State Department's "Think of the Children!!" Denies US Citizens Passports
Aug 19, 2007, 8:40 pm
#91
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,417
This works very well here. I personally know several lawyers who do not pay their child support until they get a letter stating their licenses to practice are at risk. Then they suddenly are inspired to pay. I have heard two of them say it is worth the hassle to cause the ex misery . . . they just save the money until they get threatened and then pay it.
Aug 19, 2007, 9:15 pm
#92
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,490
Jul 23, 2009, 3:59 am
#93
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Apparently the State Department claims 30-40 US passport a day are denied to US citizens by it as part of this approach.
The State Department is so proud of its actions in this area that it has an area on its website related to just this:
http://travel.state.gov/family/servi...port_2596.html
Will the State Department dare say how many of the denied passports for US citizens are related to a parent being required to pay up for a child who is biologically not that citizen's child?
The State Department is so proud of its actions in this area that it has an area on its website related to just this:
http://travel.state.gov/family/servi...port_2596.html
Will the State Department dare say how many of the denied passports for US citizens are related to a parent being required to pay up for a child who is biologically not that citizen's child?
Jul 23, 2009, 8:34 am
#94
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
Rats! Now how is the TSA going to be able to pat itself on the back when they catch a deadbeat dad at the checkpoint?
Jul 23, 2009, 10:30 am
#95
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 252
I'd give it 5 years.
Jul 23, 2009, 11:55 am
#96
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
As long as they have the automated ID check against the NFL program, they could easily check the same names against the deadbeat parents list and refer them to BDOs, since children-hating is just one small step down the slippery slope into terrorism. Expanding the dragnet further will also be good for TSA morale, and might just improve the performance metrics on the "Week at a Glance".
I'd give it 5 years.
I'd give it 5 years.
Jul 23, 2009, 12:07 pm
#97
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 174
I have a friend who is in this situation but the irony is that he does not even have any biological children!
His wife, or rather his ex-wife right now, had 2 b@stard kids by 2 different men and passed them off as his, i.e paternity fraud. As you know, the courts will take it that the husband of the mother is the biological father of the kid unless proven otherwise and even then, there is some sort of statute of limitations.
To cut the whole story short, I believe he found this out when the elder one was 4, and filed for divorce. Not surprisingly, the judge awarded the wife most of the assets including the marital home. He's also on the hook for child support and he's behind on it due the bad economy and being laid off.
"It's in the best interest of the children" as the judge said. I find this statement extremely offensive and insulting. So just because the kids are young, they can trample over the rights of an honest and hardworking man. Pure bullsh!t. It's in situations like these that I really despise the government and family courts, as you give them an inch and they will take a mile from you.
As for me, I've decided never to marry in the US or any western country where feminism exists, for that matter. Even if I do, you can bet that I will be safekeeping a ton of assets with Mom and Dad or Big Sis. Such is the state of the family courts and marriage these days.
His wife, or rather his ex-wife right now, had 2 b@stard kids by 2 different men and passed them off as his, i.e paternity fraud. As you know, the courts will take it that the husband of the mother is the biological father of the kid unless proven otherwise and even then, there is some sort of statute of limitations.
To cut the whole story short, I believe he found this out when the elder one was 4, and filed for divorce. Not surprisingly, the judge awarded the wife most of the assets including the marital home. He's also on the hook for child support and he's behind on it due the bad economy and being laid off.
"It's in the best interest of the children" as the judge said. I find this statement extremely offensive and insulting. So just because the kids are young, they can trample over the rights of an honest and hardworking man. Pure bullsh!t. It's in situations like these that I really despise the government and family courts, as you give them an inch and they will take a mile from you.
As for me, I've decided never to marry in the US or any western country where feminism exists, for that matter. Even if I do, you can bet that I will be safekeeping a ton of assets with Mom and Dad or Big Sis. Such is the state of the family courts and marriage these days.
Last edited by fwh; Jul 23, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Jul 23, 2009, 12:39 pm
#98
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I have a friend who is in this situation but the irony is that he does not even have any biological children!
His wife, or rather his ex-wife right now, had 2 b@stard kids by 2 different men and passed them off as his, i.e paternity fraud. As you know, the courts will take it that the husband of the mother is the biological father of the kid unless proven otherwise and even then, there is some sort of statute of limitations.
To cut the whole story short, I believe he found this out when the elder one was 4, and filed for divorce. Not surprisingly, the judge awarded the wife most of the assets including the marital home. He's also on the hook for child support and he's behind on it due the bad economy and being laid off.
"It's in the best interest of the children" as the judge said. I find this statement extremely offensive and insulting. So just because the kids are young, they can trample over the rights of an honest and hardworking man. Pure bullsh!t. It's in situations like these that I really despise the government and family courts, as you give them an inch and they will take a mile from you.
As for me, I've decided never to marry in the US or any western country where feminism exists, for that matter. Even if I do, you can bet that I will be safekeeping a ton of assets with Mom and Dad or Big Sis. Such is the state of the family courts and marriage these days.
His wife, or rather his ex-wife right now, had 2 b@stard kids by 2 different men and passed them off as his, i.e paternity fraud. As you know, the courts will take it that the husband of the mother is the biological father of the kid unless proven otherwise and even then, there is some sort of statute of limitations.
To cut the whole story short, I believe he found this out when the elder one was 4, and filed for divorce. Not surprisingly, the judge awarded the wife most of the assets including the marital home. He's also on the hook for child support and he's behind on it due the bad economy and being laid off.
"It's in the best interest of the children" as the judge said. I find this statement extremely offensive and insulting. So just because the kids are young, they can trample over the rights of an honest and hardworking man. Pure bullsh!t. It's in situations like these that I really despise the government and family courts, as you give them an inch and they will take a mile from you.
As for me, I've decided never to marry in the US or any western country where feminism exists, for that matter. Even if I do, you can bet that I will be safekeeping a ton of assets with Mom and Dad or Big Sis. Such is the state of the family courts and marriage these days.
Jul 23, 2009, 12:48 pm
#99
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 174
When the major news starts highlighting a large number of suicides by non-procreating "fathers" made economically more desperate after having been victimized by such travesties of justice as you mention, then perhaps there will be enough soul-searching by enough politicians of courage -- a rare breed if not bordering on extinction -- to fight back against some of these knee-jerk "think of the children" protocols that create more victims rather than fewer ones and misdirect the burden away from the fraudulently-behaving party.
I wouldn't bet on that as the media is relatively feminized.
Read this http://www.law.msu.edu/amicus/wi_2003-04/paternity.html
"Simply because we have the means to determine biological parentage with greater certainty does not mean that it is in the best interests of children to do so. "
This is extremely disturbing in the sense that it's from a law professor. I shudder to think that all the budding judges and lawyers who are her students now will have the potential to practice this in the future.
If the man knowingly adopts his wife's kid from someone else as his own, and develops a father-child relationship, then yes, I feel that he is obligated to support this child. The key point is if he does this knowingly AND willingly, not being forced by the state. However, if the man has been a victim of paternity fraud, then the woman should not be able to benefit financially from this. On top of that, this honest and hardworking man gets labeled as a "deadbeat dad" and has his passport taken away.
I've come to realize that in most cases, if you're a man or if you're earning more than your spouse, you're setting yourself up to be financially raped in a court of law (This applies to women too, especially those earning more than their husbands). The moral of the story is : If you're a man, marry a woman who earns more than you so that you can claim alimony in the event of a divorce.
Last edited by fwh; Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Jul 23, 2009, 1:24 pm
#100
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 898
The article talks about "family unit" and preservation of a relationship while completely ignoring the fact that paternity fraud issue may arise only if the woman was unfaithful. Need I say more?
I've come to realize that in most cases, if you're a man or if you're earning more than your spouse, you're setting yourself up to be financially raped in a court of law (This applies to women too, especially those earning more than their husbands). The moral of the story is : If you're a man, marry a woman who earns more than you so that you can claim alimony in the event of a divorce.
Jul 23, 2009, 1:33 pm
#101
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Bend, IN
Programs: AA EXP 3 MM; Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 18,562
I have a friend who is in this situation but the irony is that he does not even have any biological children!
His wife, or rather his ex-wife right now, had 2 b@stard kids by 2 different men and passed them off as his, i.e paternity fraud. As you know, the courts will take it that the husband of the mother is the biological father of the kid unless proven otherwise and even then, there is some sort of statute of limitations.
To cut the whole story short, I believe he found this out when the elder one was 4, and filed for divorce. Not surprisingly, the judge awarded the wife most of the assets including the marital home. He's also on the hook for child support and he's behind on it due the bad economy and being laid off.
"It's in the best interest of the children" as the judge said. I find this statement extremely offensive and insulting. So just because the kids are young, they can trample over the rights of an honest and hardworking man. Pure bullsh!t. It's in situations like these that I really despise the government and family courts, as you give them an inch and they will take a mile from you.
As for me, I've decided never to marry in the US or any western country where feminism exists, for that matter. Even if I do, you can bet that I will be safekeeping a ton of assets with Mom and Dad or Big Sis. Such is the state of the family courts and marriage these days.
His wife, or rather his ex-wife right now, had 2 b@stard kids by 2 different men and passed them off as his, i.e paternity fraud. As you know, the courts will take it that the husband of the mother is the biological father of the kid unless proven otherwise and even then, there is some sort of statute of limitations.
To cut the whole story short, I believe he found this out when the elder one was 4, and filed for divorce. Not surprisingly, the judge awarded the wife most of the assets including the marital home. He's also on the hook for child support and he's behind on it due the bad economy and being laid off.
"It's in the best interest of the children" as the judge said. I find this statement extremely offensive and insulting. So just because the kids are young, they can trample over the rights of an honest and hardworking man. Pure bullsh!t. It's in situations like these that I really despise the government and family courts, as you give them an inch and they will take a mile from you.
As for me, I've decided never to marry in the US or any western country where feminism exists, for that matter. Even if I do, you can bet that I will be safekeeping a ton of assets with Mom and Dad or Big Sis. Such is the state of the family courts and marriage these days.
No, I don't advocate that at all, but situations like this do, I fear, create situations where desparate men (or women as the case may be) feel as though there is no other choice and take this action. It wouldn't be justified, of course, but it certainly could (and probably has) happened.
Jul 23, 2009, 2:50 pm
#102
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Doha, Qatar
Programs: Air Canada Aeroplan, Lufthansa Miles & More, Flying Blue, Hyatt Gold Passport
Posts: 1,894
What exactly is wrong with making people take care of their legal obligations? What about the children whose fathers (mostly) have abandoned them? We're supposed to pity the poor "businessman" who fled the country to evade his obligations and is now whining, only when they finally found something he cares about (i.e., not his child)?
I say stick it to them. If they want their passports, they know exactly what they have to do.
I say stick it to them. If they want their passports, they know exactly what they have to do.
OMG, what is wrong with it? Why don't we all just adopt an authoritarian approach like they do here in Qatar, where you cannot leave the country if you haven't paid all your parking tickets, gotten permission from your employer and repaid all your loans? Better still, what about these deadbeats who try to travel despite the fact they have overdue library books?
And why limit this to passports, why not confine people to prison until all their obligations have been met? Anyone who doesn't like this idea is just a big whiner.
Jul 23, 2009, 3:19 pm
#103
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 898
OMG, what is wrong with it? Why don't we all just adopt an authoritarian approach like they do here in Qatar, where you cannot leave the country if you haven't paid all your parking tickets, gotten permission from your employer and repaid all your loans? Better still, what about these deadbeats who try to travel despite the fact they have overdue library books?
Jul 23, 2009, 5:37 pm
#104
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
When the major news starts highlighting a large number of suicides by non-procreating "fathers" made economically more desperate after having been victimized by such travesties of justice as you mention, then perhaps there will be enough soul-searching by enough politicians of courage -- a rare breed if not bordering on extinction -- to fight back against some of these knee-jerk "think of the children" protocols that create more victims rather than fewer ones and misdirect the burden away from the fraudulently-behaving party.
Jul 23, 2009, 6:23 pm
#105
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: RDU, Delta GM/1MM, Hilton Diamond (for now), Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 3,443
The full article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/pa..._child_support
So what other things will new and renewal passport applicants be subject to prior to getting their passport issued/renewed? And what about US citizens abroad next year who need a new or renewed passport but are subject to passport denial?
Note the US Government spin that uses this "benefit" of expanded passport requirements to justify the passport requirements for more and more travel.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/pa..._child_support
So what other things will new and renewal passport applicants be subject to prior to getting their passport issued/renewed? And what about US citizens abroad next year who need a new or renewed passport but are subject to passport denial?
Note the US Government spin that uses this "benefit" of expanded passport requirements to justify the passport requirements for more and more travel.
Honestly they should arrest people that don't make their child support payments. Maybe put them in a cell with daily TSA inspections.