Struggling Single Father Who is Penniless Hopeless and Despondent Decscribes the Life of Many

A single father just sent me the following brief albeit very profound email;

What do you do when they take so much support out of your check that it is literally pointless to try to work? When it costs you more in gas than what your paycheck is? What do you do when you are faced with being homeless in less than a month? When your phone is going to be shut off? I don’t see too many answers to these questions at this point.

Joe

My reply to Joe was as follows;

Joe,

I just wanted you to know that I received your email. I will do my best to respond later tonight by posting your email and my response (this one and what I’ll write later) on the blog. I will NOT identify you NOR disclose your email address.

If it’s okay with you, I’ll use only “Joe” as well as the body only of your email below. It’s important to put things like this on the blog so others around the world can see the hell that good and loving single (and remarried) fathers live in and go through, in order to be a part of our children’s lives.

Please listen to what I’m about to say; I know EXACTLY how you feel and I’ve been where you are. You CANNOT lose hope, and despite how hopeless your situation appears to you at this time. The day WILL COME that your situation starts improving.

Focus yourself on a better future, don’t focus on where you are today.

Sincerely,

Tony Fantetti
Ohio Council for Fathers Rights

And there you have it folks, in a nutshell. That’s the life that many (and I dare so most) single fathers are forced to live as a result of the unconscionable and immoral amounts of “child support” single fathers (under the threats of felony arrests, convictions and incarceration) are forced to pay.

Please bear with me as I digress for a bit.  I emphasize “child support” with quotes (almost always) because the money is rarely is spent on the child. It usually supports the noncustodial parent’s (a  ‘single mother’ 85% of the time) lifestyle  at the expense of the children.

Given that there are other issues I wish to address in this post besides a reply to Joe, I will divert from the nature of the email itself to explain other points, then will address Joe’s questions directly near the of this post.

There are studies out there (I apologize for not having links, but if you search hard enough you’ll find them) that state that only in about 35% of cases is the money actually spent on the child, and even then, only some of the funds are used to actually support the children.

It’s emails such as Joe’s, that fuels the indignation whereby my nearly unrestrained  wrath is unleashed on single moms (such as in the post directly below this one), who on a grand scale, unjustly and falsely label as “deadbeats” all single fathers who have unwillingly fallen behind on their “child support” obligations.

That louse with whom I had that exchange with, also went to “new depths of low” by asserting through an inference there exists no fathers who have been cut off from their children. Perhaps she would do well to open her misandrous eyes and read this piece by the highly regarded, extremely intelligent and well respected Wendy McElroy.

Back to not only Joe, but his children. We’re told that “child support” is in the best interest of the children. Really??? Joe is facing homelessness and is about to have his phone disconnected. Therefore, and presumably, his children will have no way to reach him.

Assuming he has a “visitation schedule” he will have no place for his children (nor himself) to stay after he’s homeless. Additionally, he’ll be without the means to contact his children after his phone is shut off for nonpayment. And finally, he has no money with which to buy food to feed himself or his kids.

Therefore, and as a direct result of being court-ordered to pay such an unconscionably high amount of “child support” because we’re told it’s “in the best interest of his children, Joe will be forced into homelessness, his phone will be disconnected for non-payment (so his children won’t be able to reach him), and because what remains of his paycheck isn’t enough to cover the cost of gas to get to work, we can probably correctly assume that he won’t have any money to purchase groceries for neither himself nor his children.

Now REMEMBER, we have been, and are CONTINUALLY told that this is in the “best interests of the children.” It’s therefore imperative that you understand and also remember that the State of Ohio “”PROFITS”” off of each and every one of not only Joe’s “child support” payments, but off of EVERY “child support” payment that’s made in the State of Ohio.

Moreover, the higher a fathers (or noncustodial mothers) “child support” payment is, the higher Ohio’s profit is from that very same order. I have therefore always maintained that “child support” is only in Ohio’s best financial interest. And that, at the expense, and on the backs of, Ohio’s precious and innocent children who are alleged to be the recipients of said orders, but that the aforementioned studies prove they rarely benefit from financially.

That the mother of Joe’s child(ren) and women like her who take so much (steal in my moral opinion) of their children’s father’s money that he’s left with almost nothing and will be homeless, destitute and penniless as a result, speaks volumes about their despicable lack of moral character and more importantly, their utter indolent indifference towards their child’s well being and best interest.

I allege indolent, because in my experience, nearly all of the mothers whose theft of the father’s income (through “child support”)  was so extreme that’s he’s ultimately bankrupted and homeless, the mother’s have been lazy slugs who did little or no work. Drug and/or alcohol addictions (on the mother’s part) were also a factor in many cases.

Indifferent because in cases such as Joe’s, the child’s relationship is severely and highly damaged as a direct result of the father’s indigence.

PLEASE NOTE that the last few paragraph’s are NOT meant as a broad indictment of all single moms, only those who steal so much of their children’s father’s income that they alone cause him to be financially destitute. I happily and willingly acknowledge that there are many good and loving single moms out there.

Now I will address you Joe directly and you asked me, “What do you do when they take so much support out of your check that it is literally pointless to try to work?” My genuine answer to you is that you keep working Joe. At this point, I suspect that just how incredibly stressful and dire your situation is most likely hasn’t fully sunk in because it sounds to me as if your still in emotional shock and utter disbelief.

You must believe that despite how completely isolated and alone you feel emotionally, there are millions of others who have and are going through EXACTLY what you are. I am one of those people Joe, and I can still very vividly asking my girlfriend (now my wife) 8 years ago, WHY AM I WORKING??? IT’S POINTLESS!!!

I like you Joe, went to work daily and worked up to 50 hours a week (I was a salaried employee) only to bring home nearly nothing after the $1,300 a month in “child support” and alimony (paid to someone more educated than myself) was deducted from my ‘net’ pay. I was not only not getting ahead, I was in the process of losing everything.

After 37 years of perfect credit (up to my divorce) I was then filing for bankruptcy and the foreclosure process on the three homes I owned back then had begun. So despite me getting up and going to work every day, I was falling further and further behind financially.

I was ultimately jailed, and fired from my job when the police (The Hamilton County “Fugitive Warrant Unit” went to my  place of employment to arrest me on a “CIVIL” contempt warrant related to my then pending divorce. I was ordered as part of the property trial to pay my daughter’s mother $50 per month in payments on $2,000 of “marital equity” that the court claimed existed one of my pre-marital rental properties where I was literally upside-down on after the housing bubble burst.

I pleaded with the judge to not order me to that payment not only because the equity didn’t exist, but because I had no money to pay with after that very same court ordered me to pay $1,300 per month in “child support” and alimony for one child-my very precious and equally awesome daughter whom I love very much and cherish more than words can describe.

When I didn’t make the payments after warning the court I couldn’t because they didn’t leave me enough of my own paycheck to pay with, I was found to be contempt and a warrant (Writ for Bodily Attachment) for my arrest was issued by the Domestic Relations judge.

Again, this was a “civil” warrant Joe. And when the police when to my place of employment, and right to my cubicle (I worked in a downtown office) to arrest me ( I was at the back fire exit watching them as the situation unfolded) my employer at the time fired me. They didn’t appreciate the cops coming to arrest me.

So after the court bankrupted me through my “child support” order, it then directly caused me to for the first time in my life, get terminated from a job, and they then jailed me because they were taking so much of my net pay for “child support”,  that I couldn’t pay the $50 per month I was ordered to on a pre-marital rental property where I was literally upside-down (as were most people) on the mortgage.  And this is the real-deal Joe, that really happened, you can’t make this stuff up!

As horrible and cold as this is going to sound Joe, please know that I’m sincere, and very cognizant of your feelings; with regard to working, please try to be thankful that you have a job, and even though you get no money for working because of how much your ex steals from you under the guise of “child support.”

You should have only a few goals right now.
1. STAY OUT OF JAIL and avoid a felony charge and conviction by paying your “child support” despite how immoral and criminal like that order is. And believe me, it’s my belief that morally, “child support” is the moral equivalency of theft, and I truly believe that it’s legalized thievery in most cases.

2. Find a place to live in the short term and consider your car if you have a safe place to park it when you sleep. Be aware of carbon monoxide poisoning if you’re running it for heat while you sleep in it.

3. Determine how you will pay for food.

4. Try to maintain some type of contact with your child(ren.)

5. No matter how badly you may be tempted, do not in any way disparage your ex in front of your child(ren), and refrain at all costs from arguing with her not only in front of the children) but at all, because it will do nothing but increase your stress levels exponentially.

I can’t stress this enough Joe; in spite of the fact that you aren’t making any money by working, and due to the excessive amounts of “child support” you must pay, you must keep working to avoid falling behind in your “child support” payments.

Statistically speaking, most of those (especially if you are someone who doesn’t make much money to begin with) who fall behind in their “child support” obligation and thereby go into arrears NEVER recover.

And the result for those that don’t is a felony indictment for criminal non-support of  a minor child, an ensuing felony conviction, and possible perpetual incarceration if the State of Ohio re-indicts you under a much more serious felony charge (since it’ll be your second charge) for criminal nonsupport of a minor child WHILE you’re incarcerated for your first offense!

That is no joke, and no exaggeration Joe! I’ve met fathers and wrote to them in jail who while they were incarcerated, were charged with a second more serious felony offense of criminal nonsupport of a minor child because they didn’t pay their “child support” while they were incarcerated.

And there’s a very good reason the State of Ohio does that. In doing so, they can assure that the incarcerated father will accrue such a high amount of “child support” arrears, interests and penalties, that they’ll for the rest of their lives, be paying “child support” on their “child.” And what that means, is for the rest of their lives, the State of Ohio will PROFIT off of that father’s payments.

You asked, “What do you do when you are faced with being homeless in less than a month?” Do you have any options at all Joe to live in someone’s basement, or on their couch, in their attic, or even in a tent on their property? Is there anyone at all, family or friend where you could live as described until you figure out a more permanent solution?

Another question you asked was, “What do you do when your phone is going to be shut off? You wouldn’t qualify for an  Obamaphone since you “make too much money”, so your options are very limited. Is there anyone in your life who you’re close enough to that they would put you on their cell phone plan?

I would like to know more about your situation so that I could perhaps suggest other solutions to you, are you willing to disclose more to me? Also, it would help if I knew where you were as there is some very limited help to fathers in some parts of Ohio.

In closing Joe. please know the following and BELIEVE it, as your life could depend on it depending on your mental state. I HAVE BEEN EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE. And for a very long time in my life back then, each “light at the end of the tunnel” was yet another train coming at me head on, and that when it hit me, would deliver yet another payload of destruction that would rain down misery, tragedy and or chaos or all three in my already upside-down and destroyed world.

But PLEASE KNOW THIS…In time things WILL get better, your life WILL come back together, and life will be wonderful again. There is a saying, “this too shall pass”, and it shall. I know, because I’ve been where you are.

I’m willing to walk with you through this Joe if you’re only willing to discuss. You can reply to me here on the blog, by email, or not at all, it’s your choice.

But do know this; I’ve been where you are, things WILL get better, life WILL be fun and happy again, and I do care about you and what you’re going through.

Sincerely,

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

This entry was posted in Child Support, Child Support Moms (CSMs), Emails from Others, Employment and Unemployment, Incarceration and Prison, Miscellaneous, Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA), Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) Abuses, Single Moms, Single Moms "by Choice", The Voices of Others, This is in the "Best Interests of the Children?", Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Struggling Single Father Who is Penniless Hopeless and Despondent Decscribes the Life of Many

  1. Robert Guenterberg says:

    Your post is stupid…I paid child support for the devil child…the b**** got z$24,000 more in child support because I am disabled and she got SSDI auxiliary benefits.The devil child is now 24..now my ex hired an attorney and I go to court for a hearing because she says I am in contempt of not paying all my child support from 15 years ago..I never even knew I had any arrears since she got the SSDI benefits..why did this b**** wait? She says that she wanted to nail me for over $40,000 in interest..she now says I will pay her for the rest of my life..don’!t give me shit about being a sperm donor..I was stupid for marrying this b****…a 2 year misteak is costing me my life..I would rather be dead than to pay this blood sucking b**** another dime…she sure liked the SSDI payments that were twice that of the child support for 8 years..never heard from this***** since 1993..now she wants to claim I owe her $60,000.00 This means all the years of child support paid was just a gift…child support services still tell me that The case is closed and I owe nothing…I will take a bullet…

    • Tony Fantetti says:

      I would venture to guess that she didn’t “wait.” What I suspect happened is that she recently discovered that since you didn’t pay “child support” through the CSEA, she found out what Ohio statutes state; “that any monies NOT paid through the CSEA are deemed gifts.” In such cases, “child support” was “never paid” from a legal perspective. What your ex is, is a thief, if what you allege is in fact true.

  2. Stacy says:

    I am a 31 yr old single mom of a 9 yr old girl. I am in school writing an essay and stumbled across this post doing some research. I recognize the fact that the author made an attempt at being somewhat impartial by recognizing that all single moms are not “thieves”. I would like to get a better understanding on his perspective. When he states that, “only in about 35% of cases is the money actually spent on the child, and even then, only some of the funds are used to actually support the children,” it makes it seem as if the mom’s are just living it up and the child is going without. In these cases, are the mothers driving a Benz while the kids have holes in their shoes? Please clarify…

    In my particular case, I have a verbal agreement with my ex. I work 2 jobs and go to school and still have a tough time paying just mortgage, utilities, phone etc. My ex is supposed to give me $100 every other week. At the time of this post it will be a month, this Wednesday since he has given me anything. If one week I take the money that he gives me and put that toward my mortgage, is that contributing to my “lifestyle” or does that fall under your idea for what is considered support of the child?

    I work with a large number of men and have heard this complaint from them before, so I would like to get your thoughts on the issue. In my opinion, if I have my child 75% of the week, AT MINIMUM, then the money that I get should be appropriated as I see fit to maintain a proper household for my child. I hear a lot of fathers bitching about how much they are forced to pay but make NO effort to take on more of the day to day tasks that go along with raising a child. I am not in child support court so I don’t know the particulars, however, if fathers physically had their children more, couldn’t they argue for having to pay less support since they are in possession of the child?

    I would gladly give up the sporadic hundred dollar payments that I’m lucky to get twice a month for some actual help! Keep her an extra night, take her to school in the morning, do the homework/dinner/shower/bedtime routine. As of now, I’m lucky if he keeps her for a whole weekend and picks her up on time from the sitter, THE ONE NIGHT that he is tasked with to pick her up. Like all full time parents know, it’s not just money that is needed to raise a child. It’s a joy but also physically and emotionally draining and time consuming! When forced with the decision to either become full time single dads or pay child support, I have never personally seen or heard of a man who chose taking his children full time in order to avoid having to pay child support. I’m not saying it’s never happened, just saying that I’ve never seen it. But single mothers day in and day out do the everyday tasks that have no monetary value.

    • Tony Fantetti says:

      Stacy,

      My responses to your questions and comments are found among other things in the forthcoming.

      ” I recognize the fact that the author made an attempt at being somewhat impartial by recognizing that all single moms are not “thieves”. I would like to get a better understanding on his perspective. When he states that, “only in about 35% of cases is the money actually spent on the child, and even then, only some of the funds are used to actually support the children,” it makes it seem as if the mom’s are just living it up and the child is going without. In these cases, are the mothers driving a Benz while the kids have holes in their shoes? Please clarify…”

      Whether the mothers are “living it up” is irrelevant in my opinion. Some are, and some aren’t. A “single mom” who is collecting thousands of dollars a month cash in “child support” dollars is likely living very comfortably. The study I referenced was very clear; in most cases, “child support” dollars were not spent on the children for whom that order was set. In the 35% of the cases where money was spend on the children, not all of it was. The fact is, that the whole concept behind “child support” is that said money is the child’s, not the custodial parent’s, and it should therefore be spent only on the child.

      But to answer your question about the mothers ‘living it up.’ I’ve seen it in numerous cases, especially where mom has a drug or alcohol problem. In one case, the child slept on the floor of her apartment for a year because she had no bed. That was due to her mother spending over $1000 per month in ‘child support’ to feed not only her alcoholism, but other selfish desires that enhanced her own lifestyle at the expense of the child’s.

      In other cases I’ve been involved with, the father, due to his monthly child support obligation is financially unable to provide a roof over his own head, sufficiently feed himself, or buy himself a car. He lived as described, as well as in abject poverty while the mother lived comfortably off his child support payments. That scenario, one where mom lives fine while the child support paying father lives in poverty is what I consider the norm in the case of most blue collar and some white collar child support paying fathers. It’s not speculation, not conjecture, it’s fact. I’ve spoken with fathers who after their child support obligation was deducted from their pay, had less than $200 per month to support themselves. Especially where job loss in involved. When I lost my last job, my motion to reduce my “child support”order (which was about $950 per month at the time) was denied.

      As a result, half of my weekly unemployment benefits were seized for ‘child support’, and I was left with a meager $880 per month to support a family of five with gasoline over $4.00 per gallon. Such a scenario, where a single child support paying father has only hundreds of dollars a month to support himself is very common. It’s simply not spoken of in the media as it isn’t politically correct and exposes an obvious and incontrovertible truth; that being, that in many cases, children are clearly harmed by their father’s financially unbearable “child support” order. By the way, I often put “child support” in quotes, because it’s anything but in many cases.

      Justifying the payment of a mortgage, rent, utilities with child support dollars or paying any other common household expense that anyone supporting themselves would have, isn’t spending the monies on the child in my opinion, but in truth, that’s just splitting hairs. The fact is, whether you have children or not, there are some expenses that you have, and a mortgage or rent is usually one of those. Utilities, fuel and auto expenses are others. Child support in my humble opinion is simply morally wrong in most cases.

      Justifying the taking of another person’s money, despite it being legal, is nothing more than legally sanctioned theft in some cases. And the person doing it, is the moral equivalent of a thief, as they are taking something that isn’t theirs. There are many things that are legal, but are also immoral and therefore wrong. Obviously to an immoral person, such is irrelevant. However, I’m of the opinion that we will all one day give an account for all that we’ve done in life, and it is on that day, that I believe justice will be delivered.

      Back to my point; I, and millions of other fathers did not ask nor consent to having our children taken away from us, us being kicked out of their lives, and thereby never knowing nor experiencing those day-to-day things, comments, events and experiences that the custodial parent (mothers in 84% of cases nationwide) have the privilege and joy of experiencing, and ONLY because some court (and due to a clear anti-father bias) didn’t deem them to be a ‘non-custodial’ parent. Said otherwise, the noncustodial parent is turned into a paying visitor of their own children, and most didn’t ask for it nor deserve it, and neither do the children.

      The effects of faithlessness and absent fathers on children is well documented, incontrovertible, and incredibly damaging for both girls and boys. The chance of teen (and earlier) pregnancy for girls (without an “active” father in their life) is increased dramatically. Incarceration rates for fatherless boys are higher. Drug abuse for both sexes in higher among fatherless children. Search for yourself and you quickly find just how damaging it is.

      Also search for the effects of motherless on children and you’ll find very little. And that to me is very alarming and speaks to just how important a father’s influence is on a child’s life. Not that a mother’s isn’t important, because it obviously is. But how damaging to a child an absent father is proven to be says a lot.

      In addition to that, what I find interesting is the growing number of complaints from young women about the lack of “real men.” The complaints of “feminine men”, “mama’s boys” and “men lacking the masculine traits of old” are not without merit nor coincidental in my opinion. They seem to be proportionate to the rise of single motherhood over the past two decades. Any man knows that learning to be a man and become a man is not something that can be instilled by a woman, it takes a man. If you don’t believe that, look at the growth rates of gangs, as well as what it is that male gang members are seeking.

      Back to the children and single fathers; the children involved didn’t ask for nor do they deserve not having a full time father in their lives. In MANY cases, noncustodial fathers have their children with them for less than 15% of their lives by court-order, and that’s abject child abuse. Especially in light of the damage done to the children as a result, which is permanent, as it forever alters their psyche. So they’re in essence damaged for life. I find it both disgusting and offensive that this is never discussed by the media, academics, the government or single mothers themselves. The complaints always revolve around how terrible the father is, child support, and the single mom’s endless and exhaustive responsibilities, and despite her choosing to be single.

      All we ever hear about is that “poor single mother” who in many cases not only selfishly and unilaterally CHOSE to become a single mother, she also chose for her children, that they would for all intent and purposes grow up without an active father in their lives. And that choice of hers, will in many ways forever damage the children. Obviously there are cases where a mother must choose to raise her children without the father, but such are aberrations and not the norm. However, according to the media and most single mothers, they “had no choice” but to leave the father and thereby deprive the children of the same.

      That’s yet another lie as most mothers choose to become single mothers for their own selfish reasons. I’m of the opinion that it’s time for these same women to own up to and accept full responsibility for what they’ve done to the fathers and the children involved.

      I don’t expect that this will be well received by you, and regardless of your own situation. And while I mention your situation, I don’t know enough about it to render my own opinion, so I’ve answered your questions as best as I could. I can say that from what you wrote, it appears to me that you take no responsibility for being a “single mom,” and you may or may not be morally justified in being one. But that’s between you and your Maker. However, I would like to add (and despite your comment implying that I feign impartiality), that I have advised some single moms to leave their children’s father and to do everything in their power to prevent the dad from having any contact whatsoever with his children. So despite your allegations, my objective is and always has been to seek what’s truly in the best interests of the children.

      So with that in mind Stacy, and to your comment about me being “somewhat impartial by recognizing not all single moms are thieves,” this isn’t about me being impartial, it’s about me speaking of absolute truth with regard to morals as I see them, and as they pertain to child support, and I know right and wrong when I see it. And the fact is, taking another person’s money, even though it’s legal under the guise of supporting a child is morally wrong in most cases.

      Said cases are defined as those where that child support paying parent (usually the father) didn’t ask and never agreed to be kicked out of their child’s life in the first place. They were forced out, unwillingly, through what I euphemistically refer to as court-ordered father absenteeism, and without moral just cause. Adding insult to injury, we fathers are usually demonized, lectured, and said to be “absent from our children’s lives” as if we chose to or wanted to be. In fact it’s quite to the contrary, and if we try to get more involved we can be jailed for violating a “visitation schedule” that we never asked to be a part of anyway.

      The whole concept of child support is as backwards as it is outdated. To those moms who like to complain about what they aren’t getting I offer this; give the father full custody and he’ll demand no “child support.” And you know what I’ve found? That never sits well for two reasons; one, money and two, they don’t want to become visitors (even nonpaying ones) of their own children. But it’s okay (in their eyes) that they force the same upon the father of their children, and then demand and take via the courts, a good portion of his monthly net income. That’s theft Stacy, plain and simple.

      I find this point you made rather interesting, and take issue with your use of “most.”

      “I hear a lot of fathers bitching about how much they are forced to pay but make NO effort to take on more of the day to day tasks that go along with raising a child. I am not in child support court so I don’t know the particulars, however, if fathers physically had their children more, couldn’t they argue for having to pay less support since they are in possession of the child? “

      First and foremost, those same fathers are FORBIDDEN under the threat of incarceration (and arrest if a warrant has been issued) from “taking on more and more of the day to day tasks” as you suggest. The can only spend as many hours per week with their children as their court-ordered “visitation schedules” allow. If they dare to take the child more than that, then they’re in contempt of a court order and can be fined and jailed. I suggest they be given full custody so they can take on more day-to-day responsibility as that’s a GIFT not the unrewarding and cumbersome chore that so many single moms make it out to be. Don’t believe me?

      As a noncustodial parent, even if you only live around the block from your child, it’s no different than living thousands of miles away as your ability to truly get to know your child has been forever taken away from you. Those thousands of childhood memories, memories that require time spent together to make, will forever be lost as your ability to make them have been forcefully taken away from you, the noncustodial parent. And they were taken away without just cause, for no good reason, and 100% against your will.

      With regard to this question, “if fathers physically had their children more, couldn’t they argue for having to pay less support since they are in possession of the child?” Under Ohio law, a downward modification of the child support order is “supposed” to be granted for extended parenting time but isn’t always granted as it should be. Additionally, this is the main reason that many custodial moms argue to limit or have the court completely revoke all parenting time from the noncustodial father; so they can secure more “child support.”

      However, your question raises an entirely different point. If the noncustodial father has 50% or more parenting time, then why should he be ordered to pay anything at all in the form of “child support” to the custodial mother? Especially considering that he’s likely paying hundreds of dollars (or more) for health insurance on the child and likely responsible for the mothers out-of-pocket medical expenses. The father has to provide food for the children when they are with him, he has to provide clothes, a roof over their heads and most of those exact same expenses that the custodial mother claims to have.

      With that having been said Stacy, I appreciate your questions as well as your desire to understand my position, but until you understand what drives it, you can’t and won’t. And what I explained many paragraphs ago, the loss of memories, the loss of time spent with my daughter, the loss of the ability to get to know her and EXPERIENCE her childhood as well as the gift of getting to know her on a deeper level has been forever stolen from both her and I, and I’ve also been forced to pay financially for that, in the six figure range when it’s all said and done, and don’t forget the tens of thousands in taxes, health insurance and out-of-pocket medical expenses that will be paid by me as well. And that, despite me having her exactly 50% of the time for years. Yet I never asked for nor agreed to this. In fact, I was so much against it that I refused to sign my divorce decree and told the judge, “I’m not signing it, I refuse to sign it, and you can throw me in jail and I still won’t sign it.”

      I and many other fathers would gladly take full custody of our children and expect nor desire no “child support” in doing so, however the mothers involved won’t agree to that as it’s “not acceptable” to them. Well then, why should the same AND the expectation of “child support” payments be acceptable to fathers?

      I found your post to seem sincere until I read this comment,

      “Like all full time parents know, it’s not just money that is needed to raise a child. It’s a joy but also physically and emotionally draining and time consuming! When forced with the decision to either become full time single dads or pay child support, I have never personally seen or heard of a man who chose taking his children full time in order to avoid having to pay child support. I’m not saying it’s never happened, just saying that I’ve never seen it. But single mothers day in and day out do the everyday tasks that have no monetary value.

      First and foremost, that’s incredibly insulting, demeaning, and very condescending among other things, but what I can’t determine is if you’re being sincere, or if that’s an outright backhanded insult. If it is, then I’ve wasted a lot of time with everything I’ve written herein. I have seen thousands of cases, and have NEVER come across a father who didn’t want full custody of his children. Additionally, and for reasons I can’t fully explain, many fathers without question would refuse to accept child support from the mother. I personally wouldn’t accept it as I would find doing so degrading. I’ve also conversed in some form with many single mothers over the years, and I’ve never met one who wouldn’t accept child support. So I believe it can be safely said that her getting financial support from the father of the children is perhaps one of, of not the biggest driver of seeking sole custody. How many women wouldn’t demand full custody if they weren’t making money from doing so? And a single mom getting hundreds, a thousand, or thousands of dollars a month in “child support” is clearly making money if said funds aren’t placed in an account for the child.

      Also, the majority of fathers, and in addition to child support, are also court-ordered to pay for and carry health insurance on the child and to pay most if not all of the mother’s out-of-pocket medical expenses on the child. Well, isn’t that what “child support” is for? However, I rarely hear of single mothers mentioning this additional expense (sometimes $500-$1000 per month) that fathers must pay. Shouldn’t the mother have to pay half of that cost? And why are fathers generally saddled (in Ohio at least) with nearly all of the child’s out-of-pocket medical expenses?

      You also said,

      “I would gladly give up the sporadic hundred dollar payments that I’m lucky to get twice a month for some actual help! Keep her an extra night, take her to school in the morning, do the homework/dinner/shower/bedtime routine.”

      . Again, I would like to point out how you present such tasks as burdensome, whereas many single fathers, and to be more specific, those who didn’t ask for nor agree to become single fathers, would trade the world to have the opportunity to be blessed with the memories of doing the same. Again, it’s interesting how many single mothers tend to complain about such things and also find them “tiresome, exhausting and cumbersome”, while many single fathers would consider the same to be an honor, privilege and a blessing, and would welcome with open arms, such an opportunity to be a part of our child’s life on a daily basis. However, such and opportunity has been taken not only from us, but from our children as well, and none of us asked for it. It was forced upon us against our will in most cases.

      Sincerely,

      Tony Fantetti

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>