Single Working Mother Hatefully Denigrates all Single Fathers who’ve Fallen Behind on their “Child Support” Obligations

I generally don’t waste the precious time that I did “debating”  people such as the  contentious woman with whom I had the conversation with here. However, her unwarranted attack on myself and all single dads with her snide and hateful comments such as found in her last paragraph where she stated the following needed to be addressed:

“Ohioans would be more sympathetic if there were not so many dads who simply ignore their responsibility to their child[ren]. After all, they end up suffering the worst… and I hear no concern for the children of that in any of these posts.”

Amazingly, after she repeats the baseless and worn out lie that there’s these huge numbers of fathers who’ve walked out of their children’s lives, when the reality is, it’s women like her who after proclaiming their “for better or for worse” vow, kicked a father out of his children’s life.

And if that weren’t bad enough, the father must put up with being attacked, denigrated and engaged by women such as her, in his efforts to maintain some role in their children’s lives. For some dads, that’s too much to bear, and as Judge Judy (with more than 30 years on the bench in “Family Court”) has warned many a child support mom (CSM) in her courtroom, “your actions are going to cause that father to walk out of his children’s lives  when he can no longer deal with you and your antics.”

And in the cases where that happens, the CSM acts surprised, immediately assumes the role of a victim, and clamors to all who can’t escape her incessant whining, that her ex “is a deadbeat and has abandoned his children.” And all of that, without even a hint of shame or responsibly for having kicked and then chased that father out of his child’s life. The exchange is a very long one, but worth the read in that this woman’s attitude is EXACTLY what’s wrong in America today, and is the reason so many good an loving single fathers are viciously attacked by misadrists such as her as well as the general public and the media.

What unnerved me more than anything was the blog entry under which she placed her hateful comments. I re-posted that (it was an older entry) because there was a single father out there whom I believed (from my correspondence with him) was on the verge of or at least considering suicide.

single working mother says:

Another perspective, from a single, working [struggling] mother. First, it takes a LONG time of not paying to reach $20,000+ at 2-3 hundred a month. My ex has continually changed jobs, worked under the table, quit a job before the [legally mandatory wage garnishment in OH] of his $235/month. Now, 14 years later, he owes his son more than 34,000. All the while, I worked full time, provided insurance, obtained a MS – but left him to basically raise himself in order to fill in the gap left by that unpaid money/medical insurance. There are 2 sides to every coin.
NB Ohio law requires 2 things: 1-payments to be made via wage garnishment and 2-a biannual review (if requested by either party) that must be completed within 30 days of request.
Ohioans would be more sympathetic if there were not so many dads who simply ignore their responsibility to their child[ren]. After all, they end up suffering the worst… and I hear no concern for the children of that in any of these posts.

Tony Fantetti says:
November 16, 2012 at 17:46 (Edit)

Thanks for your response, but my first question to you is this; who left whom? Did your ex willingly walk out of your son’s life, or did you kick him out?

Next, if you kicked him out without morally just cause, then in my humble opinion you shouldn’t get one cent from your son’s father if he didn’t ask nor didn’t agree to be turned into a “paying visitor” ofhis own son.

Why should you or any mother be financially rewarded for kicking a father out of his child’s life? You shouldn’t and that’s exactly what “child support” does; it financially rewards mothers for kicking fathers out of the lives of their children. They should be punished for that, not rewarded for it. Doing that is sick, selfish, twisted and outright child abuse, to willingly and selfishly deprive a child of a father when there exists no morally just cause for doing so.

I can think of one way you could have avoided this whole mess; you could have simply given you son’s father full custody and paid him “child support.” How does that sit with you? I would assume not well as you wouldn’t financially profit off your son’s fatherlessness in that case would you?

Understand that the tone of my comments is so because I’m tired of child support moms (CSMs) complaining about not getting “child support” when they could’ve avoided that scenario quite easily by granting the father sole custody and paying him child support in the first place.

But that doesn’t work for most CSMs because it’s all about the money for them. They then cry and complain that, “the father doesn’t want to pay ‘child support’” and that “he only wants custody so he doesn’t have to pay ‘child support.’” However, what they won’t admit is that they want, demand and get sole custody for the very same reason they falsely accuse fathers of; money.

Unless you are morally justified in having sole custody, then what I’ve said here applies to you. You are one of those CSMs I speak out against and write about on this site, and your taking of “child  support” although legal, makes you no different than a common thief. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.

It amazes me that you have the audacity, arrogance and disrespect to post such a shameful and baseless comment as the following, and speaks volumes about who you are as a person, and the morals you seemingly lack.
“Ohioans would be more sympathetic if there were not so many dads who simply ignore their responsibility to their child[ren]. After all, they end up suffering the worst… and I hear no concern for the children of that in any of these posts.”

So many dads who simply “ignore their responsibility to their children?” Would they also be those (84% of noncustodial parents nationwide, and whom you broadly, hatefully and falsely accuse of being “absent”)whereby most of them didn’t ask nor didn’t agree to be kicked out of their children’s lives and then financially raped for the next 18-26 years, and bankrupted as a result?

You “hear no concern for those children” because you clearly haven’t read enough about me nor enough of these posts to “find that concern” you falsely accuse me of lacking.

The only thing that unnerves me more than a deadbeat parent is someone like yourself who shamelessly levels false accusations not against me, but against that which I stand for, and those dads who themselves and their children are victims of greedy, selfish and thieving child support moms. Are you one if those CSMs? I ask, not accuse you of that, but would truly like to know.

Are those dads you referenced the same as those who child support moms have kicked out of their child’s lives then sit around and complain about that “child support” which supports little more than the mothers lifestyle as studies have shown?

To be frank, I’ve never penned a response to someone as I have to you, but I must admit that I don’t suffer fools well, and what you’ve falsely accused me if qualifies you for exactly that.

The answer to your dilemma if you will is really quite simple. If you don’t want to find yourself complaining about the lack of “child support” for years on end, and just as a child sometimes complains endlessly about things they alone have the power to change, allow the father to take sole custody and then you pay him child support instead of you strong-arming full custody and a tax-free financial windfall for 18-26 years. See how simple it really is?

Since you pretend to be so concerned about the children (but not concerned enough to not deprive a child of a father for life so you can financially profit?) and the “other side of the coin,” why didn’t you address those noncustodial mothers who don’t pay the custodial fathers child support?”

After all, statistically speaking as a percentage, and despite there being far fewer noncustodial mothers than there are noncustodial fathers, there are far more noncustodial mothers (compared to noncustodial fathers) who default on their child support orders. Funny how you lack concern there.

Lastly, how about you have the guts to post under your real name. How cowardly of you. And by the way, I believe there are far more single working fathers than there are mothers out there. The biggest difference between the two groups is that most of the fathers didn’t ask to be “single fathers.” They were unwillingly forced into that role by the many selfish and greedy “single mothers.”

Kind regards ma’am,

Tony Fantetti

single working mother says:
December 12, 2012 at 17:15 (Edit)

a) I did not “kick him out” of his son’s life. We mutually ended out relationship due to his infidelity, drinking, and occasional cocaine use.
b) I have -never-, I repeat, never, refused him the right to see his child.

As is more common in this day and age, when our relationship ended, he viewed our son as a part of that relationship and walked away from him. Leaving ME to support our child 100%. He was asked by a court to pay 235.16 per month. A pittance compared to the cost of food, clothes, the extra rent, insurance, day cares, ad naseum. At several points over the years, I refused to have the amount raised AND refused to allow the city to pursue federal charges against him – I DEFENDED the man – until it reached 30,000 and my son began to ask why his father never helped (while we clearly struggled).

NB. Child support is NOT money paid to a mother, it is money that is owed to THE CHILD to assist with their life. Over 14 years, he has sent exactly 798. Not ONE PENNY has been spent on me – we have bought clothes, shoes, school supplies, etc. Nor do I know any man that has been “kicked out” of his child’s life. Men have legal rights to their children, in court, unless there is justification to have that right revoked. For every case you site, I can tell you a story about an abused woman who still has share custody, or a deadbeat dad who shows up every few months to rip a child out of his routine, ad naseum.

But why I am posting here is beyond me. You clearly hate women, even [personally] attacking one you have never spoken with nor met. I mistakenly thought this so-called column was about bridging the gender gap for the sake of the children.

Tony Fantetti says:
December 13, 2012 at 20:28 (Edit)

Why you post here is beyond me as well ma’am. You insult me with one of the most disrespectful comments anyone has ever made to me, then act surprised and play the victim when I respond as you deserve.

Either you clearly no very little about me, or you intentionally provoked me with what you said. Nonetheless, you unjustly attacked me, and I’m sick and tired of people like you, and I’m more tired of being politically correct in my responses. So I therefore responded as I felt you deserved. And to be frank ma’am, I too cannot believe I continue to waste my time with you and wonder why I am doing so once again, but I digress.

Read what I wrote above, and you’ll see where time and again where I exempted you if what I said didn’t apply to you. Obviously though, some things did apply or you wouldn’t have gotten as angry as you did.

I have spent thousands of dollars of my own money and expended thousands of hours of my own time (and gone days without sleep) by serving others (both moms and dads) through what I do, and you have the unmitigated gall to wrongfully denigrate myself and all single fathers with your wholesale lies about “deadbeat dads”, falsely claiming I don’t care about the children, and your vile denial of fathers like me, who have been kicked out of their children’s lives.

But as I said, and as you refuse to accept, the fact is that when it comes to percentages, more noncustodial mothers default on their “child support” orders than do noncustodial fathers, yet you continue to reference the wholesale lie about these allegedly large numbers of “deadbeat dads.”

However, that doesn’t fit in with your biases and prejudices does it? If you want to falsely use the deadbeat label, than use it where it belongs; to describe the many deadbeat noncustodial mothers who fail to support their children and are rarely punished (unlike fathers) by the courts for not doing so, .

If your ignorance of the lack of “father’s rights” weren’t so offensive and insulting to millions of fathers and children around the globe, I’d find it both laughable and amusing. Yet through it, you continue your unwarranted insults not so much towards me, but against those many terrific, loving, and heartbroken single fathers out there who can’t see their children. And why? Because the mother, out of nothing more than hate, spite and vindictiveness, won’t allow them to see (nor talk) their precious children.

I personally have driven nearly 600 miles, one way, all night (through three states), and after working all day and having to work the next day to “visit” my daughter whom I love dearly, and only to be told, “you’re not getting her” by her mother. So you know what I did after I called the police so I’d have a witness to my presence? I drove the nearly 600 miles back home.

That happened repeatedly. But hey, according to you, someone who is in the know and here to educate me, an obvious inferior fool compared to you, there are no fathers who have been kicked out of their children’s lives right? Also according to you, I have “rights” as a father don’t I? Just because I have a court ordered “visitation” schedule, I “have rights” don’t I?

What was that you said again?

“Nor do I know any man that has been “kicked out” of his child’s life. Men have legal rights to their children, in court, unless there is justification to have that right revoked.”

By the way, and just to expose your ignorance for the sake of others; single fathers have NO “rights” to their children unless a judge specifically adjudicates the same through a “visitation” schedule.

But lo and behold, according to you, I and all single fathers have rights don’t we? And just because you said so correct? Lets see what the court said about my “rights” shall we? After I spent $4,000 on legal fees to file a motion to have the mother of my daughter held in contempt of my “visitation” schedule, and after I called the police officers as witnesses to testify that I drove nearly 600 miles through three states to see my daughter, what did the court say about her actions? “Not guilty.”

My daughter’s mother was declared not guilty of the contempt “allegations” I made, and that police officers witnessed and testified to. Imagine that huh? I drove all night and across three states to see my daughter and “exercise my rights”, and I was told by her mother, “you’re not seeing your daughter. But let me tell you ma’am, I thank God for these “rights” that you (you!) say I have. Where would I , and fathers like I be, if we didn’t have those rights that you’ve so kindly conferred upon us?

But single fathers without rights to their children don’t exist according to you; those same single fathers that I’ve spoken to, written to, heard crying and sobbing on the phone, and whom I’ve repeatedly visited in jail. And those same fathers who have posted to this blog out desperation and hopelessness before they killed themselves, it’s those same fathers you wrote about when you said this, Nor do I know any man that has been “kicked out” of his child’s life. Men have legal rights to their children, in court, unless there is justification to have that right revoked.

You then proceed with the usual propagandist crap and lies ma’am; the lying domestic violence statistics such as this;

“For every case you site, I can tell you a story about an abused woman who still has share custody, or a deadbeat dad who shows up every few months to rip a child out of his routine, ad naseum.”

And in many cases, they’re just that, “stories.” If you were truly interested in the truth about domestic violence ma’am, you’d speak of the hundreds of worldwide studies that show that a woman is at least as likely as a man to perpetuate domestic violence. But that doesn’t fit your narrative does it? You imply that all fathers are deadbeats, and all men are domestically violent aren’t they? Why don’t you mention domestic violence such as this? Or, how about you do a Google search such at this when you reference domestic violence?

So following your logic, you claim you know of no man that has been “kicked out of his child’s life,” and the not so subtle inference is that because you know of none, then none exist. Well, I personally know no murderers or rapists, so do they too don’t exist (according to your logic) right?

Finally, I’ll waste more of my precious time (why I don’t know) to address your last lying statement which was,

“But why I am posting here is beyond me. You clearly hate women, even [personally] attacking one you have never spoken with nor met. I mistakenly thought this so-called column was about bridging the gender gap for the sake of the children.”

First and foremost in addressing that, is your pathetic attempt to portray yourself as a victim after you came here only with the intent of trolling, then slung mud in my face by attacking me personally as a person who has dedicated the last seven years of his life (and thousands of dollars and thousands of hours) to helping fathers, mothers, and children.

So please ma’am, you’re ridiculous attempts to portray yourself as someone who wanted to engage in serious dialogue and thereby “bridge the gap” is insulting to everyone reading this. You don’t “bridge the gap” by attacking someone as you did me, and calling thousands of fathers you don’t know nor know nothing of their situations “deadbeats” because they are labeled as someone who fell behind in “child support” payments.

I don’t hate women as you falsely claim. As a normal heterosexual male, I am enchanted by women and and blessed to be married to a highly intelligent, utterly stunning, and absolutely brilliant and incredibly wise woman. In fact, she’s so wise that when she advised me in matters, I believe I’ve heeded her advise in 100% of the situations where I’ve sought her counsel. I heed her advise because I recognize and value her unparalleled wisdom.

Let’s talk about you. You didn’t mistakenly think think this “so-called column” was about bridging the gap, in fact your motives were to the contrary. You came here to attack myself and all single fathers just as you did, because you’re a very bitter, angry, vindictive and hateful women who most likely obsesses many times daily about the “child support” you don’t get.

Out of either willful or unknowing ignorance (it really doesn’t matter which) you cite false claims (that denigrate fathers and men) in an attempt to present them as facts, and in doing so insult every good and loving single father out there, and I won’t tolerate that. Truth be told ma’am, I do believe that you are so deluded that you truly believe that you’re who has been unjustly attacked and thereby wronged here. And it’s that very delusion that you live in, whereby I believe you find yourself where you are today with regard to certain aspects of your life.

It’s simply stunning to me that you attack both myself and all good and loving single fathers on my blog, and know neither myself nor any of those loving fathers you’ve labeled as “deadbeats”, then have the audacity to turn around and say that I’ve “personally attacked” a woman (you) whom I’ve never met. It’s just absolutely stunning to me that you don’t even see a hint of hypocrisy in your statement. Previously, I’ve had great dialogue with both single moms and single moms by choice, whereby each of us learned a great deal about the others situation. However those ladies (and unlike yourself) truly were interested in achieving meaningful results.

You are 100% correct in stating that I don’t know you personally ma’am, but by God I know your type and know enough of you from how you’ve attacked me (and single fathers) to know that I detest people (male and female ma’am) just like yourself.

In closing, I respectfully request that you never post here again ma’am. Oh, and regarding your “PS comment” where you said,
“PS. You are seriously out of touch with your “it’s all about the money for them” comment. Maybe you have married/dated some righteous trash in your lifetime – but for the women in my circle and experience, it’s all about the children for them.”

Please allow me to take the liberty to further enlighten you…You stated, “-but for the women in my circle and experience, it’s all about the children to them.” That claim ma’am is the height of of your hypocrisy; I assume that by those “in your circle” you’re referring to other single moms. Well, if it were truly “all about the children” they wouldn’t be single moms now would they? If it were “all about the children” they would have done everything in their power to keep their families intact so that their children would grow up with fathers in their lives correct?

I’m sure that most children who have been separated from their fathers, and due to their mother’s unilateral choice to be a single mom, would rather have had an intact family, with their father in the their home, and not a “child support” check (that few children benefit from) now wouldn’t they? But hey, their mothers, while acting in consideration of it being “all about the children” decided that they (the kids) were going to have “visitors” in their life in lieu of fathers right? That’s your idea of “it’s all about the children?” That’s some circle of friends you keep ma’am.

But wait a minute, maybe I do get it. In your circle and your experience; in every case where those you reference are single moms, the father is the low-life, degenerate partner in the relationship right? In every case, the father is the loser, the deadbeat, the drug addict, the abuser, the drunk, the cheater the low life? Wow, it just amazes me how in every case of divorce, in every case of single moms where the spouse didn’t pass away, the relationship failed because of the man, always.

Also, “incredulous”, is how I describe your accusation that I hate women ma’am. For I think it’s you who hate men, and that clearly showed in the first comment you posted where you attacked them and me, then tried to paint yourself the victim after doing so. And a couple of more things about your “story” I’d like to point out; you claimed, “you refused to allow the city to pursue federal charges” against your ex. There’s two things wrong with that statement; 1. Federal charges are not brought forth in “child support” matters, they are state charges. 2. City government is NOT involved in “child support” matters, county government is.

Additionally, your claims of a mutual separation agreement don’t make a bit of sense. You claim you came to a “mutual agreement” that included “child support” he was “asked by a court” to pay. Why would a man (or woman) even bother with coming to a “mutual” agreement with another person, and not uphold any portion of that agreement? In other words, why would someone who has absolutely no intention of keeping their end of a agreement, waste the time it takes to make an agreement to begin with? It seems to me they’d refuse to sit down and talk to begin with.

Moreover, you stated, “My ex has continually changed jobs, worked under the table, quit a job before the [legally mandatory wage garnishment in OH] of his $235/month”, yet he has done all of that in lieu of a mutual agreement (per your claims) between the two of you? Something with your story doesn’t add up here.

You claim to have a Master in Science, yet state that your ex’s refusal to pay a pittance of $235.16 in “child support” has caused you to struggle so much financially that even your son has noticed. A Master’s in Science and you’re not only “hurting” for money, a paltry $235.16/month has put you in dire financial straits? I pay far more than than each month and most likely make far less money that do you since I don’t possess a Master’s in Science, and yet I’m not in dire financial straits like you claim to be. You have to be earning $90,000+ per year with that degree, and yet you’re a “struggling single mom” as you claimed and identified yourself as???

I presume your wedding vows included “for better or for worse” as most do, however his alleged drinking, womanizing and cocaine use aren’t forgiven and thereby covered under “for better or for worse.” You also mentioned that your son “began to ask why his father never helped out while you clearly struggled.” Well how would you son know your ex wasn’t helping out financially unless you were bad-mouthing and denigrating your ex to your son? Is that an acceptable thing for a mother to do?

Someone’s  financial struggle could be caused my many things, drug/alcohol addiction, financial mismanagement, shopping or eating out too much, using credit cards, and on and on, the list is endless. Yet your son somehow knows that your financial struggles are due to your ex not paying “child support.” You were right when you stated, “there are two sides to every story.” It would be interesting to know what you son’s father would have to say.

You stated that, “Child support is NOT money paid to a mother, it is money that is owed to THE CHILD to assist with their life.” So, with that being the case ma’am, and with the “child support” money ONLY being used as you claim to assist with a child’s life, how is it possible that you’re this poor “struggling single mom,” and that your household is in utter and complete financial distress due to your ex not paying his “child support” that he owes to his son as you allege? Wouldn’t your son only be the one struggling since the dollars are only to be spent on him?

And yet you make it sound as it your entire world is caving in financially, and that, despite you possessing a Master’s in Science (a very high paying degree in our world of science in technology) all because your son isn’t receiving his “child support?” Perhaps what you need is to take a few college level classes in managing household finances?

There are exceedingly poor people, especially in Appalachia,who spend more than $235/mo (your missing monthly “child support” payment) to support their monthly tobacco usage and they aren’t struggling nearly as badly as you claim to be.

And ma’am, you claim that it “isn’t about the money.” Well, if it “isn’t about the money,” then why did you post here in the first place (and your first comment) where you were complaining about the money you were owed? I’ll tell you what, please disregard my request that you never post here again, and instead do so in an attempt to explain yourself and thereby educate me (an obvious moron compared to you) about your “struggling single mom” woes.


Tony Fantetti

single working mother says:
December 12, 2012 at 17:18 (Edit)

PS. You are seriously out of touch with your “it’s all about the money for them” comment. Maybe you have married/dated some righteous trash in your lifetime – but for the women in my circle and experience, it’s all about the children for them.

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

4 Responses to Single Working Mother Hatefully Denigrates all Single Fathers who’ve Fallen Behind on their “Child Support” Obligations

  1. Tracey Jackson says:

    Dear Single Mother,
    While it seems to be your defense that you didn’t do anything to stop his active role in your son’s life and he owes a large amount of child support. I do disagree that a man has rights for their children, of course he does, but he has to pay for those rights to be upheld in most situations. My husband is the father of his son, a product of a one nighter, which he found out about after 4 years, when he was called for paternity testing. He was immediately given a child support order based off what he could earn if he were employed, he was unemployed prior to finding out about his son and the judge used the same format of obligations as are used for Deadbeat Dads…calling him voluntarily unemployed…he was unemployed before knowing and then the support was based to 200 support of his 536 unemployment benefits. Really how was his support based off that formula when he was unemployed for 6 months before he even received the paternity testing request? Further, he paid for his son for three years before Mom ever even told his son that her current husband was not his Dad… so at the age of 7 he was able to meet his real Dad….but hold on… Mom decided that she wouldn’t let him see the boy because IRS decided that taxes from my income was not responsible for their child support. Do you know why she was mad? Cause she didn’t have the tax check to spend on their family vacation, for her, her new husband, his two kids and her other three children.

    So now again he is paying 200 in support for his son who he will have to pay an attorney and court fees in order to fight the right for visitations. How is that fair, she didn’t pay anything for her paternity testing, she didn’t pay for legal representation for child support courts… how should he have to?

    I really think that many women do not see the reason to let a man visit the children, and thereby making them resent paying support for them. I think if child support can decide on support they can also set up visitations… if the Mom doesn’t want the visits she shouldn’t get the money!

    Thanks, Tracey

    • Tony Fantetti says:

      What you’ve said in the last line sums it up perfectly Tracey; “if the Mom doesn’t want the visits she shouldn’t get the money!”

      You are 100% correct. Unfortunately, “the system” sees it differently, and as follows. It’s “not in the best interest of the children” if the custodial mother doesn’t get her ‘child support.’ However, that same system doesn’t see it as harmful to the child when the custodial mother (or custodial father in some cases) denies the opposite parent access to the child, and thereby deprives them of their God-given right to a meaningful relationship with both of their parents.

      In short, the system, being defined as the Court, Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency employees, Guardian Ad Litems, Custody “investigators” et all, care little to nothing about the best interests of those children they all falsely claim to represent. If they did, there would be utter outrage at the number of children who are for years deprived of all access to their fathers due to custodial interference my the mother who unilaterally decides in most cases whether or not a father is ‘allowed’ to see his children.

      Yes, there may be visitation orders in place, but they’re not worth the paper they’re typed on in most cases as the judges rarely enforce them. Even after a mother has continually denied access to the children. If the father has the resources to retain counsel and file a contempt motion, the courts usually merely slap the mothers on the wrists with warnings such as “don’t do it again.” The fathers are then stuck with the thousands in legal fees incurred in bringing forth the motion.

      But flip the table, and take a father, unemployed through no fault of his own and thereby behind in his “child support” obligation, and if a mother brings forth a contempt motion, not only will he likely face incarceration if he can’t meet the purge conditions, he’ll also be ordered to reimburse the mother’s legal fees in cases where personal counsel was utilized.

      Denying a child access to a loving and fit father is gross child abuse. Additionally, separating a child from their father (as single mothers proudly do) is also a highly disgusting and equally offensive form of child abuse. Yet they do so proudly, without moral just cause, brag about it, run the father down in many cases (it’s never their fault their single mothers) then demand that said father support those “single by choice” mothers financially for up to 26 years in some cases.

      Such behavior is disgusting, repulsive, child abuse and the outright moral thievery of another persons income in the cases of “child support.”


      Tony Fantetti

  2. Tracey Jackson says:

    What will it take to get this child support system corrected and/or have a network to help father’s in the court systems. I really detest the many cases that I see where the father’s have believed the women and then become responsible for children who aren’t theirs and then when it comes out, the Mother is not even held responsible. I have been looking for a father’s rights group in our area and to see if there is a network of legal assistance for them at least to get guidance. Our local Legal Aid system is useless and not working on many cases, so they do not help and now NCP’s have to go without fighting or pay large legal fees in order to uphold their rights.

    Are there any bills out there trying to reform the CSEA roles or responsibilities?

    Thanks, Tracey

    • Tony Fantetti says:

      Great question Tracey, and the answer is simple, albeit nearly impossible to implement as it directly affects each state’s general fund; remove the “profiteering” that takes place. Ohio, in the last 10 years, has “earned” probably close to one billion dollars in profits off the backs of the children from broken homes and their “child support” paying parents. Of which there are over one million in Ohio.

      That said, Kimberly Newsome Bridges is in my humble opinion (more so in the past than present) the “ringleader” responsible for maximizing the State of Ohio’s aforementioned profits of the backs of children.

      In short, and because of Title IV D of the Social Security Act (if you search the blog for Title IV D you find articles where I’ve discussed it in length. The following explain it as well. The last link is the Social Security Administration’s legal definition:

      In short Tracey, The State of Ohio (and the 49 others) as well as the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services (ODJFS) and it’s collections strong-men, the 88 County level “Child Support” Enforcement (I prefer extortion over enforcement) Agencies (CSEA) all depend too much on those tens or hundreds of millions in aforementioned profits to simply let go without a fight. That said, all politicians from the State house down to the county level know the game, and depend on the funds to operate.

      Federal law mandates that the profit is only to be spent on “child support” enforcement efforts, and spending elsewhere is a federal violation, but reality is, the money is funneled and spent to fund various county efforts throughout Ohio. I’ve seen the balance sheets and followed the money trail myself.

      There’s an old saying; for the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And that’s just what we see here, evil; with regard to how children suffer when their “child support” paying noncustodial parents (usually fathers) are forced to live in abject poverty and often times homelessness as the direct result of financially unbearable and unreasonable “child support” orders where it was never proven in a court of law that they were even capable of paying. Said amounts were simply ordered, not investigated and proven with regard to financial ability.

      I won’t go into detail here, but a similar profit is found in the prison system and foster care systems. But perhaps with the continual decline of our economy along with the continually weakening dollar, maybe one day in the future the federal government will stop using Social Security payroll taxes to reward the states for creating court-ordered father absenteeism.