so skewed as to punish progress that seeks to balance responsibility. The system here favors custodials, treating the non-custodial with discrimination and little regard, and apparently so does your editorial. It's damaging, narrow, and not helping to progress the real issue, and that is fostering shared responsibility for a child's upbringing.

Try doing some research, and displaying some facts, not just spewing your skewed spin to the community. The public at large is smarter than you give them credit for, and will see through your narrow opinions. People are tired of unbalanced reporting its widely being called to the mat for what it is, spin. Your doing a disservice to the community; so try doing some editorial homework, gather information from several angles, do your research in states where this system has been working for years. Report the facts, let the reader decide.

I'd be apt to subscribe to your paper if you did.

Andrew B

*************************************************************

You mention "Men-most of them divorcees feuding with their former spouses" in your Opinion piece. I am a divorced father of two children ages 16 &13 whom has remarried. I myself as well as many other divorced fathers I have spoken to all agree that the root cause of any arguing that takes place between ex spouses is that the custodial parent (usually the mother) is trying to alienate the kids from dad. I have heard this time and time again. The topic of child support is never brought up. We don't mind paying child support as long as it is used for the kids.

My boys come to my house on weekends wearing clothes that I am ashamed to take them out in public in. So I buy them clothes to wear when they are here. While my ex wife has gone from working a full time job to cutting back to working 3 days a week. Now she is working 2 days a week. Did I mention she has a new car? So where do you think my $800.00 a month child support goes. If for once you people, who print this garbage that is blatantly biased against men, would do any research, you would find that 75% if not more of divorces are filed by women.

They have come to realize that getting a divorce can be pretty lucrative. Don't get me wrong. If a dad is not involved in his children's lives, stick it to him. But for those of us trying to make the best situation possible for our kids and trying to be involved who have ex spouses whom do not want to abide by the court order, i.e. the divorce decree, are always running into barriers put there by our biased judicial system.

A custodial parent withholds kids from non-custodial parent for several months after several continuances and a year later, mom gets a slap on the wrist from judge" Don't do that any more". You stop paying child support for a couple of months and see what happens. It's no slap on the wrist. All I am saying is that the scales of justice should be balanced, and right now they are not. A parent withholding or alienating kids from another parent, should be attacked with the same baracity and fervor as someone not paying child support. The new law is a step in the right direction, but we have a long way to go.

Mark P.

P.S Would like you to print this but would not expect you to if Cynthia Tucker has anything to do with it. We all know what her opinion is. Let's hear someone else's for a change.

*************************************************************

Dear Editor,

Your piece on child support reform was rife with the very stereotypes about fathers that supporters of HB221 have been fighting against. Of course you used an anecdote about a dead-beat without regard to fathers who struggle to be good parents.

Steven L

*************************************************************

To Whom it may concern:

Your article on 5/12/2005 "Child support panel off balance" amazes me. Did you do ANY research into this topic before you wrote this article? I guess it is easier to man-bash than it is to get up and do any actual work. For the record. I am a father of two, I pay my FULL child support and until recently even paid extra to make sure that my children had everything they needed (I buy them clothes not only for my home but there mothers also, I make sure they have hair cuts and look presentable & I take them to swimming lessons).

I do all this and what does their mother do, well she makes approximately $42,000 per year and just bought a $230,000 home, she did ask me for a copy of my child support checks because the loan officer needed to verify that income. Child support isn't required to be spent on the children. Custodial parents don't have to tell the courts or anyone what they spent that money on. HB 221 will help make the children's life IN BOTH HOMES better.

Sincerely, Dan C.

*************************************************************

In response to your recent article "Child support panel off balance" regarding the author's disdain with HB 221:

I'm new at this, and I'm right in the middle of a divorce and child custody battle. Being a rookie, the first thing that I noticed was that common sense and reason are non-existent in the current legal system regarding this issue. Isn't it common sense that BOTH parents should continue to be allowed to participate in the child's live after a divorce? Isn't it common sense that BOTH parents should subsidize the financial support of the child, particularly if both parents have college degrees and are physically able to work?

Isn't it common sense that BOTH parents should be the decision makers in the child's life? Isn't it common sense that neither father nor mother should be allowed to move out of the city with the children without sacrificing custody? Isn't it common sense that if Dad takes home $3000 per month from his job, that he cannot afford to pay out $1700 per month in child support without completely degrading his quality of life?

It seems that many women, such as the author, have so much hatred for the male species that their reason and common sense have evaporated. No one disagrees that deadbeat dads deserve the worst of everything - max out their child support, give them minimal custody/visitation, make their life a living hell. But guess what? Not all men, in fact very few men, are deadbeat dads.

We're a different generation. Men come home from work, immediately drop our bags and go right for the kids and say, "HEY SWEETIE PIES!!! DADDY'S HOME!". The little girls run and jump into our arms, throw their hands around our neck and hold on tight because they missed Daddy so much. Men stand up and carry both little girls - it doesn't matter if they're heavy because this is the best part of our day! The little girls are beaming with joy since they are with their Daddy, and all they want to do is tell us about their day. We go outside, get out all the toys and bikes and water guns, the neighborhood children run over because they can sense the excitement.

We play outside with all the kids and listen to the joyous sound of our little girls' innocent and sweet laughter. We take the girls inside, get them ready for bed, and read them books. We kiss them, we nurture them, and we console them with our stability and love. We tuck them in, we whisper "Goodnight Valentine"…they whisper back "Goodnight Daddy." Then we eat dinner.

Most mothers's equally sacrifice for and nurture the children in their own special way. You see - when a father and mother are truly active participants in their child's life, it is essential to the well being of the child that their relationships with BOTH parents are never sacrificed or diminished. Who can argue that the best of a bad situation such as divorce is that the child should get equal time with both parents, and be provided for financially by both parents?

HB 221 is a step in the right direction to move towards a more reasonable approach to monetarily providing for children - but that's not enough. Even though the courts tout that they are doing whatever is "in the best interest of the child", we all know that the system continues to grossly favor women over men.

Is it any wonder why there are so many women-generated divorces? Any married woman with children can walk into a free one hour consultation with an attorney and she will likely be told that she will get the house, she will get the kids, she will get a ridiculous amount of child support for the next 18 years, and she will get alimony. Why WOULDN'T women file at the slightest problem in their marriage? Surely one can agree that if it weren't so easy for women to "get out", that women would be more inclined to work on their marriage, salvage their family unit, and do something that is truly "in the best interest of the child".

Tim S

*************************************************************

It is difficult to believe that a newspaper writer that professes to be in pursuit of facts could publish such a reckless story. Your editorial doesn't only lack substance it is down right irresponsible. Obviously, you believe that women should financially profit from custody of children. On the other hand, you are not addressing the issues surrounding women that interfere with children spending time with their fathers. Obviously, children are utilized as leverage to perpetuate the promotion of 'caring fathers' as modern day indentured servants. Enough said!!!!!

Corro'll H. Driskell

*************************************************************

I PAY ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER MONTH IN CHILD SUPPORT ON A $36,000 /YEAR. MY CHILD SUPPORT WAS BASED ON WHAT I COULD EARN BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS YEARS INCOME LEVELS. BUT THOSE EARNINGS REQUIRED LONGER HOURS AND BY WORKING LONGER HOURS THE COURT SAID LESS CUSTODY BECAUSE I WOULD BE LEAVING MY CHILD WITH SOMEONE ELSE SO WHY GIVE ME MORE TIME.

SO I TOOK A JOB MAKING LESS MONEY TO HAVE TIME TO SPEND WITH MY SON AND THEY BASED MY CHILD SUPPORT ON WHAT I COULD MAKE. ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THIS, MY EX-WIFE MAKES 20K PER YEAR MORE THAN I DO AND MY SON IS IN DAYCARE FROM 6 AM TO 6 PM AND @ HIS GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE EVERY OTHER SATURDAY. I CAN DO EVERYTHING EXCEPT BREASTFEED (WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN B/C SHE THOUGHT IT WAS GROSS) AND YOU SAY THIS DILAPIDATED SYSTEM IS FAIR!?! I THOUGHT WE LIVED ON EARTH.

JOHN H

*************************************************************

Dear editor

The above captioned article, regarding GA Child Support Guidelines, is truly tasteless and highly feministic in nature. The generalizations simply fuel the fire against men. How do you see fit to run articles of hate male (mail)?

The GA Support Guidelines and the no fault/best interest of the child presumptions, are already imbalanced, and have been for decades. To suggest that a woman's income should not be considered during the divorce proceedings is an insult to humanity, and a slap in the face to every man alive.

This type of hatred of men (misandry) is unbecoming. Georgia is one of the very last states to ratify their guidelines to more effectively provide support for children without putting fathers (most without consent for divorce) in the poor house, or in jail. It's a disgrace that we still must read the feminazis views, so slanted, as to suggest any move in favor of men is, by consequence, destructive to women and womanhood.

Your balanced views/support for men, AND women, in the future, is greatly appreciated.

Paul P

*************************************************************

Your obviously ill researched piece about the child support system and HB221, printed on 5/12/05 was a shameless shot at all the non-custodial parents in the state of Georgia.

While there are bad fathers as well as bad mothers (and we have heard horror stories from both sides of the fence), there are many more parents that are doing everything possible for their children, some even when their ex-spouse is using the child as hostage in exchange for more money. These respectable parents work hard to teach their children that there is fairness in life, that both parents can still be parents even though they don't live under the same roof, and that the children are NOT pawns in some "give me your money or else!" ploy by a greedy ex.

Setting your sights in this article mainly on men simply says that whoever took the two minutes to write this article has an ax to grind against the male populace. Maybe they didn't get all the money from their ex that they demanded, or maybe just not enough for the new Beemer or Benz that they had their sights on. Gee, that's too bad. Maybe they should try working a second job...like their ex's have been forced to do just to maintain a quality of life that they may not have otherwise.

You may be thinking that I am a man or a non-custodial parent, but you are wrong on both counts. I have custody of my two children by my ex-husband, whom I allow all types of breaks on his support so that he can maintain a respectable quality of life. Why? Because I am not so lazy or greedy that I cannot help support my own children. This is the way it should be. This is the way that 33 other states have decided is right for their children of divorced families. This is the way that our CHOSEN leaders have decided it should be for Georgia's children.

So if your writers there at the AJC have an ax to grind, I suggest they do it on their own time. They should join a club, go to therapy, or just go get a life. Journalism should be respectable, as well as accurate. I have seen neither in this article. As one of the south's leading publications, I would think that your editors would actually take the time to oversee what is going into their paper and out to the public at large. Shame on you for falling down on the job...again.

Let's try to get it right next time folk's. Otherwise you may lose even more readers.

Mrs. T. Barlow

*************************************************************

The Atlanta Constitution-Journal opinion piece of 5/12/05 just adds proof that the AJC is only interested in creating controversy and not fairness and accuracy in journalism. This attitude of portraying falsehoods reminds me of the last three women that I was in a relationship with.

My x-wife started the bonanza by fabricating verbal abuse and violence that never existed during the end of our relationship. My next girlfriend had found a copy of my divorce papers and at the end of our relationship she filed more false allegations against me.

Then, to continue the nightmare, the next low class and selfish woman I got into a relationship with knew all about my past, as I thought I could trust her, but, again, at the end of this relationship she used the gullibility of our system to bring more harm to me.

I suggest you look into the site www.ejfi.org and learn the facts about the common characteristics of dangerous women that are in our society in abundance. Had I been familiar with these facts, I would not have been involved with these women. Don't get me wrong; women are the essence of beauty when they have intelligence and moral integrity with no motives to bring harm to others. I have been in a relationship with such a woman for three years. The fact is, women have figured out how to manipulate the system and there is no due process or equal protection under the law. In respect to this bill, how can you say something is unfair when it is written to bring about fairness in dealing with the expenses of raising children?

Kerry W.

****************************************************************

Once again we see the "editorialists" spewing unsubstantiated, uneducated and ignorant propaganda from their pulpit at the AJC (Child support panel off balance, @ issue, 12 May 2005). Do some on the editorial staff have a vested interest in the status quo? This column reeks of Cynthia Tucker.

Why are you so prejudiced against real reform to a system that is archaic, unfair, unjust, turns "child support" into a form of hidden alimony and a weapon often abused by a vindictive ex spouse? What is it about the fact that "non-custodial parents" have expenses related to their children also that you don't understand? Do you really have the "best interest of the children at heart?

Federal law requires a review of the states guidelines every four years. Leading economists have testified at each review of the Georgia guidelines and shown that they EXCEED Federal guidelines but the recommendations are routinely ignored. So why put obstructionists like Mary Margaret Oliver and others who are against real, fair and just reform on the commission?

"Walk a mile" in a middle class, non-custodial parents shoes and come back and talk to me.

Robert B

*************************************************************

OUR OPINION

Child support panel off balance

Published on: 05/12/05

Men - most of them divorcés still feuding with their former spouses - dominated the debate that led to an overturning of Georgia child support guidelines in the General Assembly this year. And now men dominate the commission appointed to figure out how to apply the new guidelines fairly so children are not shortchanged.

The Georgia Commission on Child Support includes four judges, four legislators and seven at-large members. Ten of the 15 members are men, including the GOP lawmakers who spearheaded the drive to overhaul the way child support is calculated in Georgia, state Rep. Earl Ehrhart (R-Powder Springs) and Sen. Seth Harp (R-Midland).

Several commission members are respected jurists, including newly elected Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Debra Bernes of Marietta and Savannah Superior Court Judge Louisa Abbot. Their sense of balance will be essential as the commission has the critical role of creating the economic tables that will gird the new child support system. The new guidelines take into account the incomes of both parents after divorce and give financial discounts to the noncustodial parent for time spent with the children.

A notable omission from the commission is state Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver (D-Decatur), the Legislature's leading authority on family law and child welfare. Oliver would have undoubtedly expressed her reservations about the new income shares model. While proponents of the guidelines insist they will lead to fairer child support awards, it's clear that the real goal is not fairer awards, but lower ones.

Cranking up the mythology machine, the proponents descended on the Capitol with tales of unconscionable support orders that bankrupted fathers and enriched mothers. The supporters of the change espoused a bizarre logic: Yes, many Georgia fathers weren't paying their child support right now, but they would pay in far greater numbers if their awards were slashed.

So, let's get this straight. The father who is supposed to pay $200 a month in support of his kids but hasn't done so in a year will suddenly start writing checks if his award drops to $150? If the guy was capable all along of affording $150 a month, why didn't he at least pay that much rather than give nothing to his children?

Nobody at the Legislature asked those hard questions. Let us hope that members of the commission will.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opin ... child.html

The Father Vs. the Government >>> Part 1
The Father Vs. the Government >>> Part 2
The Father Vs. the Government >>> Part 3

© 2005 by Afromerica