Friday, October 28, 2005
The bill changes bankruptcy entirely with respect to those paying child support and alimony. Per the New Jersey Law Blog, the act "prevents a debtor from obtaining ANY bankruptcy relief unless all past due alimony or child support claims are paid in full", and elevates alimony and child support to the number one priority amongst creditors - above even the tax man.
Bankruptcy mostly wasn't much of a solution for a man in divorce already, as bankruptcy was not applicable to alimony and child support. (except for some of the assets subject to equitable distribution.) - Alimony and Child Support were already a form of Debt Servitude or Slavery, or whatever you want to call it.
But this new change raises the stakes higher - if the man has any assets or income left, he can't use bankruptcy to obtain relief until he somehow pays off his ex-wife.
Just more motivation for men considering divorce to leave the country with their children.
Time was we in the west used to laugh about all the people from the eastern bloc nations 'voting with their feet' by coming west seeking personal freedom and rights. Today, men from the US are moving in the opposite direction, but for the same reason. They are seeking their rights. It is a sad commentary on the US that men might seek to escape it in persuit of personal freedom.
My best to you all in your struggles.
Simulposted on Hate Male Post
I always assumed that somehow these men deserved what had happened to them. They had chosen the wrong woman, or had committed some horrible crime against their marriage, or perhaps had just gotten very unlucky.
This is one way the plight of the divorced man gets ignored, and discounted. We say ‘my cupcake would never do that to me!’ We set out from port on the sea of marriage, and we ignore the storm flags flapping in the brisk breeze, ignoring the cries of despair, and pleas for help coming over the radio. We are masters of our ship, we are familiar with the waters of relationships, and we will never find ourselves in the position of those bad pilots who beat their crews and ignore their needs, and fail to avoid the reefs ahead. It is a very male point of view. We are confident we can make things work, and sail through the toughest storm. And in the rest of our lives, mostly we can.
The problem is that the storm warnings that are out are not out for something that skill, care, attention, and intelligence can address very well. The storm that prompts the despairing cries of the other seamen is a storm of the spirit. Quite simply, once you are married, the court system gives you, the majority of your assets, and the majority of your income for the remainder of your life to your spouse, if she wants it. Never mind that it is unfair, unjust, slavery, an unconscionable contract, et cetera. None of that matters. It is hers to ask for, and legally, your only option is to give it, (with or without a huge legal expense). So you see, navigating this storm isn’t about skill, or care, or intelligence, it is all about the temptation of your spouse.
Given that the majority of marriages end in divorce, your spouse IS going to be tempted, and sorry to say, no matter how sweet she seems now, when the storm-clouds of divorce gather over your little family ship, your spouse is going to realize that if she acts quickly, she can have the ship, and the majority of the cargo, and additionally, keep you on as a slave. For her, the sailing can suddenly become smooth, and she can reap significant profits, and eliminate any future financial risk. And that is a huge temptation for any person.
Your spouse will realize that the court gives her a right that has never been granted to any other class of persons before in the history of law – the right not to worry about supporting herself or her children ever again. The court tempts her with the majority of the income you may bring home for the rest of your life, and the majority of your assets, and the home you live in. Faced with the uncertainty of divorce, the hard work of supporting herself and children, and the possibility that she may not be able to keep a job and be a part-time mother, what does she do? Does she choose self-reliance, or does she choose slave-ownership? Remember, her comfortable life, and the comfortable lives of her children are in jeopardy. All she has to do is sign a couple bits of paper, and she can live in comfort for the rest of her life, and the world and the court system will honor her and call her justified, never mind that you are chained in the hold below, rarely glimpsing daylight. Can she stand up to that temptation? The statistics show that vast numbers of women cannot. Probably your bride, your spouse, your fiancée, cannot either.
So the moment your ship rounds the edge of the harbor into the sea of marriage, you are in mortal peril. You have bet your life, and everything you have, and everything you can earn and acquire, against the odds of your marriage never finding itself near the suddenly gathering storms of divorce, and against the ability of your co-pilot to resist the temptation to throw you below-decks to serve as a slave for the rest of your life.
So to the husbands, to the grooms, to the fiancées and boyfriends out there - to every man planning a wedding or who has gone through one, I say:
STORM AT SEA
SKILL AND SIZE WILL NOT PROTECT YOU
THE STORM FLAGS ARE OUT, SAILORS TAKE WARNING.
(Simulposted on Hate Male Post)
p.s. welcome to visitors from www.CatholicMatch.com and www.dontmarry.com. Wish I had happier things to say about marriage, but I suppose that being warned, those determined to get married will choose their spouses even more carefully. :) As far as religion and marriage, I think that the church should disenfranchise the state's sick subversion of marriage. The church should bless unions, and track those blessed unions like it has done civil marriages, but not require state marriage certificates. Let the state have this slavery it calls marriage. The church would bless the sacrament of marriage - the outward and visible sign of the inward change. And for this, no state contract of marriage is required, and from this sacrament no slavery should ensue.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Gender feminists love to harp on about breaking this mythical silence about topics such as domestic abuse. In reality, with $5 billion in funding from the federal government going to gender feminist organizations thanks to the misandrist Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), it's hard to hear pretty much anything but what feminists want you to hear about American families. An extraterrestrial intelligence intercepting our communications and perhaps running Google searches would have to conclude that the male human species on earth, especially men in America, are brainless brutes who ALL create their own private Idaho of violence as part of their mating ritual.
Of course, this is not true. American women are the most privileged group in the history of the world. They are the safest, the most pampered, and with the most options available to them of any group[...]
Many other voices have spoken out against this PBS disinfomercial as documented in Just Another Disenfrachised Father's post "Silence Broken":
ANCPR, Broken Bread, Carey Roberts, Divorce & Child Custody blog, more, iFeminists, Moonbat Central, World According to Bob, Worldnet Daily, Feminist4Fathers, Glenn Sacks, Sane Nation, Men's Activism, MisAnDrope, Times Union, A Father's Struggle, Delaware Online, Latest-World-News, divorce-weblog, News By Us, Divorce Guide, Men's News Daily, American Daily, MichNews
Glenn Sacks offers another voice, documenting true accounts of PAS, and facts.
In addition, psychologists are speaking out against PBS's disinformercial:
American Psychological Association Says Breaking the Silence Misrepresents Its Position on PAS
Mental Health Professionals Condemn 'Breaking the Silence'
Please keep speaking out about this issue, Glenn provides a great web-page to coordinate protests to PBS. Please use it so that our voices are heard, and so that other regions may be able to hear the truth.
My best to you in your struggles...
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
We all are familiar with her simple story, and how it helped to change the US, and the world by by helping to break down laws that discriminated against a whole group of citizens based on their color. The bravery of this woman strikes me, and how her weakness made her strong.
Michelle Malkin has a post on her here.
I think that men similarly are weak, but strangely are seen as strong, even as our last rights are being taken away. We need to find and hold up our own Rosa Parks-like people, persuade them to make themselves visible. Unfortunately so many pass on in despair and hopelessness - finally dying rather than lose their entire life to court-enforced slavery.
It's a strange team of martyrs and saints here in the men's rights pantheon:
Perry Manley comes to mind. A man who fought for years against an unfair system, and finally gave his life in an act of protest in Seattle. Most striking to me in retrospect the interviews with his ex-wife and her deadpan lack of any apparent sense of her part in his death. 'It was really about the money'. Yes it was, wasn't it. Notice how neatly the reporters wrap it up, without really touching at all on the issues of men's rights, casting Manley as a crackpot. The word 'Garnishment' is never mentioned in the news report. Instead we hear his ex saying how he selfishly quit his high-paying job, and how in the end, it was just mean-ness that lead him to seek death at the hands of Seattle's police. We hear less about the real man and his cause. I like the comment in this article by a friend, who said that Manley was about to do something drastic, a comment that rings so true:
Tom Swanson, who accompanied Manley to the flag burning and shares Manley's belief that child support is illegal, said Manley had promised that if the flag burning didn't attract enough attention to his plight, he was going to do something "more drastic."
"Nobody would listen to us," said Swanson, who lives in his car in Tacoma and was reached by cellphone.
Nothing speaks more poignantly to the desparation of men than this simple comment of a man who now lives in his car - perhaps tied to the fact that suicide rates for divorced men dwarf any other demographic division. - A suicide EPIDEMIC, linked directly to the rulings of family courts by Augustine Kposowa of the University of California in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. (abstract)
Others come to mind...
Darrin White, who was driven to despair after being driven from his home, denied all contact with his three children, and ordered to pay twice his annual income in alimony and support. Darrin hung himself from a tree in March 2000. No evidence of any wrongdoing was ever presented against him, and a supreme court judge commented that “There is nothing unusual about this judgment”. All too common. Other links here, here,
Our various spider men and the like...(Ron Davis for example)
Or Stephen Baskerville, Phd (he even has a wiki entry), for his voice of activism and reason, and Augustine Kposowa or any of the hundreds and hundreds of other researchers who have spoken the truth to power, the truth that men do not leave, do not abuse, and that fathers are actually the least likely to harm children in any way.
How about that kid (Rylan Nitzschke) who had to pay his own child support?
Or the Granny whose life savings where seized to pay for her son's 'support debts'.
Or the juveniles who were raped and ordered to pay child support to their rapists.
Or that 85-year-old man who was raped by his housekeeper, who was ordered to pay support to his rapist for the offspring that she had, and had his pension garnished.
(see here for these and more)
There certainly are enough candidates...
I guess the thing is, to get the media to start being able to pick up the notes of the melody that is playing...
-It's a death-march for marriage and family, and it is being directed by the gender-feminists, the knee-jerk-women's-rights-legislators, greedy spouses, and the divorce industry.
I just hope people realize that it's a Danse Macabre before it is too late.
...It may already be.
(Simulposted on HateMalePost. See Here and Here for more on the Danse Macabre)
Monday, October 24, 2005
The Divorce and Child Custody Blog directs us to a list (from the Asbury Park Press) of New Jersey Support Groups, which I re-post here: Thanks Meg! (MEG apparently knows that NJ can be a bad place to be divorced.) Note locations here will probably be in the greater Asbury Park area.
SINGLE AGAIN: St. Mary's Ministry to the Divorced and Separated holds meetings with experienced facilitators 7-8 p.m. every Wednesday in the rectory, 747 W. Bay Ave. Call Deacon Ron Haunss at (609) 607-9447.
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: N.J. Council for Children's Rights meets 7-9 p.m. the last Wednesday of the month at the municipal building, 31 Washington St. Those experiencing separation, divorce, child support, custody and related issues are encouraged to attend. Call (732) 505-8509.
DIVORCE: The Center for Kids and Family has a support group for children ages 7-12 who have experienced a separation or divorce. The group meets 5-6 p.m. the second and fourth Thursday of each month at the Cory Building, 599 Route 37 West. Call (732) 505-KIDS.
PARENTS ANONYMOUS: a support group for parents meets 5:30-6:30 p.m. every Thursday at the Center for Kids and Family, 591 Lakehurst Road. Call (800) THE-KIDS.
SINGLE SUPPORT: St. Joseph's support group for newly separated and divorced people meets 7:30-9 p.m. Tuesdays. Call (732) 506-6357.
DIVORCE, SEPARATION: St. Pius X parish's support group for divorced and separated people meets 7-8 p.m. monthly at St. Pius X Ministry Building, Lacey Road, Forked River. Call (609) 607-9447.
HOT LINES: Self-Help Clearinghouse maintains a database of more than 4,000 support groups in New Jersey, plus 200 help lines/hot lines. Call (800) 367-6274 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
PARENTS WITHOUT PARTNERS: Parents Without Partners provides activities for single parents. Call (609) 978-0403.
Push for the support and help you need! Tell people about our misguided system!
A child supposendly has to be presented with a new food about 20 times before they will accept it without complaint. I think our government, friends and family are the same. They must be presented with the facts of divorce - that it strips men of their rights.
My best to you in your struggles!
Thursday, October 20, 2005
I would love to opine on the thing at length, but, as I am swamped, let me direct you to other men's rights authors who have opined effectively and directly on the subject at hand:
Carey Robers shows that from it's first sentance the show is loaded with whoppers.
The Divorce and Custody Blogspot is busily ripping it new um, holes, with help from Glenn Sacks in the Times Union. Glenn is also featuring this as a new campaign. Drop by his site and send some letters, and ring some phones!
The show also picks up coverage from NHCustody.org.
Oh, and How did I miss it, MensActivism.Org is on the job too. :) Bless them.
Lots going on, please help to make this more visible, and counteract the lies.
(almostsimulposted on HateMalePost)
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
You would think I would be happy about the attention but the article is not just mediocre, it is misandrous. It starts out full of mealymouthed stuff about 'not saying anyone at fault', focusing greatly on cases of 'mutual violence'.
From there it gets worse, commenting that men must have a 'special responsibility' placed on them because they can inflict greater injury, (uh, howabout just treating both genders as equal?) ... and then noting in one quote: "[...] new data is emerging that says women are also involved in aggression. If we do not tell women that, we put them at risk." -(psychologist Miriam Ehrensaft of Columbia University) Well, it was at that point I got incensed:
HELLO! HOW ABOUT THE FLIPPIN MEN WHO ARE BEING ABUSED!
What incredible misandry! We have to tell the WOMEN that they may be abusing MEN, otherwise THEY may be at risk. Oh, what incredible and outrageous hatred of men lies behind Miriam's skirts. We have to warn women that they may be abusers.
Then it quotes Patricia Tjaden of the Center for Policy Research, who says she has "always had trouble with the mutual-abuse argument. Where are all the male victims?" It is women, she says, who are subjected to "systematic terrorism."
Women are subjected to systematic terrorism? No male victims? First, clearly the woman is in the thrall of the 'all men are evil' gender feminists aka feminazis as evidenced by her 'systematic terrorism of women' quote, but as far as male victims, the woman is walking about with blinders on.
Let's take them off.
How about a quick walk via SAFE to an investigative report done by Barbara Walters for the TV News Show 20/20 in 1997 - almost a decade ago: (available online thanks to the Men's Rights Agency Internet Site)
I was going to excerpt the thing, but people should read it all. I especially note how every abused man interview asked for custody, and didn't get it, and of course the obvious answer to 'where all the male victims are. They are right in front of your eyes, Patricia, just open them!
Here it is:
American Television Programme on
Men as Victims of Domestic Violence
ABC Television 20/20 21st September 1997
Men Battered by their wives
We focus a lot of attention on battered women in our society, because their plight is so common. But strange as it may sound, MEN are also victims of spousal abuse in surprisingly high numbers.
If you find this hard to believe .. that a woman smaller and weaker than a man could beat up on him .. then you're not alone. As Lynn Shurn (News Anchor) discovered, that perception is instilled in us form an early age. Maybe the stories you're about to hear will change what turns out to be a misperception.
When I was six years old, a girl hit me and I went to hit her back, and she slickly told me 'boys can't hit girls'. So, I didn't hit her.
It is the law of the playground: little boys, because they are stronger and bigger are taught never to hit little girls ... even when the girls hit first.
But what if those girls grow up to be violent and abusive toward their husbands and the men still don't fight back (clip of woman being taken away in handcuffs)? That's the hidden side of domestic violence.
People can't believe that a beautiful, little girl like that can hurt a big guy like me.
Second Abused Man:
I'm letting this woman terrorize me, beat me up .. it's extremely embarrassing .. you're making yourself feel like a wimp.
Third Abused Man:
We don't believe that women can step up to that level of violence.
(Hollywood clip of enraged woman beating the hell out of a sleeping man
with a large implement. The implement cannot be determined as she is swinging
it so fast.)
Voice of Battered Man:
She's beaten me up three times, and I still have her teeth marks in my side.
She grabbed my hair and started choking me.
She kicked me in the testicles and hit me in my right temple.
She stomped me across the bridge of my right foot and broke my right foot.
Across the country, male victims are just beginning to out, and men are victims more frequently than you might realize.
We're not suggesting that husbands are beaten as severely and as often as wives; in fact in some cases, both partners may resort to violence.
But the most recent reports from the Department of Justice documented nearly 150,000 cases against men .. ranging from attempts at violence to assault with a deadly weapon.
Experts say that, in terms of public awareness, male victims are where women were two decades ago .. and the stories are shockingly familiar.
It was just insanity, just pure insanity.
Tom McKinney is a country fire investigator. He believes his erratic work hours, in part, would trigger her violent outbursts. When he'd come home late, she'd be waiting.
She'd throw things .. dishes ..at me, hit me with a baseball bat, ...tried to run me over with her car!
You feel like a prisoner in your own house; you have to be concerned about where you're walking, what your doing, you have to be always on guard .. it's a very tense kind of situation!
What makes a woman snap?
David Nevers said (clip of professional man, at work) when he lost his job, his wife just panicked. One day, he said, they were both (two girls) surprised when she struck him.
At first, I think I tried to dismiss it as something that had simply gotten out of control.
His response is typical of men .. taught to be powerful and protective .. don't see themselves ... don't see themselves as victims.
Nevers is a large and muscular man, he works out 5 times a week and his ex-wife is 4 inches, 100 pounds lighter. So, after one argument where she kicked him in the groin, propelling him through a plate-glass door, the humiliation was as searing as the pain ...especially when he had to take himself to the emergency room to stop the bleeding.
I was so ashamed and embarrassed about what happened that I told them it was an accident .. that I had backed into the door and that's how it happened.
Covering up for their abusive wives is a common response. Today, David Nevers is divorced, but along the way he also endured second-degree burns and was pushed down a flight of stairs by his ex-wife. Why would he stay in a relationship like this?
I stayed in the house, through all this, because I felt I had an opportunity to ask for custody.
A man is afraid if he leaves, he won't get custody.
Sociologist and therapist, Susan Steinmetz, said abused husbands worry about custody with good reason .. most don't get it. David Nevers has only limited visitation rights with his children. (clip of girl hugging him)
Steinmetz also found greater numbers of male victims than anyone thought existed. Perhaps because she was using anonymous questionnaires and the couples faced no legal consequences. She found that when there is violence in a household (clip of police opening the front door), in terms of minor assaults, the man is just as likely to be the victim.
Shurn to Steinmetz:
Men are abused by their spouses as often as women are?
When you're looking at hitting, slapping, pushing, shoving, they're fairly equal.
I just can't visualize a woman smacking a guy around.
They have to take advantage of the fact that they are generally smaller .. so the difference here is men are going to be attacked with an object ..pans, chairs, lamps ashtrays.
Thrown or struck at the person?
Rights .. they wait, catch the man off guard, or they wait until he's in the shower, for example, or he's asleep.
She's taken a night-stand and crashed it over my face while I was sleeping, she's threatened to throw boiling grease on my face.
This is NOT an aberration. Most men in this situation just won't talk about it .. even to their friends.
Robert Saunders says the first sign of his wife's irrational temper started before they were married, when a spat during a car trip escalated into her slugging him. But, sometimes he said it was jealousy that would send her into a rage.
Shurn to Man:
When you say 'she came to hit me, my first reaction is 'come on .. you're bigger than she is ... walk away from it'.
You know I could show you the pictures .. just the scratches on my forehead .. they're not big scratches ... when she got arrested ... but if I had done that to her, I'd be in jail RIGHT NOW. I wouldn't be here ... and that happened a year ago.
Some women DO get arrested after attacking their husbands. Rebecca Stern spent 3 days in jail.
I grabbed his face and my key scratched his neck and was trying to attack him. He had said 'you know I'm afraid of you.. you get a look on your face and I don't know why you get so angry'.
Could you have stopped yourself any time, if you wanted to?
I don't think so.
So, you were out of control?
Did you want to hurt or kill him?
I wanted to hurt him; I think I wanted to hurt him.
All of the men we talk to also worry about the effects of their wives abuse on their children.
My son, he was really traumatized by this behaviour because he was involved in watching it.
Robert Ellis, a commercial pilot, says he was so wary of his wife attacking him at night he would sleep fully clothed .. at times escaping with his son to a nearby hotel .. to remove him from the brutal scenes.
Shurn to Man:
He saw his mother strike his father?
Shurn to a group of 15 battered men:
Do any of you have custody of your children?
Men (all at once):
Did you all ask for custody?
Men (all at once)
[Changing Course - a rehabilitation programme for abusive
... I was arrested for spousal assault.
My name is Sylvia and I was arrested for domestic violence against my spouse.
My name is Melanie and I'm here because I'm violent.
Innocent Looking woman:
My name is Janice. I'm here for breaking a temporary restraining order..
and I'm hoping to use a different tool than anger.
They look like neighbours ... or, even family, But all have violent pasts
(referring to group of 15 abusive women).
At a unique programme in Sacramento CA, these women hope to change their future relationships.
[ROLE PLAY MODERATOR AND WOMEN]
Where do you punch, in the face?
I pull hair, I pick up things and hit him with it .. whatever it takes. My boyfriend was down on the ground, crippled, can't walk, and I just beat him in the face with my shoe.
...The roots of husband abuse are exactly like those of men who abuse their
... Growing awareness by police that battered men are not a joke.
... Men who put up with years of abuse risk being stalked by their wives
- many have to go into hiding, move to a secret location
... David Nevers refuses to leave his home without a weapon of defence (pepper
Barbara Walters to Shurn:
I believe this because I just saw the report. But, it's so hard to believe
... these big men....
I know that's it's fact what the men are complaining about ... that they are greeted by authorities and family with disbelief. they just want a fair shake, they just want to be treated equally.
20/20 Show Transcript © Copyright 1997 MRA Pty Ltd
Viewers are welcome to use the information on these pages, but should
acknowledge their source as being Men's Rights Agency Internet Site.
(Simulposted on HATE MALE POST)
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
I is for Incentive?
I is for Incentive Part II
I is for Incentive, Part III
I is for (dis)Incentive Part IV
Well, in light of this work of mine it is very interesting to see the following on the NJ Law Site's Child Support FAQ page:
from New Jersey Law Site's Child Support FAQ
Each state has their own set of child support guidelines. New Jersey has some of the strictest and highest child support awards in the United States. Therefore, in many cases where a person moves to another state, he may try to have a child support award established anywhere but New Jersey. The child support awards are much lower in the southern states and in Florida than they are in New Jersey. The child support awards are higher in New York than in New Jersey.
The UIFSA is very complex. The parties can generally litigate for years and battle over which state has jurisdiction to establish child support. This can be a very important issue. If a person lives in the south, and if they have to pay a New Jersey child support award, this can be quite a hardship. The wages and salaries are generally lower outside of the tri-state area. Therefore, many people will try to have a child support award calculated in their home state.
In general, the state where the child lives has controlling jurisdiction over the case. It can be very difficult to enforce a child support order if a person moves out of New Jersey. The sister state will enforce the child support order. However, in many sister states they are very slow in their efforts to use their police powers to enforce the New Jersey child support order.
It is common knowledge that many "deadbeat dads" deliberately move out of New Jersey to try to avoid child support. With the advent of computers, it is now almost impossible for a "deadbeat dad" to hide forever. However, the sister state may not be as aggressive or efficient as New Jersey is in enforcing the collection of child support.
I am honestly suprised that NJ is seen as one of the worst. But I must admit I have not done the numbers. I am very lucky to have my kids half the time, and that probably reduces the amount I pay out significantly. But I know you don't want to be in NY, where the percentages get huge quickly. Maybe as a service to men, I should spend some time looking at guidelines from state to state. A HUGE project. Not sure when, if ever I will have time to approach it. But interesting to know that men are choosing to MOVE to other states and take their kids pre-divorce. I know of one man who moved to Texas, and the potential for divorce was cited as one significant reason.
In a related item (from the point of view of incentive) a Census Bureau study cited at Newsmax.com indicates that men are 'waiting too long to marry'. Especially educated men, and especially ones in the Northeast, or on the West Coast. The article notes that men wait longer than women to marry in every state, and that from the point of view of women, it is too late, because their fertile years have often begun to wane by the time men are ready to marry. Another interesting bit from the article: - 15% of new mothers in the US are not US citizens.
It strikes me that there is a huge dis-incentive for working men to reproduce in the US. But of course there is a huge incentive for illegal immigrants to reproduce here, as the children are automatically citizens. Will this country ever stop and think about what it incentivizes, and what it makes a virtual crime? If people are interested in promoting marriage, they need to protect legally the people who GET married, and that means protecting their persons, and their posessions. By turning the married state into the equivalent of Europe in 1913, our state and Federal governments have made marriage a nervous, volatile, dangerous place, to be entered into only by the brave, the strong, and the foolish. And like Europe after World War I, the divorced state is characterized by painful and abusive 'reparations' that prevent the parties from healing and moving on, and which just help to lead to further 'wars' (whoops, legal actions).
Who with foresight of what might happen would move to Europe in 1913? Who, in their right mind gets married in 2005? If we were not overwhelmingly foolish, the marriage rate would be far lower than it is.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Imagine you marry a divorced woman with kids, but in the end, she doesn't like you after all. Maybe you get stuck with alimony, but child support is no problem if you didn't have any kids with her, right?
If you acquiesced in her not seeking support from her ex, you are responsible for providing child support for the other bloke's kids. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.
Or, imagine you get incensed and try and sue NJ State Judges for violating your civil rights. Someone tried. Federal court found that they were immune. So who do you sue? :)
Or imagine that you are a disabled police oficer, and your alimony payments and other difficulties have driven you into bankruptcy. No problem, NJ will take the money directly from your disability and retirement pensions. The case law under this is really solid, nothing wrong here. Except that it makes me want to projectile vomit. The motto of divorced men in NJ should be: into bankruptcy, and beyond!
Speaking of which, the following caught my attention, certainly another case of the legal system incentivizing the wrong things. Apparently, if you file for bankruptcy before the divorce is filed, equitable distribution is held up until the bankruptcy stuff settles. Which is good for men, who generally get stuck with the bills for everything. Not certain I am reading this correctly, but pretty sure.
So Ma Jersey says:
Don't pay off those debts or try to make good -
Or you'll be the chump of the neighborhood.
File bankruptcy right away.
You will lose if you delay.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Well, as y'all may have gathered, although I am not a fan of child support, neither is it my big hob-goblin. This is mostly because New Jersey has made Alimony the monster, and in New Jersey Child-support is relatively reasonable, except, of course, for enforcement, where men have no rights at all.
Custody is a different story, with women winning the bulk of the cases, and men walking away bereft of both assets AND children.
But anyway, here is a library of resources for divorce, child support, and custody, that will hopefully assist people persuing these unfortunate fields of endeavor in NJ.
Note, most of these will not be oriented towards men, but what can you do? The system and resources are bent towards abusing men and coddling women. That's life right now. Know of another great NJ resource? Post a reply, we can all use the help.
A self-help guide to divorce in NJ
New Jersey Law Network - Overview of NJ Law
New Jersey Child Support Information
New Jersey Child Support Guidelines
Divorce and Custody Blog
NJ Law Child Support FAQs
DivorceLawInfo.com on Child Support
More General Legal Resources
NJ Judiciary Forms Online from the NJ Courts Online site
Books and resources from NOLO.com
NJ Law Network Resources
Low Cost Legal Resources by State
Yahoo Group - Dads In Family Court (membership required)
Legal Services of NJ (LSNJ):
- Documents and resources
- Hotline Legal help for low income persons (1-888-576-5529)
-(make them do an 'intake' on you.)
They may not help very much, but push for what you need - they initially told me I was an 'adverse' party. (?!) As my ex makes lots of money, I don't think they could really have been representing her, unless she lied about her income... They did find a way (relatively quickly) to set up an appointment with me, (when I pushed) so there is access there for men if you assert yourself a bit.
There are a lot of important and vital facts in these web-pages, facts that you should review, such as the following from NJ Law Child Support FAQs:
16. How can a person emancipate a child and stop paying child support?
Child support does not end automatically once the child turns 18. A person who pays child support must file an application with the court clerk and it is known as a motion to request that the child be declared emancipated. The child support obligation will only end once a family court judge enters an order that declares the child emancipated. The order of emancipation is then given to Probation, and the garnishment of the payor's pay check will then be stopped.This entire emancipation process takes about 3 to 4 months. Therefore, the emancipation application should be made in advance of the child's graduation from high school or of their 18th birthday. In some counties, the judge will rule on the emancipation application only on the papers, and a court appearance will not be necessary. However, in some counties a hearing is set down, regardless whether the opposing party files an objection.In summary, it is extremely important to always timely file for emancipation. A person should not take it for granted that child support automatically ends once the child turns 18. I have had many cases when child support arrearages accrues into the tens of thousands of dollars, even after the child is well over 18 years of age. The parent can avoid this problem if they just file a timely emancipation motion. The child support arrearages continue to accrue up until the child reaches the age of 26. If a person just ignores filing for emancipation, then eventually they will get a bill from Probation advising him that he owes tens of thousands of dollars in back child support. Furthermore, Probation will advise him that his driver's license is also indefinitely suspended.
Note again, in this, there is no concept that the woman might be responsible for paying back inappropriate support she recieved, and no apparent understanding that what the State is doing is fundamentally wrong. Read it again. Support will continue until the child is 26 if you don't cut it off promptly at 18. 26!. Ma Jersey strikes again.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Gordon v. Rozenwald 2005: Patricia Gordon files divorce against her hubby in 1986 and they agree to 15 years of alimony at $10,000/year plus child support. The 15 years corresponded to Rozenwald's expected retirement date, and so was acceptable to him.
But Rozenwald was a good father. Better financially than you probably could ever hope. Over the next 13 years he paid Gordon and their two children $ 470,474 above and beyond his obligations under the property settlement agreement (the part of the divorce agreement in NJ that handles money and property and such). Sounds pretty good.
But you know where this story is going. In 1998, probably seeing the end of the alimony period looming, the greedy ex-wife drags the now better-compensated Rozenwald back to court. Of course the Family Part court would never hear of modifying support for a great ex like Rozenwald, would they? I mean, the man went above and beyond, to the tune of almost half a mil!
Not in New Jersey. The family part ordered Rozenwald to pay $6,320/month in alimony, and made it PERMANENT.
So Rozenwald appealed. ...In review of the appeal the family part increased Rozenwald's obligation to $10,000/month alimony, retroactive to 1998, of course, and awarded the gold-digger $61,423 in attorney's fees. Oh, and transferred his life insurance policy to the financial scavenger too.
Lucky Rozenwald is loaded, he decides to take the whole thing for yet another spin. (Hasn't he learned?)
Well the appeals court gobbletygooked it about, remanded part, and vacated a bit, but basically indicated that 'term' (aka 'non permanent') alimony may be considered to be based on an idea that other forms of support will materialize during the 'term', and that if those forms of support don't materialize, then it can be modified, but that the plaintiff (gold-digging ex-wife) would have to show that there was such a concept of expected support.
So most of it got sent back to the same court that goofed it up in the first place for fine tuning, with the huge new amount left in place. The life insurance was restored, and although apparently critical words were in the decision about the attorney's fees that were allotted to Rozenwald, it is reasonable to assume that Rozenwald is still gonna pay.
What's the moral of the story? Never make more money? Never marry? Never go back to a New Jersey Court?
Rozenwald's legal expenses would pay three years of alimony already, I am sure, and by the time the remand is over, they will be double that, no doubt.
Am I saying he shouldn't fight? No. But I don't know why he didn't move out of this morass of a state. It would have been worth his while to buy his ex a house in almost any other state, and pay for her moving costs. Hm.
Here's another case-to-make-you-vomit: RAGAN v. RAGAN. 11-year marriage. Wife filed, of course. Working wife is awarded $6,279 per month in PERMANENT ALIMONY, PLUS attorney's fees. Appeal notes that ex wife's budget should NOT be reduced with respect to reductions in LAWN CARE EXPENSES, RESTAURANTS, HAIR CARE, AND VACATIONS. Appeals court wrote that trial court's conclusions satisfied the "overarching concept of fairness."
In a pigs eye.
But at least you can see that NJ takes that 10-ish-year dividing line between permanent and temporary alimony seriously, and that they also mean it when they talk about both spouses (well, the woman) being able to maintain their standard of living. Hairstyles and all. There is a special hell for that woman and her lawyers and the judge, I am sure.
Next up: greedy ex-wife (sorry, don't mean to insult her, but calling a spade a spade here) demands that the parents of her disabled ex pay her support of $20,000/month. Is Ma Jersey up for it? You know she is, with attorney's fees, too, no doubt.
so disgusted, must... RRrrraaurrrgh!
p.s. New addition on left - NJ Law Blog. A great place to look for current law, and current attitudes in the law. But I think it is fair to say that they don't have a male-positive attitude. Take a look at the last paragraph to their post here.
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Convicted of Child Sex Crimes
I'm not seeing this in the general news yet, but then, it takes them weeks to catch up to news. Still, this case went all the way to conviction without my seeing it once.
Searching the web turns it up only at the Courier-Post, which serves southern NJ, and at the Sierra Times. Oh, it did show up in a few other places some time ago (like NY Newsday) , when the judge went with an insanity defense.
But it's all over the Man-Web, at Men's News Daily and at Masculiste.
Oh, and I should probably cite the site of the man who had the oo's to pen the article, Jim Kouri, CPP
Quote from article:
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Stephen W. Thompson, who traveled to Russia to have sex with a teenage boy, was convicted by a federal jury last week on a charge of sexual exploitation of children. The judge also produced a videotape of sex with a minor and then transported that videotape back to the United States. Judge Thompson is associated with the North American Man Boy Love Association, a group which promotes sexual relations between adult men and children. NAMBLA is currently represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
- Yet another blotch on the face of NJ 'Justice'.
- We all knew the emperor (NJ justice) was naked, we just didn't know that (s)he was getting that way with boys.
- Why isn't this getting any play in the media? You would think the papers would love a 'sex' story. Or are NJ Judges too well protected against negative press to report on?
- The article implies that part of the huge trove of man-boy sex stuff turned up in the discovery phase was found in the Judge's chambers. Somehow that seems particularly disgraceful.
- I note that the ACLU is advocating for NAMBLA... Hm. Any chance that the ACLU will take up the case of divorced men in general? We are at least as hated and reviled as pedophiles and nazis...
I'm still disgusted.