Are “Single Moms by Choice” Heroines or Villains?

Before proceeding, I want to clarify the following; This article is not directed at mothers who divorced for legitimate reasons or are single through no fault of their own.

It’s directed at those “child support moms” who either chose to be a “single mom” because they didn’t (and don’t) want to marry  the father of “their” children, or they divorced the father of their children out of nothing more than self-serving and selfish reasons (that were thinly veiled as “legitimate”), or they intentionally deceived the father of “their” children so as to become pregnant, and unknowing to him, and lastly, it’s directed at the most selfish and self-centered type of “single mom by choice.”

They are those women who have that “you go girl” attitude and thereby aren’t just proud about bringing fatherless children into the world, they’re incredibly ostentatious and extremely dogmatic as they pontificate their reasons why fathers “aren’t needed” to raise children. Sadly, and like most other “single moms by choice,” they too are wrongfully worshiped and idolized as heroines when in my humble opinion they are in fact villains as I’ll explain.

What is a villain? In a general sense, they are those who oppose a hero.  Used in a sentence, we have for example this from an online dictionary: “Don’t try to make me the villain. It’s your own fault that you’re having these problems.”

I can remember a time when the norm was that mom was considered a nurturer, and dad was “Superman” or a “hero.” If you hurt or were sad, melancholy etc, you generally went to mom for comforting.

If you needed something fixed, or needed help with “the impossible” or needed protection from a bully etc, you went to dad because “dad could do anything” and was “the strongest man in the world,” end of story.

Today, and due to both feminism and a media that caters to feminists, we’re told (sometimes explicitly, other times implicitly) that dads are, “not needed,” “deadbeats”, “incompetent”, “lazy”, “ineffectual,” “uncaring,” “dolts” etc etc. In short, moms are sent from Heaven, while dads are agents of Satan, and (just like with Satan) the world would be a much better place without him.

So dad, (like Satan) is then “cast out” of the family, and the reasons for mom doing so are as innumerable as the stars, and justifiable simply because “mom says so.”

Additionally, some of the alleged reasons given by her are “to protect the children,” “because he’s a scoundrel”, “he scares me”, and “he scares the children,” “he’s “violent;”” and that despite there not being one shred of evidence to substantiate such an allegation in many cases.” In short, dad is said to be whatever mom claims he is, only much worse.

Why? Well, it’s very simple; for there to be a hero, there has to exist a villain. For instance, we hear so much about “the struggling single mom.” Most of the time, she’s said to be struggling to “provide for the children,” and she “does the best she can considering.” The problem in such a scenario? Nine times out of ten, we’re told it’s said to be “dad”, aka the “villain” who’s to blame for all of said single mom’s problems.

Even worse, and what we never hear from the media is that the majority of these moms “chose” to become single moms, and in many cases for reasons that were self-serving only when they kicked their father’s children out of their lives. We are therefore expected to pity and feel sorry for these same moms who then complain about the very situation that they alone created.

They unilaterally decided to kick dad out of his children’s lives, and then they blame him for their problems after they do so? Am I really the only one who has a problem with this? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy and wasted pity in such a scenario?

We’re told (by the media, politicians, celebrities etc) day in and day out that the biggest problem with “single dads” (who most by the way are NOT single by choice), is that they allegedly “don’t pay their child support”or they don’t “pay enough child support” and it’s therefore implied that single/divorced dads are “villains.”

Lets  quickly deconstruct the “he doesn’t pay child support” or the “he doesn’t pay enough child support” whine that many a bleater incessantly complains about.

1. In the overwhelming majority of “single mom” cases, she chose to be a single mom. Hence the term I prefer, “single mom by choice.”
2. If you kicked the father of “your” children out of their lives, why don’t you also kick his wallet of your life as well,  and support yourself with your own money as adults are expected to do?
3. I saw a study whereby it was determined that only about 30% of a father’s “child support” payments were actually spent on the child(ren). The rest supported the mother’s lifestyle. Additionally, 30% was said to be a “generous” amount.
4. Why should a father, whom you unilaterally kicked out of his children’s lives pay you anything? Said otherwise, why should you be financially rewarded for forcing your children to grow up without a father in their lives?
5. Instead of you being paid child support, how about you agree to give the father full custody, you pay him “no” child support whatsoever, and you visit the children in his house that you let him keep (along with the car) after you unilaterally decided you wanted a divorce and considering that he was against it?
6. In today’s times, it’s a statistical fact that now, more women than men are entering and graduating from college. Additionally, I believe that there are nearly equal numbers of men and women pursuing Engineering and Science degrees. So why are men still paying “child support” to women? After all, it’s equal rights right?
7. Mothers are said to be the “primary caregivers” of the children. Yet there’s about an equal number of men and women in the workforce, and more women than men attending college. That said, “daycare centers” are the primary caregivers of children in most households. Look around college campuses and you’ll see that more and more of them have clothing stores “for babies.” For what you say? Why it’s for the single mom by choice who’s collecting “child support” and going to college full time while the father of “her” children pays her “child support” and pays “her” daycare costs so she can attend classes all day while her children sit in daycare. Is that really just, equitable, fair, and most importantly in the best interest of the children?

If your answer to number 5  above is “no,” then please comment on this post and give me one substantiated and justifiable reason that you won’t agree to number 5 if your sole motive is not money, and therefore selfish greed at the expense of your children.

The definition of a wretch is, “: a miserable person : one who is profoundly unhappy or in great misfortune.” Many a single moms by choice do nothing but complain about how miserable their lives are, and because they allege, the father of their children either a) doesn’t pay “child support”, or b) doesn’t pay “enough” ‘child support’ according to her.

A wretch is also a synonym for villain. Additionally, and as I demonstrated earlier, a dictionary example of using villain in a sentence is this: “Don’t try to make me the villain. It’s your own fault that you’re having these problems.”

Time and time again, I see on TV, hear on radio, or read on blogs and in newspapers countless “single moms by choice”, or politicians and or Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency (Ohio CSEA) officials (speaking on behalf of single moms by choice) blame single or divorced dads for a child support mom’s woes.

Additionally, and what the public doesn’t know, is that in many of those same cases, those single moms by choice won’t “allow” the father of her children to see or talk to them. And that, only because she’s so full of unanswered hatred and vengeance towards him, that she’ll punish him to no end and at all costs for her problems and her miserable conditions that she alone created but blames him for, because she unilaterally kicked him out of his child’s life.

What these single child support moms by choice truly need to come to terms with for the sake of the innocent and precious children involved (who didn’t ask to be thrust into any of this, and thereby have their worlds turned upside down and destroyed) is this; she must learn to love her children more than she hates their father. Until she does so, the innocent children will continue to suffer, and she’ll be incapable of acting in the their best interests.

In closing, this post is not meant to “bash moms” nor is my intent to engage in misogyny, for I am not a misogynist. Rather, I am a voice for the truth.

Additionally, I am one who can’t no longer sit silently while countless good and loving fathers are turned into “paying visitors” of their own children, and through no choice nor fault of their own.

Many fathers didn’t ask, nor did they ever agree to have their children ripped out of their lives. In the process, they’re vilified and marginalized by the press, public, politicians, and most importantly, by the very mothers who for no good or justifiable reason (and often times out of nothing more than self-serving greed) decided one day that “her” children would henceforth be “fatherless.”

Therefore, a mother who unilaterally and out of her own self-serving, selfish and unjustifiable reasons decides to be a “single mom by choice” is anything but a heroine in my humble opinion, she is to the contrary; a villain.

The true heroes are the fathers who through no choice of their own, and despite being kicked out of their children’s lives, go to great lengths and facing near impossible odds, will stop at nothing in their efforts to somehow stay involved in the lives of their precious kids.

So the next time you’re in the grocery store or at the movies, a school function, or wherever you are; look around you and observe just how many single moms you see and consider how many of those “chose” (through an unjustifiable self-serving reason or reasons only) to be single moms. Trust me when I say that you’ll see few wedding bands.

Obviously, you won’t know the reasons why she’s single, but I can tell you that if she chose to be single through divorce , then statistically speaking, her reasons for doing so were probably self-serving ones.

Next, look at the children with those moms and consider that they’ll either grow up fatherless, or have very little contact with their fathers because in many cases mom (out of nothing more than her self-serving reasons) decided that “her” children aren’t going to see their father, and he won’t be a part of their lives as would the father to children of a mother who chose to marry or stay married.

Considering this, “Don’t try to make me the villain. It’s your own fault that you’re having these problems”, this, “What is a villain? In a general sense, they are those who oppose a hero,” this, “The definition of a wretch is, “: a miserable person : one who is profoundly unhappy or in great misfortune,” and finally this, “A wretch is also a synonym for villain;” Is the single mom by choice as described herein in your opinion truly a heroine, or a villain?

Again, I do not direct what’s contained herein at widows or moms who really needed to divorce for good reason. What I’ve written is directed at “child support moms” and “single moms by choice” who are such without just cause.

Respectfully,

Tony Fantetti
Ohio Council for Fathers Rights
tony.fantetti(at)ocffr(dot)org

This entry was posted in Child Support, Single Moms "by Choice", Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Are “Single Moms by Choice” Heroines or Villains?

  1. Judy,

    Your grandson will only have the “right” to pay child support until an Ohio judge says otherwise by issuing a “visitation order” that won’t be issued until a party files the proper motion with the Court. In reality though, his “rights” to see his son will be determined by the mother of his child for the most part.

    By that, I mean that even if there is a valid court order whereby he’s granted “visitation” rights, the child’s mother can violate that order with impunity, as such an order is not enforceable by the police, nor Ohio’s CSEAs.

    In truth, the CSEAs couldn’t care less about a father seeing his children. They in fact go to great lengths to separate fathers from their children using means such as suspending his drivers license (and he therefore can’t drive to see his children), and incarcerating him after he unwillingly falls behind in his “child support” obligation after losing his job (through no fault of his own) in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

    That leaves on the Court that issued the “visitation” order to enforce it. But such enforcement isn’t automatic, it requires that the father (or his attorney if he’s represented) to file a “Motion for Contempt.”

    Assuming she’s found guilty of contempt, chances are she’ll merely be “slapped on the wrist” and warned not to do it again. If she does it again, the aforementioned will play out again, and again and again… I don’t mean to be facetious, but it’s an unfortunate truth that many courts do little to nothing to punish a mother who disobeys a “visitation order.”

    Additionally, you’re correct in your assertion that he’ll have to pay back to the State of Ohio, the welfare checks that she draws. That’s another reason that “child support” enforcement measures are so punitive in nature; Ohio “wants its welfare monies (that were paid to her) back,” and will go to great lengths to get them back. Because he fathered a child with welfare recipient, he’s now “on the hook” for her welfare payments.

    The only chance he’ll have of “visitation” is through a court order, and the CSEAs nor the State of Ohio will provide a free attorney to a father so “visitation rights” can be established. They’ll gladly provide a free attorney to a mother seeking assistance with collecting on a “child support” order, but couldn’t care less about children seeing their fathers and vice versa.

    That’s because Ohio earns a profit off of “child support” orders through the Title IV D “Federal Incentive Match” of the Social Security Act . There’s no money for Ohio to make by establishing “visitation orders” with fathers. In fact, it’s quite to the contrary, the State of Ohio financially “profits” by separating fathers from their children. So it’s not (nor has it even been) about the child’s “best interests,” but rather it’s about (and always has been) Ohio’s best “financial interests.” Especially in these terrible economic times; Ohio more than ever depends on its profits from statewide “child support” collections.

  2. Judy says:

    My 21 yr. old grandson in in prison. Wants to see his 4 yr.old son badly. Loves him very much. He did not marry the mother. She will not let him go to visit his dad. She draws monthly checks from the state that I am sure he will have to pay back when he gets out of prison. He will pay child support also. What rights does he have? He does not want to lose contact with him.

  3. Pam says:

    Tony – thank you for posting your story, for highlighting this widespread and ongoing injustice, and for continuing to provide an open forum for discussion of these issues.

    I have been on both sides of the child support line, and can fully empathize with your plight.

    I am a single mom of three kids ages 19, 17, and 8, divorced twice (both times, my idea). My first husband and I have each had times when we were responsible for paying support for our two kids. It’s my second husband (and our 8 year old son) I will be referring to here.

    In response to this post, specifically, item 5:

    I do not receive child support.

    I did not give him full custody, but we have a 50/50 shared parenting agreement and are both considered to be the “custodial parent”. I agreed to this because I recognize that no matter how bad a husband he may have been, he is still my son’s father. However inadequate he is as a dad (doesn’t see to our son’s basic hygiene, takes the boy with him to bars and “band practice” in his friend’s basement where all the adults are drinking, and regularly dumps him off at grandma’s house where four adult 2-pack-a-day smokers live) – a child needs to have both parents.

    I do pay him child support, because even when he was working full time during the marriage, his salary maxed out at about 50% of mine.

    I let him keep the house – even though the mortgage was in my name – and he let it go to foreclosure before getting it refinanced as promised (further wrecking my good credit). Since then, he’s been living rent-free in his parent’s rental property. I would have given him a car, but he never got his driver’s license reinstated after his two DUIs.

    Yes, I unilaterally decided I wanted a divorce. He was adamantly against it (read: against losing his meal ticket).

    I have been my ex’s primary means of support since he was fired from his job four years ago for insubordination. Considering that dad has only worked part-time minimum wage for about six months of the last 48, yet lives rent-free, carries a cell phone, and has satellite TV — and I buy our son’s clothes, shoes, and toys, pay 100% of health insurance, medical bills, school fees, extra-curricular activities, etc – plus food and whatever other needs he has for the 50% of time he’s with me — I wonder how much of the child support I pay every month goes for the care and support of our child?

    I recognize the clear, long-standing gender bias against men in all matters having to do with divorce, custody, and support. By NO MEANS do I agree with the money-hungry females who abuse this system. I understand that in the vast majority of cases, it is the father who pays. However, sometimes it is the mom who pays.

    Sometimes, it is the mom who gets unfairly labeled as a “deadbeat”, and who faces having her driver’s license suspended, tax refunds withheld, credit score ruined, etc – through no fault of her own – but because of the inability of her employer to process a support demand promptly.

    All that said, I don’t complain about paying support, because (even though I don’t agree with the system, how it is managed, or the horrible things they do to people who are obligated to pay) it is my duty to support my child.

    Respectfully –

    A Paying Mom, “single by choice”

    • Tony Fantetti says:

      Pam,

      First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to share your story, I truly appreciate your doing so.

      Next, and equally important, please know that I do my best to choose my words carefully, as I’m fully aware that much of what I write is considered “controversial.” That said, you personally aren’t the “single mom by choice” that I regularly write about, and that this particular post was directed at.

      Additionally, I don’t stand in judgment of others for their choice to divorce as it’s none of my business nor do I care. What I speak out against are women who choose to raise “fatherless” children, as well as those who separate fathers from their children and thereby both willingly and very intentionally benefit financially through “child support” etc at the expense of their child.

      I despise nothing more than a mother (or father) who as the sole custodial and residential parent collects significant amounts of “child support,” intentionally engages in parental alienation (whereby they attempt to turn the children against the other parent), spends “their ‘child support'” on themselves and neglect the children in the process.

      You said in part;

      “I have been my ex’s primary means of support since he was fired from his job four years ago for insubordination. Considering that dad has only worked part-time minimum wage for about six months of the last 48, yet lives rent-free, carries a cell phone, and has satellite TV — and I buy our son’s clothes, shoes, and toys, pay 100% of health insurance, medical bills, school fees, extra-curricular activities, etc – plus food and whatever other needs he has for the 50% of time he’s with me — I wonder how much of the child support I pay every month goes for the care and support of our child?”

      That as you know is despicable. Additionally, and based on what you said, I think anyone with a little common sense knows where your “child support” payments are going, and it’s not to support your son. Truthfully, I think it’s morally wrong that you’re forced to pay any “child support” when you have your son 50% of the time. But just consider that it’s all about Ohio’s profit and nothing more, and it makes perfect sense.

      It’s by design that Ohio’s statutes state that, “child support is presumed to be spent on the child.” By not forcing any accountability as to how “child support” payments are spent by the obligee (the “child support” receiving parent), Ohio is able to further maximize its profit off of your “child support” payments.

      I do find what you said here rather interesting,

      “All that said, I don’t complain about paying support, because (even though I don’t agree with the system, how it is managed, or the horrible things they do to people who are obligated to pay) it is my duty to support my child.”

      And I agree with you, it is your duty to support your child, and you do that when he’s with you 50% of the time. Therefore, and in my opinion, you and the many other parents who are fortunate enough to have their child half the time should be paying no “child support” in most cases. Why is it that society looks only at “child support” as the only (and most important) means of supporting a child?

      There are thousands of parental duties that loving parents willingly and happily perform for their children, and many of those in my humble opinion are far more important than child support. If the State of Ohio were truly concerned about child support being paid (rather than the profit Ohio “earns” on those payments) then it would enact statutes that force accountability with regard to how those dollars are spent. As it stands, “child support” debit cards can (and are) be used in casinos and bars, and can be used to book vacations etc.

      You also said,

      “Sometimes, it is the mom who gets unfairly labeled as a “deadbeat”, and who faces having her driver’s license suspended, tax refunds withheld, credit score ruined, etc – through no fault of her own – but because of the inability of her employer to process a support demand promptly.”

      And I agree with you 100% Pam. I’ve said time and again, that the only thing worse than being a noncustodial dad is being a noncustodial mom. Perhaps I should add to that a “child support paying mom.”

      One of the most heartbreaking stories I heard was from a noncustodial child support paying mother whose children and everything she owned were stolen from her through a well connected and wealthy ex-husband. He completely separated that mother from her children, and she had no communication with them whatsoever. Although I haven’t heard from her in years, to this day I still think about that day she broke down on the phone as she told her story to me; it was utterly heart wrenching. And it’s exactly that side of the “child support story” that’s far more common that most people think, and those at the State level in the system couldn’t care less.

      In closing Pam I wish to reiterate that what I wrote in the article above is not directed at the single moms like yourself who “don’t” alienate their children from their fathers, and aren’t collecting “child support” that the children see nothing of. Rather, what I wrote is directed at those like the ex-husband that you described.

      Sincerely,

      Tony