Windfall moms join deadbeat dads

**Feckless** · 16th-October-2008

Women on welfare should not be allowed to get boob jobs.

There, I said it.

This was not a topic to which I had devoted a lot of thought. I've rarely, if ever, stood in a grocery line behind a woman using food stamps, so impressed by her saline-filled breasts that I asked for the name of her plastic surgeon.

Recently, however, I stumbled upon a woman who not only managed to afford cosmetic surgery while feeding her family with food stamps, but who literally could write the book on "How To Beat The System and Screw My Ex-Husband All In One Fell Swoop."

She disgusts me. She disgusts me to the point where I am ready to march on Washington wearing a fake-breast costume covered in food-stamp pasties while carrying a blazing copy of the Child Support Standards Act on a stick.

As Lewis Carroll wrote in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," (fitting in more ways than one), I will "Begin at the beginning."

It all started in 1989, when the Legislature enacted the Child Support Standards Act, which remains the driving force in determining parents' child support obligations.

With that body of law, the "deadbeat dad" was officially born, and Maury Povich could be heard rejoicing throughout the land.

The act was necessary for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was the need to protect mothers from baby-daddies who planted their seeds without ever tending to the saplings born there from. It should be regaled for that reason alone.

Unfortunately, the act is not without its bugs, and in certain scenarios - particularly those where Dad is not a deadbeat, but rather a hard-working slob who may have fallen on hard times - the flaws in the law can truly undermine the purpose.

For example, when a mother and father live together contributing to a single household, and one spouse loses his job, neither the state, nor the court, nor Superman swoops in to shake the pockets of the non-income-producing parent. In such cases, the family sucks it up to get by. That's life. And sometimes, life doesn't include summer camp.

Once two parents live separate and apart and the non-custodial parent suffers financial hardship, there is little mercy. At this point, the custodial parent can, with the help of the court, put a boot on the ex's throat and use child support as a tool that does little to put food on the table now, and instead serves to increase the financial burden on the already strapped parent.

Compounding that is the sheer lack of oversight in ensuring the receiving parent doesn't spend the money she gets for the benefit of her children on a boob job. I don't care if she did breast feed her young. It doesn't qualify.
One mother did just that. And, this is why I am duct taping the Child Support Standards Act to a stick and dousing it in gasoline right now.
This mother took her ex-husband back to court to increase the amount of child support he was ordered to pay for the care of their 17-year-old daughter.

There wasn't much unusual about that, save for the fact that the child herself was working and well-fed. In other words, there wasn't a real need to raise the support. There was, instead, a desire for Mom to extract as much blood out of Dad as the court would allow. Shocking? Hardly. It happens all the time.

Meanwhile, Mom remained gainfully unemployed, popped Paxil, and collected public assistance. She got a free lawyer, and, get this, was charging the 17-year-old daughter for whom she was collecting child support, rent, though she and daughter were living rent free with Mom's boyfriend. (Feck: OUTRAGING!)

Dad fought the law, and not surprisingly, the law won.

After the hearing, Mom took her boyfriend out for a lobster dinner, and for dessert, she got breast implants. In my book, there is no bigger thief than a woman who receives assistance to feed her children, and instead uses it to feed her ego.

While the court is permitted to deviate from the Child Support Standards Act for good reason, it too often turns a blind eye to good reason. Especially in this economy, the act should be adhered to - or ignored -in a way that results in justice for all, and not as a windfall for either parent.

Jonna M. Spilbor is a Poughkeepsie-based attorney. Write her in care of: Poughkeepsie Journal Opinion Page, P.O. Box 1231, Poughkeepsie, NY, 12602-1231. Or in care of:

letterstoeditor@poughkeepsiejournal.com

Windfall moms join deadbeat dads | PoughkeepsieJournal.com | Poughkeepsie Journal

The Patriarchy strikes again.....

**shaazam** · 16th-October-2008

is there a bottom to which the feminit narcissists will not plumb - their mottois me myself and I

**Percy** · 16th-October-2008

Jonna M. Spilbor is a Poughkeepsie-based attorney

A nice article to drum up trade with dads but do you reckon she charges fees whatever his circumstance? Will she be in Court next week representing some mother screwing the following year's free boob job out of an ex who works three jobs? Is the Pope a Catholic?

**lolintertubes** · 17th-October-2008

Quote from Percy

Is the Pope a Catholic?

Wait I know this one... No? Shit that isn't right.

These kind of stories have been going on for a donkey's age but no-one seems to give a toss. It is truly disgusting but honestly will it ever change?

**Stan** · 17th-October-2008

Hey Poughkeepsie, New York is very close to me in Connecticut.

However I already knew how messed up it is around here from my own and those I have heard from, experiences.

Here's another gold-digger example. A couple married 3 years is divorcing, no kids. She has a BMW 3 series. He has a BMW 7 series, and it is newer.

She asked for and received his car. The Judge ordered him to exchange cars with her. I did not hear the final details but I recall that he was trying to tell the judge that the 7 series is LEASED and cannot be signed over to her as he is not the owner. I am not super familiar with car leasing but there were some restrictions in mileage that were very low, like 8000 miles a year and she wanted those changed to unlimited. And besides he explained there is no reason for it except that she was mad that he bought himself a better car after 7 years with the old one.

**Stan** · 17th-October-2008

Quote from Stan

Hey Poughkeepsie, New York is very close to me in Connecticut.

However I already knew how messed up it is around here from my own and those I have heard from, experiences.

Here's another gold-digger example. A couple married 3 years is divorcing, no kids. She has a BMW 3 series. He has a BMW 7 series, and it is newer.

She asked for and received his car. The Judge ordered him to exchange cars with her. I did not hear the final details but I recall that he was trying to tell the judge that the 7 series is LEASED and cannot be signed over to her as he is not the owner. I am not super familiar with car leasing but there were some restrictions in mileage that were very low, like 8000 miles a year and she wanted those changed to unlimited. And besides he explained there is no reason for it except that she was mad that he bought himself a better car after 7 years with the old one.

Oh yeah...I forgot to mention that this guy is a house builder. And she kicked him out of their house. She showed up in court with a picture of "his new house" which was larger than the one they had been in.

Trouble is the guy did NOT have a new house. He was crashing in a partly built house in a sleeping bag since court ordered him to pay the mortgage and other costs on the present house in which his soon-to-be exe was living for free. He had no money left to pay for his own housing.

And bear in mind what I noted above...that besides the free house she wanted his larger, newer car and with no mileage limits which is not allowed on his car lease contract. Seems like she wanted to rack up huge mileage on it with him responsible for paying all the extra penalties for exceeding mileage.

I heard this from him and from his discussions with his lawyer as this was on a bench in the waiting area before you go into the actual Family Court.

I actually heard...loud and clear from the man's attorney telling him "Don't make her mad". Seriously.

Now this was an early 30s couple divorcing after 3 years of marriage and the divorce began in year 2, they were a year into the divorce which she was dragging out. He has to pay her attorney too.

**Feckless** · 17th-October-2008

This is Sparta!

**Marx** · 17th-October-2008

Why do men have to pay for women's attornies? I don't understand that...

**Stan** · 17th-October-2008

Quote from Marx

Why do men have to pay for women's attornies? I don't understand that...

This is not always the case.

Honestly SO MUCH depends on the woman.

If she is angry and can stomach outrages then the courts will tend to try to placate her.

That's how I heard a Judge telling a man he'd like him to swap cars with his wife. This guy's exe just spends her free time tying up the courts with her wacky requests. The kind that should not even be accepted and heard. Instead there a hearing and the guy feels like he is in Alice In Wonderland and then goes home to his sleeping bag in a house with no interior as it is still being built but he has the key for it. Luckily this was in Spring time as there was water but no heat. Hmm...I guess he had to take cold showers??!! As there was not hot water heater I supposed.

Or lecturing a man who does not want to pay for additional diabetes treatment as "child support". For a child over 30 who is married and whose spouse has medical coverage but not everything was covered. And the money would get paid to his exe. So I sit there and hear the Mom of the 30 + year old child say well diabetes runs on his side of the family so it is his fault and he should pay for it. Payable to the Mom, lol. And the guy sits there and is lectured and questioned by the judge who wants this to happen and is trying to see how it could be done. I wish I had heard the rest of that case.