I'm in the military; my wages are garnished at 65% ....

[RogerFGay]

I'm in the military…my wages are garnished at 65% and my ex will not let me see the kids regardless of court orders (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/03/01/im-in-the-militarymy-wages-are-garnished-at-65-and-my-ex-will-not-let-me-see-the-kids-regardless-of-court-orders/)

[Lubbock]

Okay. I tried to wade through the original post and the badly written responses, and as usual, in all cases such as this, there are huge pieces missing.

Aside from the fact that, if he's in the military, California is not garnishing his wages, the military is.

[Wolfcounsel]

I may get my ass kcked for saying this, but this is what he should do. Request a humanitarian discharge to better handle the money problem in the civilian world. Upon receving it, print a notice in the newspaper where his vacuum cleaner lives, telling her to screw off and don't worry about any more money coming in to her account, and then spend some time in prison living off the taxpayers and don't worry a hoot about anything. Problem solved. What are they going to do? Torture you?

[Lubbock]

Of course, the ones caught in the middle if the entire mess are the children.

The question arises: how did he get in the arrears on child support.

I've worked in Family Law long enough to know that if the individual ordered to pay child support, pays it as ordered on day one, an arrears is not possible.

That's Texas, but it should work the same in every state.

I don't know why state originally order the child support.

Florida, I think.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Of course, the ones caught in the middle if the entire mess are the children." --Lubbock

The children will not starve. They will be handed over to a good foster home.

[Taylor1]

God, if this is what our veterans and active military are getting, I'm gonna have to slappa guy. Better yet, go to washington and piss some people off to get my way in, this isn't how people should ever be treated none the less in our military.

[Lubbock]

The military has nothing to do with this.

The man is under a State Court Order to pay child support.

He fathered the children, it's his responsibility to pay child support.

[Wolfcounsel]

"He fathered the children, it's his responsibility to pay child support." --Lubbock


Yes, I've known women who turn over most of their support money to an abusive boyfriend, who in turn buys food and other goodies for his other bimbos and children, and if she complains, he beats the crap out of her.

Support money should be given by both parents, and if the mother does not work, make her ass work. And in the case of a woman shacking up with another asshole, the support money should be stopped, and the children turned over to foster parents until they reach the age of adulthood.

[RogerFGay]

Of course, the ones caught in the middle if the entire mess are the children.

The question arises: how did he get in the arrears on child support.

I've worked in Family Law long enough to know that if the individual ordered to pay child support, pays it as ordered on day one, an arrears is not possible.

That's Texas, but it should work the same in every state.

I don't know why state originally order the child support.

Florida, I think.

Haven't checked Texas lately, but if what you're saying is true; then congratuations to Texas and everyone living there. That's a really, really big thing.

Since you work in family law, I take it you're aware of the major changes that came about through federal reform; first going into effect at the end of 1989. Federal funds are doled out to states based on how much child support is ordered, so every state arbitrarily jacked up the amount of child support ordered. Amounts are no longer related to children's needs and the relative ability of parents to pay; so the term "child support" is generally very misleading.

There are very many parents who are unable to pay the amounts they are ordered to pay. Sometimes the initial order is larger than their take-home pay. Orders can be based on the maximum amount that the payer has ever earned, regardless of current earnings. Loss of employment or change of employment (even involuntary) that results in lower income doesn't result in a reduction in the order.

I agree that it's difficult to guess all the details from the article. I left a message there asking about his possible job loss given that he's in the military --- reservist in training? Could be that the order is based on his civilian pay, but he's not making that while he's on duty. Lots of reservists that went to Iraq came home to go directly to jail without passing go, etc. because downward adjustments were not possible - after all, they volunteered - so it's there fault their income dropped while at war.

As they say, there's no excuse for not paying "child support." Of course, it's an entirely different story for married parents, who do in fact live with reduced income under the same circumstances; without fear of being demonized and thrown in jail as a result. They're heroic for their sacrifice, right?

[RogerFGay]

Okay. I tried to wade through the original post and the badly written responses, and as usual, in all cases such as this, there are huge pieces missing.

Aside from the fact that, if he's in the military, California is not garnishing his wages, the military is.

I didn't find the writing so bad. Maybe you just need some rest. Anyway, the author, Glenn Sacks is a syndicated talk radio host based in California. Many of his articles introduce the topic of his next show, or can be followed up at his blog site. My guess is that Californians are going to be hearing about this case on the radio.

[Lubbock]

. . . There are very many parents who are unable to pay the amounts they are ordered to pay. Sometimes the initial order is larger than their take-home pay. Orders can be based on the maximum amount that the payer has ever earned, regardless of current earnings. Loss of employment or change of employment (even involuntary) that results in lower income doesn't result in a reduction in the order. . . .

I know from first hand observation that waaaaay too many men take an order to pay child support as a personal affront.

From the articles you post concerning child support and "man's issues" regarding child support, child custody, etc., I suspect you have your own personal issues with the matter.

[Rhino]

The question arises: how did he get in the arrears on child support.By law (15 U.S.C. § 1673), they cannot garnish more than 65% of his disposable income (not 65% of his total wages as the link claims). If the court ordered child support is $400 more than 65% of his disposable income, then he is in arrears.

[RogerFGay]

I know from first hand observation that waaaaay too many men take an order to pay child support as a personal affront.

From the articles you post concerning child support and "man's issues" regarding child support, child custody, etc., I suspect you have your own personal issues with the matter.

No, actually I don't. But I've studied and written about the subject for years. My analytical work has been cited by top experts in the US in academic literature. I was a key contributor to alternative guidelines published by the HHS Office of Child Support Enforcement.

You are right that - today (post federal reform) - many men see "child support" as a serious problem. I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that "too many" think that way. As I've explained, it is a serious problem. There are in fact a very large number of parents who have been ordered to pay amounts that are large enough to induce pain. The amounts are in fact not related to children's needs and relative ability of parents to pay. Child support orders are made arbitrarily high so that states collect higher amounts of federal funds. The serious problems fathers (and mothers) face as a result are not sacrifices that are actually linked to caring for their children.

If you're interested in looking further into the subject, I suggest "Taken into Custody, The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family" by Stephen Baskerville. Dr. Baskerville is widely recognized as one of the foremost experts on family policy in the US, and has been appearing very regularly for the past several months on conservative talk radio around the country to discuss these problems and his book.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The "War Against Fathers" starts with the war against marriage that has been raging since the 60s. I recommend more people 1) wait to have sex, 2) wait to get married, 3) put more into their marriages before bailing, 4) put the kids first not them-selfish-selves. More needs to be done in preventing marriages from failing in the first place. Too easy to get into, too easy to get out of and not enough thought given to either.

And I speak as a once divorced woman, who should never have gotten married to the first one in the first place. Praise the Lord there were no children from that disastrous union.

[RogerFGay]

I know from first hand observation that waaaaay too many men take an order to pay child support as a personal affront.

Which is in itself compelling evidence that something is terribly wrong. Of course you could take the feminst view that all men are bad. They claim that all men are predisposed to abandon their wives and children and then refuse to take responsibility for their care. But there really aren't any objective indications that they are right. Scientific observations continually show the opposite.

[RogerFGay]

The "War Against Fathers" starts with the war against marriage that has been raging since the 60s. I recommend more people 1) wait to have sex, 2) wait to get married, 3) put more into their marriages before bailing, 4) put the kids first not them-selfish-selves. More needs to be done in preventing marriages from failing in the first place. Too easy to get into, too easy to get out of and not enough thought given to either.

And I speak as a once divorced woman, who should never have gotten married to the first one in the first place. Praise the Lord there were no children from that disastrous union.

Well, not much there to disagree with. It's sound advice regardless of the state of the laws. One problem linked with good intentions however, no matter how careful or dilligent one tries to be is so-called "no fault" divorce. ("Too easy to get out of.") If one spouse decides to leave (usually it's the mother), there is often nothing whatsoever that the other spouse can do to stop it or even slow it down. (I recognize that in theory, conversation or other things might .... but many have reported that by the time they realize she's going ... she's gone.)

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Well, not much there to disagree with. It's sound advice regardless of the state of the laws. One problem linked with good intentions however, no matter how careful or dilligent one tries to be is so-called "no fault" divorce. ("Too easy to get out of.") If one spouse decides to leave (usually it's the mother), there is often nothing whatsoever that the other spouse can do to stop it or even slow it down. (I recognize that in theory, conversation or other things might .... but many have reported that by the time they realize she's going ... she's gone.)

And I disagree with "no fault" divorce as well. But I think it should be MUCH harder on the front end, or at least equally difficult on both ends. It's the societal state of mind that has created this monster ... the disposable mentality. Until we begin to value PEOPLE again, we won't ever look at or value relationships in the correct manner.

[RogerFGay]

The "War Against Fathers" starts with the war against marriage that has been raging since the 60s.

And in turn, the war against fathers (specifically child support reform) resulted in the final destruction of marriage as a legally protected private institution; which directly produced state court decisions that it's unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples equality in marriage. (Although an initial crippling blow was dealt by no-fault.)

It was in federal court decisions on the constitutionality of new child support laws that marriage and family were finally formally legally transformed from sacred private institutions to arbitrary remnants of public policy. The standard for constitutional issues changed as a result; so that equal treatment under law is the only constitutional consideration.

[RogerFGay]

Before you read the following article, about TEXAS child support collections, I want you to be aware of certain things. "Collections" means payments made through the system. "Increasing collections" means that more people were forced to pay through the system resulting in higher amounts of federal funding being paid to the state. There has been no increase in Texas, or nationally, in the percentage of the amount ordered that is paid as a result of the child support enforcement system. There is no difference in (percent) payment levels between having a multi-billion dollar annual enforcement program, and just letting paying parents send checks (or auto-deposit) directly to the receiving parent.

Note that in Texas - and here's the issue discussed in the article - recipient parents are being forced to pay fees to a private accounting agency (called a collection agency) in order to receive their child support payments. And there is stiff resistance to stopping the practice. Private collection agencies definitely have had an extremely corrupting influence; and this is just a small glimpse of the problem that has been created.

Texas attorney general, family-court judges battle over child-support collection (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030308dnmetchildsupport.3070222.html)

[Lubbock]

By law (15 U.S.C. § 1673), they cannot garnish more than 65% of his disposable income (not 65% of his total wages as the link claims). If the court ordered child support is $400 more than 65% of his disposable income, then he is in arrears.

I've got a hundred dollars that says, when you get to the bottom of this, the truth, you'll learn that the man is ordered to pay child support based on his disposable income, not total income.

In Texas, there is a form and a formula that we use in figuring child support: first we see tax returns and wage statements for the preceding six-or-so months.

It's hard for me to believe that every state doesn't use something similar.

As to how this particular individual got in the arrears, I can take a pretty good guess after seeing it day in and day out: he took the Court Order to pay child support as a personal affront. The longer he didn't pay child support, or didn't pay the full amount he was ordered to pay, the further behind he got.

Also, many men assume that on the weekends when they have the children for visitation, they can deduct from their child support, whatever they spend on the children: take the kids to an amusement park to the tune of $300.00, then deduct it from the next child support payment: take the kids too Payless for a new shoes, then deduct it from the next child support payment.

A lot of men bitch and gripe because the mother doesn't send the child's or children's best clothes for weekend visits [women don't sent the best because seldom does the clothing come back], and they withhold money from child support and purchase clothes for the kids.

I could write a book about the fights I've seen over child support.

One thing I've learned: No matter how thin you slice the bologna, there are always two sides to it.

[Lubbock]

. . . I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that "too many" think that way. . . .

Becaue I'm down in the trenches, working in it, day in and day out.

[RogerFGay]

I've got a hundred dollars that says, when you get to the bottom of this, the truth, you'll learn that the man is ordered to pay child support based on his disposable income, not total income.

...

One thing I've learned: No matter how thin you slice the bologna, there are always two sides to it.

The guy actually wrote: "Since then my wages are garnished at 65% and I'm still in arrears by $400 monthly." I would more easily believe that he meant disposable income when he used the term "wages." There really doesn't seem to be anything to get to the bottom of here.

[RogerFGay]

Becaue I'm down in the trenches, working in it, day in and day out.

Then I'm sure you are aware that they have a point.

[Lubbock]

Then I'm sure you are aware that they have a point.

I'm aware that the women are just as big a bitches as the men are bastards.

When a divorce is inevitable [and by the time it reaches a lawyer's office, it's inevitable], and there are children involved [and even when children are not involved], it's high damned time for both sides to grow up and stop trying to "get back" for illls and slights, real or imagined.

I know when one side or the other does nothing but spend every waking moment scheming to retaliate, get even, and make the other side "pay," the government doesn't have anything to do with it. It's not the fault of "government."

It is rare indeed for a divorcing couple not to play tug of war with the children, the victims.

The government is not responsible for a divorcing couple who can not act like responsible, thinking adults.

I know that there is nothing "standard" about the Standard Possession Order [the visitation order] in the State of Texas, and I know that it has become an absolute nightmare to construct because a man and a woman can not agree on the sun coming up in the East.

And I know that the children suffer because of it.

Don't get me started!

Not on this subject.

[Timberwolf]

The "War Against Fathers" starts with the war against marriage that has been raging since the 60s. I recommend more people 1) wait to have sex, 2) wait to get married, 3) put more into their marriages before bailing, 4) put the kids first not them-selfish-selves. More needs to be done in preventing marriages from failing in the first place. Too easy to get into, too easy to get out of and not enough thought given to either.
A whole-hearted "AMEN" to that, Homey.

And I speak as a once divorced woman, who should never have gotten married to the first one in the first place. Praise the Lord there were no children from that disastrous union.
Same here, only insert "man" for "woman". :biggrin:

[Taylor1]

I'm aware that the women are just as big a bitches as the men are bastards.

When a divorce is inevitable [and by the time it reaches a lawyer's office, it's inevitable], and there are children involved [and even when children are not involved], it's high damned time for both sides to grow up and stop trying to "get back" for illls and slights, real or imagined.

I know when one side or the other does nothing but spend every waking moment scheming to retaliate, get even, and make the other side "pay," the government doesn't have anything to do with it. It's not the fault of "government."

It is rare indeed for a divorcing couple not to play tug of war with the children, the victims.

The government is not responsible for a divorcing couple who can not act like responsible, thinking adults.

I know that there is nothing "standard" about the Standard Possession Order [the visitation order] in the State of Texas, and I know that it has become an absolute nightmare to construct because a man and a woman can not agree on the sun coming up in the East.

And I know that the children suffer because of it.

Don't get me started!

Not on this subject.

I've seen divorces happen right next to me (luckily one hasn't happened too me) but a few under different circumstances. This is pretty true, I'm saying this from a child's POV to.

Also that quote above from HomeschoolersRUs is completely and 100% true, I couldn't agree more.

[jTj]

The "War Against Fathers" starts with the war against marriage that has been raging since the 60s. I recommend more people 1) wait to have sex, 2) wait to get married, 3) put more into their marriages before bailing, 4) put the kids first not them-selfish-selves. More needs to be done in preventing marriages from failing in the first place. Too easy to get into, too easy to get out of and not enough thought given to either.

And I speak as a once divorced woman, who should never have gotten married to the first one in the first place. Praise the Lord there were no children from that disastrous union.

The Minister that married my wife and I wouldn't do it or allow us to use his Church unless we went through so many hours of counseling first. We met twice a week for two hours up until we got married. Best thing to ever happen to me relationship wise. Just him, my wife and I talking about the things you don't think about before getting married.

I'm not saying that it works all of the time, but if counseling is mandatory to get married, I'm positive that it could save some marriages (and end a lot of unnecessary relationships before they get out of control.)

[RogerFGay]

I know when one side or the other does nothing but spend every waking moment scheming to retaliate, get even, and make the other side "pay," the government doesn't have anything to do with it. It's not the fault of "government."

But politicians did find a way to tap into that emotion, got involved, and now it is government's fault that child support orders are arbitrarily high. They created a huge pork-barrel program, and it is the government's fault that the program is chocking down about $7 billion of the tax-payer's money annually.

I understand that emotions are high and people are scared during divorce, which makes that worse. I know that the business in the lawyer's office is actually worse for the people going through divorce than for the lawyers; but they have to go through it anyway (assuming they go through with it). The business in the lawyer's office and the courts is about money and custody.

I agree that people should get along. I've met some nice divorced ladies in my age bracket who made every effort to get along with their ex's, had Christmas dinner together, and other things to continue to share parenting. I don't hang out with the ones that haven't handled their situation that way.

But anyways - there is definitely a problem with the government program. It is corrupt. It has been causing widespread damage for almost 20 years now. It did legally destroy marriage and family as a result of eliminating constitutional rights so that the program could continue.

[RogerFGay]

I'm not saying that it works all of the time, but if counseling is mandatory to get married, I'm positive that it could save some marriages (and end a lot of unnecessary relationships before they get out of control.)

At present, the government rewards women for having children and getting divorced. The message is that if she feels the slightest bit of doubt or disappointment, sees a better looking man that she'd like to date, has a bad hair day, or doesn't want to cook dinner for him one night; she should pack her bags and exit. A better life awaits.

[RogerFGay]

When a divorce is inevitable [and by the time it reaches a lawyer's office, it's inevitable], and there are children involved [and even when children are not involved], it's high damned time for both sides to grow up and stop trying to "get back" for illls and slights, real or imagined.

My father was a civil lawyer, back in the olden days when divorce and marriage issues were part of civil law. When lawyers had divorce cases back then, they would typically have a meeting with all present that lasted hours intended to check any possibility of reconciliation. Of course, not all clients could afford to pay for many hours even then, when lawyers' fees were lower, and often one or both didn't ask for reconciliation meetings. So quite often they'd do it for free.

[Beowulf]

2) wait to get married, 3) put more into their marriages before bailing, 4) put the kids first not them-selfish-selves. More needs to be done in preventing marriages from failing in the first place. Too easy to get into, too easy to get out of and not enough thought given to either.
Good advice, Homes. I especially push #3. Young couples ask me so often now when they find out how long I've been married, "how do you do it?" I usually give that answer in the form of, "couples nowadays find it easier to part ways than work out differences."

As you noticed, I left out "waiting to have sex." In principle, I agree, but reality is that no matter how much we preach abstinance, YOUNG PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT!! I'm going to get grilled for this but my son one day may want to have sex with, say, a girlfriend. I know I can't stop him if he really wants to. I will try to discourage him. While I will not hand him a condom, he will know where one is should he decide to do the deed.

[RogerFGay]

Review of "Taken into Custody" (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25274)

Important read for all conservatives.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

As you noticed, I left out "waiting to have sex." In principle, I agree, but reality is that no matter how much we preach abstinance, YOUNG PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT!! I'm going to get grilled for this but my son one day may want to have sex with, say, a girlfriend. I know I can't stop him if he really wants to. I will try to discourage him. While I will not hand him a condom, he will know where one is should he decide to do the deed.

I lubya brudder, and have no desire to fight (lost the will in another battle on another thread, :smirk:), so I'll just suffice it to say I'm a believer in not counting the chickens before they hatch. God didn't tell Adam and Eve, "Yeah, I know you know not to eat the apple, but you're gonna do it anyway so here's an apple peeler so you don't cut your hands." If enough parents start drawing the lines, start being parents and parent their kids towards waiting, I'm willing to bet they will at least wait longer, and perhaps some of them will even make it to the marriage bed. Better to have saved some and lost others trying, than throw up our hands and let 'em all fall. And with that, we'll agree to disagree as friends.

[RogerFGay]

If life were perfect then we wouldn't have any problems. It's all so simple. People just have to stop doing anything that involves risk. One thing we're absolutely sure of, from extremely long-term data around the whole world, is that relationships are risky. Obviously, people should stop having them. It leads to trouble. It's just common sense and extremly frustrating that people have not progressed to the point that they are living alone, rejecting all human contact. One of the worst things we see is that people keep getting together and having children. How insane is that? We wouldn't be here if our ancestors hadn't done it; but this is the 21st century.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

If life were perfect then we wouldn't have any problems. It's all so simple. People just have to stop doing anything that involves risk. One thing we're absolutely sure of, from extremely long-term data around the whole world, is that relationships are risky. Obviously, people should stop having them. It leads to trouble. It's just common sense and extremly frustrating that people have not progressed to the point that they are living alone, rejecting all human contact. One of the worst things we see is that people keep getting together and having children. How insane is that? We wouldn't be here if our ancestors hadn't done it; but this is the 21st century.

And you jumped that shark based on my post? Wow.

[RogerFGay]

And you jumped that shark based on my post? Wow.

You'll notice a consistent pattern in my posts. When I'm responding directly to someone, I quote what they said (just like everybody else). Don't take it personally, I was just adding 2 cents worth of food for thought to the discussion.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

You'll notice a consistent pattern in my posts.

Actually, the only thing I've noticed about your posts is that you refuse to answer direct questions directly. :smirky:

When I'm responding directly to someone, I quote what they said (just like everybody else). Don't take it personally, . . .

Well, I didn't accuse you of responding to me, I only asked if that leap of logic was undertaken because of my post. I didn't take it personally, it was a natural assumption since your post follows mine. If I misinterpreted, my bad. :)

I was just adding 2 cents worth of food for thought to the discussion.

Personally I don't see where it added anything, but 2 cents worth is 2 cents worth, and we are all free to jingle our coins. :smirky:

[RogerFGay]

Great post HomeschoolrsRUs. Right on topic and spewing with wisdom. You'll probably get poster of the month for that.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Guess we've both mastered Hyperbole 101. :smirky:

[RogerFGay]

Sounds good.

:bouncing:

[RogerFGay]

'California Lawyer' Magazine Covers Fathers' Rights Movement (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/03/03/california-lawyer-magazine-covers-fathers-rights-movement/)

[The Nameless One]

Fair minded liberals and feminists...

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/11950000/11952841.jpg

[BabyBeastie]

http://ephemerist.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/condom.jpg

[Kathy30]

This is so bizzare it doesn't seem at all true.

He says he's in the military.
Then he says he's in danger of losing his job of six years.
If he's in the military only a small percentage of his income is taken the rest is paid like all military support through allotment. He shouldn't have ANY arrearages because support orders go directly to the disbursing office and the government sends out the check just like they do for every other military family.

This was written by an imaginative but unformed lawyer.

___________

When child support is paid it is paid to the parent having custody. The non-custodial parent has absolutely NO SAY at all in how it is spent. The court will shut down someone saying that the boyfriend gets it, or it's spent on crack or anything else.

California families are sometimes getting "nesting" orders if both parents work.. A nesting order means that a checking account is opened requiring two signatures to sign checks. Both parents pay support into this account. The money is used to provide a home for the children. The parents transition in and out of the home in two week intervals. The children stay put in one location. The support money is used for rent, utilities, and necessary items for the children. Since it takes two signatures to cash a check, both parents are assured that the money is not frittered away or taken by the other parent. Food is provided by the custodial parent during the their two week time.

It has worked out quite well.

[Lubbock]

He shouldn't have ANY arrearages because support orders go directly to the disbursing office . . .

I suspect his arrearage existed before he went into the military.

I doubt he's been in six yars.

I suspect he may have joined the military with the mistaken belief that his arrearage would disappear when he joined the military.

I think you are entirely correct: Whoever wrote the letter has a good imagination, and whoever posted the "article" has an ax to grind.

[RogerFGay]

This is so bizzare it doesn't seem at all true.

He says he's in the military.
Then he says he's in danger of losing his job of six years.
If he's in the military only a small percentage of his income is taken the rest is paid like all military support through allotment. He shouldn't have ANY arrearages because support orders go directly to the disbursing office and the government sends out the check just like they do for every other military family.

That covers the question I posted under the article. I'm guessing he's had his cs amount set on the basis of a civilian job ... his thought of losing it seems to indicate that he might be a reservist, has been for 6 years, and is not in training that takes him out of his civilian job for an extended period. He might also have been called into active duty. If the amount is set according to a higher income, then the automatic withholding of 65% might not keep him up to day. As I mentioned earlier, the author of the article is a radio talk show host and counts on people tuning in, or even calling in to get the rest of the story.

Note that Dustball also gave an answer to my question that might shed light on the situation. The guy might even fear being thrown out of the military according to that response.

[RogerFGay]

More general context - book review comments at Amazon can make interesting reading.

Stolen Vows: The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and the Rise of the American Divorce Industry (http://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Vows-Illusion-No-Fault-American/dp/1591960223/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205164837&sr=8-1)

Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family (http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205164539&sr=8-1)

[RogerFGay]

http://www.glennsacks.com/blog-files/images/nonsequitur.jpg

[RogerFGay]

Let there be no doubt that the system is overwhelmingly and systematically corrupt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1nQH8sfV3Q)