"Man fatally shot at federal courthouse in Seattle"
A man who walked into the federal courthouse in downtown Seattle today carrying a hand grenade was shot and killed, police said.UPDATE: The man has now been identified as Perry Manley Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 20, 2005 03:54 PM | Email ThisSeattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said the man walked into the building armed with a hand grenade. After a 20-minute standoff, Seattle police officers fired several rounds.
The man did not go through any security checkpoint and was just inside the building lobby.Posted by: Skor Grimm on June 20, 2005 04:08 PM
Seattle Police Chief Gil "Gil" Kerlikowske said the man, who had registered using the courthouse as his residence, walked into the building armed with a ballot, its existance up to this point still a mystery. After a 20-minute standoff in the provisional voter line, Seattle police officers fired several rounds wounding the suspect along with two Republican poll watchers. King County election officials , as usual, were unavailable for comment as to how the suspect obtained the ballot.
Posted by: Ken Muller on June 20, 2005 04:25 PMGot a long way to make up for WTO. In Chi-town, my old home, nightsticks were the rule. We respected each other--everybody knew the rules & good sense bounds. The police did not chase you--one round in your back, one warning shot in the air after you disobeyed their repeated commands to halt.
Bless that Blue Line!
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 20, 2005 07:23 PMIt'll be interesting to hear what his excuse was.
I heard his grenade was a WWII "Pineapple" type. I wonder if it was a fake. There aren't many real ones around. I also heard his backpack, which he reportedly wore front side out, was not packing anything explosive.
Posted by: Deadwood on June 20, 2005 09:48 PMThe courthouse has a very large lobby. You could prob fit a couple of hundred people between the doors and the security check point.
Have worked often with the Seattle USM and the court security officers. They are professional and dedicated individuals. They are not "lulled" by anything.
Kudos to SPD... a difficult job well done
Posted by: Blueknight on June 20, 2005 11:02 PMPerry Manley, from what I understand, would not hurt a fly. The people around the courthouse knew him, because he was there often to file one of his many claims.
He was a screwed up and stubborn man, no doubt. But, his primary frustration was with the fact that his children had been driven out of his life through divorce and parental alienation syndrome.
Yes, he was very confused in the arguments that he made to the court regarding his situation. But, at the same time, there was no place he could turn for help or recourse. Frustration piled upon frustration until, I guess, he felt that suicide in this manner was the only way to get anyone to pay attention. Alienated fathers commit suicide often, but you don’t hear about it in the media.
At the end of the day, he was just a lonely man, with his family taken away from him due to no fault of his own, and in dire need of help. I don't think anyone ever offered it.
The entire situation is shameful, as are some of the expressions here that it ended the way it should have.
That guy was undoubtedly disturbed. Says a lot when most of these tragedies are the "ex-boyfriend, ex-husband" thing. We need to think harder and work harder to preserve stable families and minimize divorces. However, we must think of the larger picture of protecting the public. There is little room for chance to gamble with a building or school full of lives. Send in the snipers.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 21, 2005 06:19 AMGood news as far as I am concerned. Perry was active in the republican party and the type who was always talking about holing' up against the feds. Let this be a lesson to you right wing freaks. YOU could be next!
Posted by: Lush Flimbaugh on June 21, 2005 06:47 AMReal class act, you are.
Keep it up. You won't be able to hide behind your keyboard forever.
Jim
Posted by: James S. on June 21, 2005 08:22 AMNonsense.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 21, 2005 08:46 AMReal question is, where is the outcry from the ACLU and minority leaders in the community... oh wait, he was a white guy. Never mind.
Posted by: Jeffro on June 21, 2005 08:47 AMThanks for that Jim. That is what happens to large numbers of men. Women abuse, and men can't get anyone to listen.
They system is rigged to by abused by women. Just like the KC elections system was rigged to be abused by Democrats.
This guy was frustrated with having his kids stolen through the courts and his income redistributed.
Do you not see the irony that this was the day after father's day?
Ask yourself why did he not have equal custody?
This is the second suicide/murder situation over child custody/support in a year. Otherwise rational people are being put in desperate situations. When you can't find justice anywhere- this is what happens.
Tell me that guy on 20 acres having his stuff stolen by KC code enforcement today isn't about to react the same way. This is EXACTLY how rational people will behave when all reasonable alternatives have been removed.
Look at what happens to mom's killing their newborns....they passed safe haven laws so they could dump them at a police or firestation...and then they still are killing them- with little or no consequences.
Then when mom's kill older children- they claim distress and get off.
Yet when a guy is financially disembowelled over a period of years for trying to get equal access to his kids- he is a monster for reaching a point of desperation when the courts are COMPLETELY one sided.
If we showed 1% of the consideration for fathers as we do for these deadbeat moms- these situations would not fester to what happened yesterday.
That is exactly right. Two weeks ago in court. The judge suspended my ex-wife's sentence for three counts of contempt of court. Than he told her that if she was filing suit against me right now I would go to jail. What he was telling her to file suit over was me enforcing his court order. I paid for a court reporter to record all of this. My female lawyer was outraged. She told the judge that my ex was hiding my children from me for three years. While I was paying child support and Medical. The state refused to give me the children's address and phone number. Even after I sent a certified copy of the court order that said I was suppose to have that information. My lawyer told him I can only bend so far and I finally bent far enough and enforced his court order. He still than threatened me and let her get off scott free for three counts of contempt of court. Yes she was found guilty of all three counts but suspended his sentencing. This has happened three times. Each time he suspends her sentence. That is how sexually discriminating the court system is.
Jim
Posted by: James S. on June 21, 2005 09:08 AMI suppose you think its great that these kids get to live the rest of their lives wondering about the circumstances of their father's death?
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 09:40 AMJesus man, this is a final desperate act by a dad that feels he's run out of options. although I condemn his actions wholeheartedly, I feel so sorry for him and his kids. I wouldn't care if he was an R or a D, black, white or pink - it's sad and only a souless bastard would comment as you have. LOSER!
Posted by: Jeffro on June 21, 2005 10:03 AMWhile it's tragic that he had to be killed, I have no sympathy whatsoever for him. I have an uncle who bailed on his child support for the reason "I'm not raising them, so why should I pay?" Sorry, they're your kids... grow up and show some responsibility. While I know that there are folks who are getting royally screwed by the system (like James S. above from the sounds of it) and it needs to be changed, just reading the KING-5 story and the email he sent them leads me to believe that this guy was nothing more than a selfish SOB.
Sorry, quitting your high paying job to avoid paying, trying to sue because "any child support is unconstitutional", and the way he chose to die only confirms he was nothing more than a childish, self-centered, bitter old man.
Posted by: Mike H on June 21, 2005 10:16 AMThe mom wasn't being selfish?
Why did he not have custody?
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 10:21 AMJim
Posted by: James S. on June 21, 2005 10:32 AMWhen parents have equal or near equal custody- support compliance is in the high 90% range.
Studies also show that violating parenting plans is the number 1 reason for non-payment. Usually the money is going to Dillards or Nordstroms or a new car- not the kid.
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 10:33 AMThis is just the interest California makes by sitting on that money for a month. Breaking up families is big business for the government.
You hit the nail on the head. I proved the state garnished my wages causing me to pay $5200 extra in child support. They said sorry but I have to take my ex to court and sue her for the money. The judge said the money would come from the kids so wouldn't order it. Even though I have three kids at home I'm raising. One of them she is the mother. Also I proved in court last year my ex was positive $1000 a month over bills. But she was getting food stamps and child support on top of that. I had a negative income compared to bills proven in court. What did the court do. Stick me with more child support and tell her she needs to let me see and talk to my children. Which was already court ordered. They care nothing about the children. They take from me and my three children and give it to my ex and other two children. She doesn't even pay me a dime for mediacl or child support on the one child of ours. That is how the courts are. There are facts and than there are what the the femanists tell the public. Sorry for the poor grammer.
jim
Posted by: James S. on June 21, 2005 10:42 AMI could add three stories of my own. The three examples are all from close friends of mine. I don't have to look far to find them.
When I was really close to marrying a great woman a few years ago, I balked for just this reason.
And women wonder why men are afraid of commitment.
Posted by: Mark D on June 21, 2005 10:50 AMA guy on the east coast pulled a Brame last month- similar situation- the wife was using the kids as a divorce weapon and he reached the end of the rope.
I don't condone it, I sure as heck don't advocate it. It is tragic beyond words, but you are going to see a lot more of these types of incidents if things continue the way they have.
I really get angry at these outcomes because it hurts those of us who survive the courts and try to change things for guys coming down this road in the future. All of you guys who have been through this need to be fighting HARD at fixing it- otherwise you are condemning your sons and brothers to go through the same ordeal.
They are his kids, and he has a responsibility to help pay for their well being whether he has custody or not. They are not pets, or property. They a human beings he helped bring into the world. He chose to shirk his responsibility to them. It's not that he was being forced to pay more than he could afford, but that he apparently tried to avoid paying anything at all. That is selfish. The ex could be the Wicked Witch of the West for all we know, but that doesn't absolve him of his responsibilites to the well being of his kids.
When the guy sends an email to KING saying ALL child support is unconstitutional, it's a bit of a stretch to try and portray him as some sort of saint. I mean come on, the guy was under investigation for making death threats to a federal judge.
Plus, his kids were full grown. Other than any back child support, there was no furhter obligation. Give me a break. He was no saint, but a childish, self-centered, selfish bitter old man who was trying to make himself a martyr... to hell that his daughter was about to get married and his son just had a birthday, it's all about him.
Posted by: Mike H on June 21, 2005 11:24 AMJames S.
Hang in brother and God speed to you.
Andy
you're also so correct - it's big business.
Here's to working to fix the system, get the right judges on the bench, changing the lib/fem/soc culture and not allowing the system to beat us down.
In the words of Jackass Sims -
Solidarity!
Humans can be irresponsible pigs. Being a parent does not automatically promote you to sainthood or victim hood - regardless of your gender. That guy who died sounds very disturbed. I'm not guessing he was nominated for father of the year - but thats just me guessing ;)
Posted by: Regular Poster Mom on June 21, 2005 11:40 AMAre they your property?
Why are your kids not entitled to spend as much time with their father for better or worse as they do with you? They carry his DNA- like it or not and that was YOUR choice, not theirs.
I'm sure you haven't abused the system as most- but it is in fact about gender since less than 20% of unmarried fathers nationwide are more than visitors/mom's paycheck in their kids lives.
With regards to $- the state makes it about money, hence child support is based on the amount of money that can be extracted from a man and has nothing to do with the actual cost of raising a child.
Interesting that you point out that the deadbeat mom pays no support. Even if she were ordered to, the courts would not enforce it.
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 11:54 AMIf she doesn't pay- the courts won't do squat.
Also why do you think 'paying' should or should not entitle a child to know or spend time with their biological parent.
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 12:07 PMBecause when you go to court, you either "win" or "lose". That's the terminology, for better or worse. As for why the father isn't granted more custody, my guess would be the fact that she stated he's manic depressive who's a "Great Dad when he's well". If a parent has a mental illness that could endanger the kids, I don't care who it is, I would have reservations about awarding custody to them.
Also, please note that she said the mom didn't pay child support, not doesn't-- past tense. It sounds like she's now being compelled to.
Andy, I sincerely mean no offense by this, but it sounds like you're just really bitter. The statement "I'm sure you haven't abused the system as most"-- you mean most divorced mothers abuse the system? That's a pretty blanket statement. Maybe I'm reading your statements wrong, but you just sound incredibly bitter towards women.
All the best to you.
Posted by: Mike H on June 21, 2005 12:18 PMas per the manic depressive- I've seen this one used before on a guy after they financially ripped him to nothing and took his kids away except every third weekend when he has to drive 3 hours to see them (after the mom's move aways). He couldn't get more time with his kids because they described him as "depressed".....no kidding!!?! All of this was done by a COMMISIONER....NOT EVEN A JUDGE- and BTW you can't affidavit a commisioner who is blatantly biased- go figure on how that plays out. I don't imply that postermom's ex isn't on meds or something, but manic depressive doesn't preclude many-a-mom from getting primary custody now does it?
FYI- When you go to court- you expenct an equitable solution unless you are an ambulance chaser or divorce attorney.
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 12:43 PMIt's the anti-family courts and legislature that are enabling and fostering this damage.
Andy - Wow. My husband and my nephew both won custody of their kids. In all of the cases that I am aware of personally, the courts awarded custody to the parent they felt was most likely to provide the most stable, loving environment. I know there are exceptions. I have NO idea where you got your comment (or assumption) that I think child support should be tied to visitation. With holding support is against the law. So is with holding visitation. It's called "Custodial Interference" the offending parent can be arrested.
Not sure why you are so angry, but I hope you can channel that energy toward something positive at some point.
Posted by: Regular Poster Mom on June 21, 2005 12:48 PMNothing to get angry about. I very much want to raise a son to expect this from marriage/family.
BTW- Show me ONE case where a mom has been arrested for withholding or interfering with visitation. The police laugh at guys when they report it and in 1 in 500 cases, a judge will do something extraordinary like enforce their own court order.
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 12:57 PM;)
Posted by: Regular Poster Mom on June 21, 2005 01:08 PMMark
Posted by: Mark D on June 21, 2005 01:18 PMThere are lots of stories like that. It happens far too often.
If a woman wants out, fine; but she should not be able to leave a man without his children. And, the courts should not put him into a position of having to spend thousands and thousands of dollars just to get to visit them.
The average middle class guy (not to mention someone with even less money) cannot afford to both pay child support and spend thousands in courts to overcome false accusations just so they can maintain some semblance of a relationship with with their children.
What Perry Manley did was wrong. No question about it. His arguments to the court were also screwy and he did not couch his plight in the most sympathetic terms - stating that government should not be able to force anyone to pay child support.
But, remember that usually in politics people take extreme positions in order to get part of what they want. Seems to me that is all Manley was doing.
Anyone that can't admit this needs to open their eyes. I also don't see Andy's positions as one of anger - it is inherent in all humans to strive and even demand fairness. If not for ourselves, for our family, friends, sons daughters and our children's children. Andy seems to have the foresight to see that these biased awards effect our cultural perception of fathers and sons as well as mothers and daughters.
I pay my child support and always have. What if I couldn't. If circumstances beyond my control left me pennyless, I would have to sue for visitation. FYI, they don't provide a free attorney for such cases.
The system is very flawed and until people are made aware of this, we'll continue to see the decline in the value of fathers.
Posted by: Jeffro on June 21, 2005 01:46 PMThis is why I have always said that Republicans should not just assume they have the men's vote (which they do now) and men should make sure they don't just give it.
Issues like this need to be addressed.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 21, 2005 01:49 PMKastama- a democrat is the ONLY politician in Washington who has done SQUAT for equal parenting.
He's gotten zero support from either party and I suspect if he wants to procure his future in Wa politics he'll have to sell us up the river.
Members of the father's movement often debate about who to support. The state Democrats have made it tough for any divorced man to support them- Gregoire is responsible for a lot of dead bodies here.
The state GOP could pick up a LOT of voters and funding by taking a stand on this issue (VANCE ARE YOU LISTENING?????) as I know a lot of male dems who've been effed by the system would switch in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 01:59 PMNot dancing on your collective misfortunes, but this whole arena is new and scary to me based on what I read here--biases aside. Thanks for sharing the horror. I can't speak from experience, but can read & be more appreciative of the issues. Initially, sounds like a train wreck for all involved--my best thoughts to all of you--hang in there.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 21, 2005 02:01 PMActually the authorities seemed to go out of their way to bring back the lady that ran off to New Zealand just a couple of weeks ago. Andy, not to minimize your plight, but I think most married men (including me) equate divorce with poor. One couple I know just got divorced back in Chicago, since she earned more and initiated the proceedings, he made out like a bandit. It does happen.
Posted by: CandrewB on June 21, 2005 02:04 PMExactly! And, do you know why? It was because Kastama has been through the family court system, been in the custody battle, and learned that visitation is not enforced.
He has seen first hand how unfair it is. So, he has tried to do something about it.
Both Republicans and Democrats are so concerned about political correctness and so unconcerned about one the most basic plights imaginable - that of a father trying to be involved in the lives of his children - that they ignore him. Worse, they treat him like a pariah.
It's disgusting all the way around.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 21, 2005 02:15 PMPosted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 02:16 PM
The abortion debate is a red herring to distract what is really happening - the removal of fathers from families.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 21, 2005 02:38 PMLot's of great posts (Andy, BananaLand, Jimie, lesterman, Mark, Poster Mom) and any candidate that is willing to take on this plank will probably get my vote, R or D. Hang in all!
Posted by: Jeffro on June 21, 2005 02:41 PMJim
Posted by: James S. on June 21, 2005 02:55 PMI can just see the ex-wife suing the Seattle Police
for wrongful death on behalf of "his children."
Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony if she receives
some sort of wind-fall out of this?
I just heard that one of the final insults Perry Manley indured is that his wife would not allow him to walk his daughter down the aisle at her wedding.
Posted by: Mark D on June 21, 2005 02:59 PMThe man gets the first choice and that is all.
Mark
Posted by: Mark D on June 21, 2005 03:03 PMSplit, even, equal custody means no one gets a bill but it's a horrible thing to do to another human being. Let the kid have a home base.
I would fight right along side of anyone wanting to make the system more fair - make the payee parent account for all monies received - whatever - but if I start hearing a candidate - or anyone - start Mom-bashing - I'm all done listening. No parent should get custody because they don't want to pay child support. No parent should be denied custody because they are the wrong gender. It's not supposed to be about that.
FYI - Child support orders and visitation plans are TOTALLY SEPERATE legal documents, having ZERO bearing on one another.
Posted by: Regular Poster Mom on June 21, 2005 03:04 PM"FYI - Child support orders and visitation plans are TOTALLY SEPERATE legal documents, having ZERO bearing on one another."
If that were true, in the few cases where the father gets full time custody than it would be very possible for the mother to receive full child support. So the children live full time with the father and the father would have to pay a full amount of child support to the mother?
Posted by: Mark D on June 21, 2005 03:15 PMAlso it is wrong to assume father's want the pendulum turned back the other way- that's not what this movement is about- it's about treating everyone equal and accountable and giving kids BOTH parents-
Go research how much of a burden single parent homes contribute to schools, drop outs, prisons, violent crimes etc. All of this has an extremely high correlation to fatherlessness. It's in our best interest all around to fix it.
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 03:33 PMI know of two cases exactly as you describe. The child (or, in one case, the children) went to live with the fathers when the mothers decided that they were too much trouble.
The courts decided in both cases to compel the fathers to continue to make the child support payments to the parent who wasn't caring for the children!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 21, 2005 03:37 PM
How true...the state will enforce child support. They won't enforce visitation. In the real world, mother's interests get attended, and father's don't.
You haven't been treated like dirt until you've dealt with OSE.
Alpha, that is just a complete outrage. These laws are even worse than I thought!!! I'm extremely lucky that I have been able to learn all of this before getting married (even living with someone instead doesn't help) and having children. I wonder more and more if it would even be worth it.
I remember an ex-girlfriend of mine who lived with her mother and her mother's new husband. Both were long-time teachers and made a combined $100k per year. They lived well and would never pay for my girlfriend to do anything. At 16 she had to work to buy her own clothing, car payment, insurnace, movie tickets, etc. Or, I'd pay.
At first I didn't think this was that big a deal as I had to do the same. My parents did it to teach me responsibility. But I just had to pay for "extras" while my girlfriend had to pay for even her school lunch.
I was outraged when I found out that her mom was upset on day because she hadn't received her monthly $1,200 child support payment yet!!! She really needed the money because she was leaving for a vacation and wanted spending $$.
Posted by: Mark D on June 21, 2005 03:58 PMI feel for ya bro. Hang in, most important is that your kids know how hard you and your wife are trying and how much you love them - goes a long way.
Poster Mom-
"Fair courts" works for me.
Posted by: Jeffro on June 21, 2005 03:59 PMUnfortunately, by the time Carrell became chair, the Rs had lost most of their advantage from the '94 elections and the next session it was 49-49. Most support issues got tabled, as Pat Lantz become co-chair with Carrell.
However, if you do have a support case or need some background, his office would be a good place to start. (and no, I don't work for him, but know of his work in the past on this issue).
Custody battles are brutal. I don't wish them upon any member of a family.
Posted by: jimg on June 21, 2005 04:30 PMhttp://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/archives/005086.html
It is NOT true - (at least in WA) that 2nd spouses income is normally taken into account.
I would be MORE than happy to provide my ex with a financial accounting of the support he sends. I don't think it should be optional to account for the support spending, I think you should have to.
We have a Brady bunch here - so I have dealt with this from several angles... and I've got to tell you, if my step kids would be better off with their Mom, than here with their Dad and I , I'd gladly pay support. I would also resent it if she spent the money at the bar and didn't buy shoes for the kids. I know that changes need to be made - I just hope the focus will be where it belongs - on the kids.
Posted by: RPM on June 21, 2005 06:51 PMSecond- there is NOTHING enforcing that they don't impute the spouses income- I know a victim of this where it went on for 3 years. It's the state's mistake and they won't give the money back either.
Third- the second family gets REAMED by those tables. For instance after the rent/mortgage is paid, the money left to feed 3 kids and wife in the second family will equal the total sent to the first.
You're going to be hard pressed to sell that DSHS/OSE is anything but complete evil. The only reform that could possibly change this perception by those familiar with the organization is shared parenting by law or reducing support to poverty plus 5% and none this garbage of percent of income; either solution is a significant $ reduction for the pigs drinking from this trough while hiding behind the childs best interest.
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 07:09 PMThey are more interested in a Tent City battle and making Seattle a "no nuke-sub visiting zone" while not permitting SEA police to ask whether someone is a legal citizen & show an I.D.
Thanks for the inside look & education. Hope you all fare well. Definitely a quagmire. How can us non-involved types help?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 21, 2005 07:10 PMThis is something that has been planned for some time- our Ca counter parts are running one in parallel.
Stay tuned.
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 08:26 PMAndy - For a guy who claims to have no children and no dog in this fight - you certainly do have a lot of baggage. Divorce is truly ugly. I'll grant you that. Our kids did really well though, and so do a lot of others. My ex pays less than 10% of his income toward child support for the two kids we share. That is a HUGE sight higher than poverty plus 5% -
You would like to chop the kids life in half so they live 50% of the time in two totally different places, with two totally different sets of rules, etc - and never really feeling like they have "a home" so that no one gets imposed upon by a lopsided court?
My attorney said that she will not take cases seeking split custody. She feels it is sacrificing the children for the emotional and financial ease of the parents, and I agree. No wonder there are so many screwed up kids out there!
Posted by: RPM on June 21, 2005 08:43 PMMAN REFUSES TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT
Seattle, WA - A man who spent 17 months in jail rather than pay child support has filed a lawsuit claiming his constitutional rights against slavery are being violated.
[Jim S], 36, was freed from the King County Jail Nov. 24 after his union decertified him. Court Commissioner Harry Slusher ordered the
former longshoreman released so he could find another job to support his three children. But [Mr. S] told the commissioner at a hearing last week that he hadn't made a single job contact.
Slusher had threatened an even longer jail term if [Mr. S] did not comply, but disqualified himself from the case because [Mr. S] had named
him in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle.
Acting as his own lawyer, [Mr. S] alleges in the suit that his former wife [Mrs. S], her lawyer and Slusher have violated his 13th Amendment
constitutional rights. The amendment abolished slavery in 1865.
[Mr. S] has said he would support his children only if he can do so in his own home with part-time custody. [Mr. S], whose divorce was final in 1990, owes $63,306 in back support, plus $11,000 in attorney fees.
(The Daily World, February 1993)"
End of Article. I have obviously taken out the father and mother's names for the sake of my girlfriend even though this is a public article.
This sounds so much like Perry Manley's story that it just blew me away. I'm really interested in discussing this more with my girlfriend when she gets back from her work-out. Who knew?
By the way, she is now 23 years old (Wow, same age as Perry Manley's daughter and he had 3 children too...weird) and she has no relationship whatsoever with her father. I've never met him either. He tries to call her all the time, she never answers the phone. I fear that the mother never said anything good at all to the kids about him. I do know money was tight for her growing up though. Interesting.
After posting comments on this earlier today, this is definately a strange turn of events for me.
Mark D
If you doubt that joint custody is in the best interests....keep reading.
1. GREAT PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
A. single parent children 3 to 4 times more likely to have emotional or behavioral problems
( Zill and Schoenborn, National Center for Health Statistics, 1990)
B. 84% of teens hospitalized for psychiatric care come from single parent homes (1989 study, cited by Hewlett, When the Bough Breaks)
2. HIGHER SUICIDE RATE
A. teens who attempt suicide similar to non-suicidal teens in age, income, race or religion, are more likely to have little or minimal contact with their father (Study of 752 families by New York Psychiatric Institute, cited by Hewlett)
B. 75% of teens who commit suicide are from single parent homes (Elshtain, The Christian Century, 1993)
3. MORE ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE
A. 18% of children with strict and involved fathers used drugs
B. 35% of children without fathers used drugs (1988 UCLA study, cited by Hewlett)
C. Children in father-absent homes are 4.3 times more likely to smoke as children in father-present (Stanton, Oci, and Silva, 1994 survey of 1037 15-year-olds)
4. GREAT FREQUENCY OF SLEEP DISORDERS
A. more trouble falling asleep, more nightmares, and night terrors (Psychiatrist Alfred Messer, cited by Hewlett)
5. PERSISTENT FEELINGS OF BETRAYAL, REJECTION, RAGE, GUILT, PAIN
A. lasting for years with a renewed intensity at adolescence
B. Two-thirds [of father-absent children] yearned for the absent parent, one-half of those with an intensity we found profoundly moving. (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980, Surviving the Breakup)
6. LOWER SELF-ESTEEM
A. especially true for girls (Dr. Robert Fay presentation at NCMC conference, 1992) (Davidson, Life Without Father: America's Greatest Social Catastrophe, Policy Review, 1990)
COGNITIVE/ACADEMIC ABILITY
1. LOWER ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
A. 38% of elementary students from single parent homes were low achieving, while 23 % of both parent children were low achieving (Nat'l Assoc. of Elementary School Principals report, city by Hewlett)
B. 30% of children from father-present homes were high achieving, while only 17% of children from father-absent homes were high achieving.
2. LOWER MATH SCORES
A. (Yale University study by Carlsmith, cited by Hewlett) (Cortes and Fleming, 1968)
3. GREATER FAILURE RATE
A. elementary students from fatherless homes or homes with mother and a stepfather have to repeat
B. (National Center for Health Statistics study of 47,000 households by Deborah grades at a rate 2-3 times higher than children with both biological parents Dawson,1991)
4. LOWER SAT SCORES
A. "dramatic" lower scores for students from father-absent homes (Columbia University and Bowling Green State University study of 295 from father-absent homes and 760 from father-present homes, cited by Hewlett)
5. LOWER IQ AND ACHIEVEMENT
A. children who lost fathers before age 5 scored lower on Otis Quick Test and Stanford Achievement Test as junior-high and high-school students (Santrock, 1972) (Hetherington, Cox, and Cox study, 1978) (Cortes and Fleming, 1968)
6. MORE LIKELY TO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL
A. children from fatherless homes twice as likely to drop out of school ( US Department of Health and Human Services, Survey on Child Health, 1993)
7. LESS LIKELY TO ATTEND COLLEGE
A. (Wallerstein, Family Law Quarterly, 1986)
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
1. HIGHER RATES OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
A. fatherless children are twice as likely to become criminally involved (Margaret Wynn, 1964) -72% of adolescent murderers, 60% of rapists, and 70% of long-term prisoners grew up in father-absent homes (US Department of Justice data, 1991)
2. GREATER DELINQUENCY FOR BOYS
A. 87% of Wisconsin juvenile delinquents are a product of father-absent homes (Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, 1994)
B. 70% of juveniles in state reform institutions grew up in father-absent homes (US Department of Justice data, 1988)
C. young black men raised without a father are twice as likely to engage in criminal activities (Hill and O'Neill, 1993) (Matlock in Adolescence) (Siegman, 1966; Anderson, 1968; Kelly and Baer, 1969)
3. GREATER DELINQUENCY FOR GIRLS
A. (Monahan, 1957; Toby, 1957)
4. MORE VIOLENT MISBEHAVIOR IN SCHOOL
A. Children who exhibited violent misbehavior in school were 11 times as likely to live without their father than children who did not violently misbehave (Sheline, Skipper, Broadhead, Aamerican Journal of Public Health, 1994)
CHILD ABUSE
1. GREATER CHANCE OF BEING PHYSICALLY ABUSED
A. preschoolers living without their biological father were 40 times more likely to be a victim of child abuse as compared to like-aged children living with their father (Wilson and Daly in Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions, 1987)
B. premarital pregnancy, out-of-wedlock childbearing, and absent fathers are the most common predictors of child abuse (Smith, Hanson, and Noble, Child Abuse: Commission and Omission, 1980)
2. GREATER CHANCE OF BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED
A. 69% of victims of child sexual abuse came from homes where the biological father was absent (Gomes-Schwartz, Horowitz, and Cardarelli, Child Sexual Abuse Victims and their Treatment, 1988)
HETEROSEXUAL ADJUSTMENT FOR DAUGHTERS
1. MORE DIFFICULTY IN INTERACTING WITH MEN AND MALE PEERS
A. daughters of divorcees aggressive, forward with boys and men
B. daughters of widows shy and timid with boys and men (Hetherington, 1972)
2. YOUNGER MARRIAGES
A. daughter of divorcees marry at younger age (Hetherington, 1972)
3. MORE UNWED PREGNANCY
A. girls from fatherless homes 111% (over 2X) more likely to have unwed pregnancy (Warren Farrell presentation at NCMC conference, 1992; Hetherington, 1972)
4. HIGHER DIVORCE RATES
A. girls from fatherless home 92% (nearly 2X) more likely to divorce (Warren Farrell presentation at NCMC conference, 1992; Hetherington,1972)
HETEROSEXUAL ADJUSTMENT FOR SONS
1. LESS MASCULINE, MORE DEPENDENT BEHAVIOR
A. (Santrock's study of 4- and 5-year old, father-absent boys) (Rogers and Long's study of 6- too 15-year-old boys where father employed away from home community, 1968) (Hetherington's study of 9- to 12-year-old, father-absent boys, 1966)
GENERAL HEALTH
1. MORE LIKELY TO SUFFER ACCIDENTS AND INJURIES
A. fatherless children 20-30% more likely to experience accidents, injuries, and poisonings that did father-present children (Remez, Family Planning Perspectives, 1992)
B. compared to children living with father, fatherless children experience more accidental injury, asthma, frequent headaches, and speech defects (Dawson, Journal of Marriage and Family, 1991)
Many people will call this guy a bad guy... a crazy man... someone who needed help. No, this guy had a point... I'm in a situation similiar to his yet way different, i was never married, had three kids, i have a daughter due to a snake of a woman... she was very manipulative and not very honest. She put me in a situation to have a kid and screwed me into some fantasy of being a family. There was no trust and eventually we broke up, yet I pay child support and I cant see my kid. Like Mr Manley, I could see my kid, but i can't... it is not easy as just going back over to the in laws and saying hi to all the family and cousins that hate you, and want to harm you.. haha... well not so much its not a comfortable position to be in, its very ackward, if there was a way to get more equality to a seperated bond with the parents and child, it would be beneficial to both parents and most importantly the child. I can tell you Ive been in my daugthers life, but i feel so cheated out of what I am entitled to as a father. I hope maybe as this incident was very sad, Mr Manley died for my rights as a father, which i am being neglected by the state and DSHS. There caculation of how much you should pay totally is inacuarate, it didnt take a scientist to see this, they say they calculate with your wages, bahhh, bs... i have barely enough to live and eat..., yet im a senior at the Evergreen State College trying to get my bachelors in computer science... I have a college degree in IST. I am responsible and miss my kid, RIP Mr Manley, for I believe you are a great man, and hope for some guy with enough courage to stand up for the right cause and maybe cause enough ruckus to make these people it is not black and white,... there needs to be more of a research into the system of child support.... I am not for deadbeat dads! I belive in supporting your own... there needs to be more regulations of how the money is used, for I know miss thang is spending her child support on herself. Her parents take care of my daughter, yet I know well in the end, she is taken care of and money is used for her, yet again, regulation how the money is awarded, Im just saying I want to ensure every penny is used for my daughter, and I know its not like that. In closing I am grateful for Perry Manley, and he will always remind me that he died for a greater cause...
I'll ask the tough question again- in the absence of criminal wrong doing, if a dad wants equal or primary custody- there is no legal, moral or sane reason he should not get it while the mother does- especially when the mother's financial condition requires income redistribution to feed the kids. Letting the status quo go unchallenged is pretty much insane.
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2005 10:38 PMMy child support payments were proven in court to pay for my ex-wife, her boyfriend and three kids to live. Plus it gave them $200.00 for spending. None of them worked. They were found guilty of child abuse on top of that. The state did nothing. They just raised my child support and refused to enforce my visitation rights. I have three co-workers who have and are going through the exact same thing. Once the children hit 18 they show up with thier stuff at Dad's house. My ex already told all of my kids they have to move out at 18. My 12 year old daughter tells me she is going on Wel-fare at 18. I ask her why and she said she doesn't know. This seems to be the norm in a lot of cases. I've also seen some of my friends who are single mothers get wronged by the ex. But this was done by the ex not the courts. The courts throw them in jail and take everything from them. Which never happens to the women that refuses to let the father have his visitation even when he has over paid child support. I also have two friends that have gotten custody of thier children because Mom just let them go. They receive no child support yet they let the Mom have full visitation rights. I have been fighting for eight years to get custody or at least to get my visitation rights. The courts response to me as a Dad "we are not here to enforce the court order only to issue it". But yet they have tried to throw me in jail after false accusations were made in court by my ex. After I showed up with a lawyer in a court room; half way across the state, and prove my innocene. The judge just raised my child support again and told her she needs to start obeying the court orders. That little trip cost me over $4,000 just to prove my innocence. Plus an extra $300.00 a month in child support. This because my ex quit her job right before the hearing. That is how one sided the court system is. My ex wouldn't let me talk to or see my kids for three years. C.S.E. was getting the child support the whole time. When I asked C.S.E. to give me my kids address and phone number they refused. They said I had to take her to court. But you have to know thier address in order to take them to court. C.S.E. told me they are there for collecting child support not to give out that information. I finally had to have the court order them to give me the information. Which of course cost me a few thousand. The whole time my ex had my children convinced I abandoned them and wasn't paing any child support. It is still happenning now. So until the system is equal this will continue.
Jim.
Posted by: James S. on June 22, 2005 06:59 AMNo, not all men on this site believe that all single mothers are evil. But there are a significant number that are.
No, not all men on this site believe that all moms who receive child support spend it on themselves, but again, a significant number do.
The real villain here is the "Family justice" system, an oxymoron if there ever was one. It serves to destroy more families than it has ever aided. It creates "bad guys" (literally!) through inequitable decrees and indiscriminate & punitive judgments. It treats men like a macerator, separating them from their children and their assets with industrial efficiency.
"..how is child support income redistribution?" When you take assets from one person (who earned it) and give it to another person (Who didn't) that is income redistribution.
Yes, we all recognize (better then you give credit) what it takes to raise a child (or more). And yes, we recognize that child support payments do not typically cover ALL the expenses associated with providing shelter and sustenance. SO imagine what it is like to fork over 48% of your NET income so that your child's mother can get more tattoos and cigarettes, and then try to imagine how you can still provide that same shelter and sustenance for the child (or more) in your household! You see, those fathers that haven't been totally robbed of their opportunity to share in their children's lives must still attempt to conjure up a nurturing environment, all without assistance!
I would love to see child support payments treated like the income that it is, and taxed appropriately. Then we would at least be making a start towards rectifying what can only be called "income redistribution".
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 22, 2005 07:22 AMYes, we all recognize (better then you give credit) what it takes to raise a child (or more).
No, sorry you don't ALL recognize what it takes to raise a child (or more). My ex thought I should be able to raise our four children on a bookkeeper's salary and only work the two and a half hours a day my youngest went to school. My only point here was that it goes both ways. The state has refused to help my children get the support from their father that they deserve and refused to take away his license or put him in jail. They can't force him to work.
I know a woman who was put in jail for failing to pay child support(and she owed less than my ex.) I realize that you all have horror stories about how the state has treated you poorly. I know of many men in the same situation. I also know that the state hasn't helped me when my children's father job hops so he doesn't have to pay. I also know of many single moms struggling to make it work so that they can provide a life for thier kids because their fathers refuse to do the same. It goes both ways.
How in the HELL can you let him get $21k in arrears? It borders on negligence when you have the most powerful non-military force on the planet available to you (Office of Support Enforcement). There is no more ruthless & efficient mechanism for separating assets from males.
You want sympathy? you won't get it from me. You chose to have children, and you chose to have them by him. You look at him as a meal ticket (either for your kids, or more), and you're disappointed that it ain't working out that way.
Boo hoo.
"The state has refused to help my children get the support from their father that they deserve and refused to take away his license or put him in jail. They can't force him to work."
Bullsh!t. As someone who is intimately familiar with "the system" I know that this simply is not true. More likely you are sitting by and waiting for something to come to you. Good luck with that.
"It goes both ways".
Yes it does - in a 90-10 split that favors females.
Jim
Posted by: James S. on June 22, 2005 09:24 AMI tried to e-mail you some information that might help you out. But it was returned as not a valid e-mail address.
Jim
Posted by: James S. on June 22, 2005 09:43 AMI need to set the record straight. Myself and other father's (equal) rights advocates don't have a lot of sympathy for fathers who walk out on marriages and don't try to pick up half the time with their kids.
I don't advocate giving either gender a free ride or walking out on a child. However- as your case indicates, support is not based on the cost of raising a child. How does it cost 1200 a month to raise one 12 year old, but 200 a month to raise another- when the ONLY difference is the father's income?
Todays CS system is not only income redistribution, but a divorce entitlement and a contibuting factor for the lower echelons to breed out of wedlock (33% of all kids born today will never have a father) As the screaming majority of cases indicate- the mom is unwilling to share custody and thereby creates a self imposed burden of not being able to better her own income status. Divorce being the bitter and hateful institution that it is- puts kids in the position of financial and revenge weapon. The law and implementation of the law however is based on the exception (YOU and the minority of others)- it was in fact created to get minority women off of welfare- not for the divorce industry to prey on the middle working and upper class families. If you read some of the original text leading to the 1996 welfare reform act it describes the fathers of bastard children as rapists who preyed on teenagers- knocked them up and took off- these were the welfare moms this system was designed for.
In reality a woman is just as capable of keeping the kids half the time- or less if she can't afford it- and taking on a job to support kids in fact especially if she can't afford it, and letting the father take the responsibility for the kids. This hinges on the father wanting to take on that responsibility- and the vast majority do.
The fact that the courts give custody to the parent WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO FEED THEM is absolutely insane when the other parent is willing, fit and able to take the kids- even w/out support.
Let me repeat- there is no sympathy among those of us trying to change these laws for parents who are unwilling to give TIME to their kids.
A follow on argument of my opposition is that they say fathers only want to spend time with their kids to avoid child support-- and you have to be a total man hating bigot to not see the numerous flaws in that line of thinking.
Posted by: Andy on June 22, 2005 02:59 PMYes, there is, but there are at least these problems with it:
1) A judge can do whatever he hell he wants, because he knows that most middle class fathers cannot afford to appeal.
2) If a woman is not getting what she wants, all she has to do is say, "I am afraid he (the father) might hurt me." Then, she will get everything she wants, even though there is absolutely nothing to substantiate her claim.
Also, once those child support payments are set, a man better NOT have a declining income - for whatever reason - because he will be accused of being "under employed" and the judge will not adjust child support.
On the other hand, a woman can decide to take a lower paying job because it is "more fulfilling" and suddenly the father is paying more. Or, she can even decide to just stop working, and the father is paying EVEN MORE.
Women have choices, men have financial responsibilities.
But, wait, I thought they were equal.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 22, 2005 06:02 PMIt is the responsibility of government to make sure that the lowest common denominator does not define everything for the rest of us.
Unfortunately, that is what has happened with family court.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 22, 2005 06:10 PMI think split / shared custody is a cruel and inhumane idea. Kids should be allowed to have a "home" and once the parents split - the child should live with whom ever can provide for the needs of the child - and I am NOT talking about finances.
Why do you all think that judges (a great % of whom are male) would automatically favor females?
Claiming that the man "might hurt you" doesn't hold any water unless you have gone through a legal restraining order process.
The court DOES take into account a declining income - just not if there is evidence that the "decline" is smoke and mirrors.
As a woman, I have actually been asked to document what I "could be" earning if I chose to be employed - and that figure was used to determine support. (used past financial records and current salaries of people in my profession)
Both men and women have choices AND financial responsibilities. There are scum of both genders. If 33% of the children born today are born to unwed mothers, then that sounds like it would explain part of the off balance issue - of the remaining 67% - if you actually subtracted the men who didn't want custody, I wonder if those numbers might sound far less dramatic.
Posted by: RPM on June 22, 2005 06:49 PMWow, you know me do you? It seems as though you are the bitter one. I on the other hand, support my children with my income and IF I get any money from their father...it is a bonus. I work hard so that my children have what I can afford them, I have never gotten help from the state via welfare, food stamps, child care, medical, etc. I am just fine. My children are well adjusted, well behaved members of society. I love it when people think they know others. I don't get how you think I am bitter. I simply said that I know that there are many women who take advantage of "the system" and use their children to get more money. There are, however, men who do the same. That feel that they shouldn't have to pay anything to support their children. Shame on all of them (men, women, and the system that allows it). But I guess this was a pity party for the likes of you. Sorry for raining on your parade. I have never wanted nor asked for a handout, but do feel that the both parents should pay for the raising of their own children. I know that there are many injustices in "the system" and the "enforcement" of the rules; I was simply pointing out that it happens to both mothers and fathers and in the end, the children suffer. By the way, thank you James S for the information. I will look into it.
Posted by: Miriam on June 22, 2005 07:46 PMPerry was right about child support being unconstitutional. The reason it's unconstitutional is because no-fault dissolution/custody is unconstitutional.
You have to know what Article III justiciability means before you can understand why Perry was right.
Article III justiciability roughly means that there must be a legal controversy in order for a court to have authority to adjudicate.
I would say something trite like "trust me" on this but nobody would. Each person has their own personal politics wrapped up inside their public politics which prevents trust and benefits the divide-and-conquer feminazi government.
As long as the spirit which built this country is seduced into dormancy, the vacuum of its absence will be filled by hucksters, shysters, whores, and whoremongers.
And the band plays on. Or does it?
Not on my watch.
Posted by: platypus on June 22, 2005 11:25 PMThe man was under investigation for making threats against a judge, then walked into the federal building waving a frag grenade. That's not exactly harmless. Yes it was a dud, but how the heck were the cops supposed to know that at the time? His death may have been unnecessary, but it was his own fault for getting himself killed. Most folks realise that if you walk into a building with a lot of cops around and start waiving a grenade (live or not), chances are you aren't walking back out.
Posted by: Mike H on June 22, 2005 11:55 PMWell, that "inhumane" idea allowed me to spend equal and blessed time with both of my parents after they divorced when I was nine. Having two homes was actually great for all six of us. There is nothing inhumane about loving and caring for a child in your own home seperate from the other parents home. Enough of that.
I came here to say, Perry Manley, I'm sorry you died the way you did but know you were loved by many for being you and for fighting for your right to be a Father. I know what the media reported is mostly garbage, as many of us do. They report what they are told to. "The truth will continue...Perry" As for me, my heart is broken and you will be missed, enjoy the Lord my friend!
Posted by: Shelly on June 22, 2005 11:59 PMGo read the multitude of studies I've already quoted on how much better children do when both parents -especially the father- have significant time with the child.
Shared parenting "being too tough" on children is a fat lie fabricated by divorce attorneys and other associated lackey's of the divorce industry. I defy you to name a single study showing otherwise.
33% born out of wedlock
PLUS
50% of marriages ending in divorce.
AND
80% of those divorces leave the children with the mother.
Go figure- 80% of fathers didn't want custody of their kids!?!
This doesn't leave a lot of kids with both parents. The state is collecting A LOT OF MONEY on this- yet they spin it as "being owed" XXX amount, however they don't pay out if it isn't paid in- in fact they pay out a heck of a lot less in welfare- often NONE to those who owed support because they are above poverty level.
Keep disbelieving this isn't an epidemic- the number of voters speaking out on it grows everyday- fathers/second families/ siblings are joining equal rights groups which are getting stronger and more organized each month- it's pretty clear the camel's back is broken.
If you are male- your attorney will not fight for you- they will go through the motions and collect your money and let you take it on the chin- but they will not fight for you- in fact you'll be lucky if they bother to show up.
Your attorney will not question a judge's order and ESPECIALLY NOT A COMMISIONER...They have other clients and have to stand in front of these clowns every day- so if they get on the bad side of one of these bad apples- every one of their clients is going to lose and they go out of business. That's not how you afford a Lexus in the divorce industry.
A commisioner is appointed and accountable to no one.
Also since commisioner cannot be affidavited (meaning you think he's an idiot and not qualified to hear your case) and has all the power a judge has- you are stuck with him/her no matter how rotten. If you are lucky you can appeal after spending 50k losing in front of the commisioner.
The commisioner level is where most of the damage is done.
Also you should know that most lawyers representing females know how to "shop" for these commisioners. Look for them to make some outragious claims that no sane judge would award- they will schedule a date / cancel, schedule and cancel until the right commisioner is available to hear the case.
Pretty evil eh?
The shopping doesn't end there- in custody cases they can do this with court appointed lackies as well- keep shopping until they burn you out of money and they find a character sympathetic to your case. In extreme cases they will do this from state to state.
It's amazing the slime you find when you start turning over rocks. It's great sport though.
Posted by: Andy on June 23, 2005 12:23 AMMike H. was there? He saw this? And all the reporters failed to interview him?
Well, not quite. Mike H. is formulating his conclusions based on the same information that the rest of us are doing - hearsay. A few of us (like myself) knew Perry so we have a personal basis for making statements such as "Perry was harmless."
I have 13 years experience with the legal/administrative system that Perry was resisting. I promise that I have hundreds of thousands of pages relating to this subject and virtually all of those pages detail identical circumstances to the ones that offended Perry.
For instance, I have a copy of what was known as the Walla Walla report on the use of roving gangs of prison guards moving from prison to prison to administer the type of instant "justice" that Perry apparently deserved. This was a report issued after a Commission had to be created to address the Klan style night-riding that was part of official administration policy at the time (early 1970s).
Prisoners back then heard much the same response as Mike H. is posing here - what do they expect when they buck the system?
Let me tell you what I expect from Perry's death.
I expect an initial flurry of talking heads chattering the party line - that he was demented and intended suicide.
Next I expect a seriously committed bunch of offended people to band together to prevent his death from being forgotten or minimized.
I expect that the bunch of offended people will each realize that Perry was denied the rights of an escalating force level policy of SPD and they will each realize they are one trigger squeeze away from Perry's fate.
To which they will collectively decide:
TOO MUCH FOR TOO LONG - NEVER AGAIN.
If Mike H. cannot run with the big dogs, he needs to stay on the porch with the lap dogs. As for me, I will be on the street on the 24th, mourning the loss of a decent person.
You can't miss me - I'll be the guy who will refuse to dance to the king's music.
Character plus testosterone equals victory.
Posted by: platypus on June 23, 2005 06:50 AMI'm sorry your friend was shot to death. No he didn't "deserve" to die, but it is reasonable to assume that when you are walking around holding a grenade over your head in a building full of cops, chances are your going to be shot.
Was I there? no. But every civilian eyewitness account I've read or seen said the same thing-- he was holding what appeared to be a grenade over his head when he died. This was report by eyewitnesses minutes after the shooting, before Perry was identified. What should the police have done in that situation?
Posted by: Mike H on June 23, 2005 07:18 AMThe only description of the precipitating event that I have seen is "furtive movement" which is not a description of waving an item over one's head.
Posted by: platypus on June 23, 2005 08:47 AMPriceless.
Posted by: Julie on June 23, 2005 09:10 AMYou are either a liar or an idiot, or both.
Given the "family" court system and it's enormously powerful coercive legal resources, they would NEVER knowingly allow a man to become 21K in arrears. They have a direct vested interest in the support and they NEVER take that interest lightly.
I have worked within this system and I know better.
You are full of shit. Quit lying and trying to hijack the emotional content of an issue as a victim in which you are the decisive beneficiary. I pity your children, and seriously question everything else you say. People like you make so-called dead beat dads look like saints.
Posted by: Amused by liberal morons on June 23, 2005 09:24 AMI'm sending you an email.
Posted by: Mike H on June 23, 2005 09:32 AMWhy is this pick on Miriam day? Why is she necessarily a liberal? For all you know, she makes more money than her ex and he's been ordered to pay $220 a month and he hasn't paid in 8 years. I understand that some of you detest child support. I just don't think you all need to be so hateful about it.
Posted by: Julie on June 23, 2005 09:33 AMYes it is fully possible for a man to get behind by that much in child support. It happened to my uncle. My aunt couldn't get the money out of him no matter how hard she tried. He even skipped town and work under the table to avoid it. He was also an irresponsible drunk who didn't give a sh*t. No one could track him down. It happens all the time.
Posted by: Mike H on June 23, 2005 09:48 AMPerhaps if you could provide some verification?
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 23, 2005 10:32 AMMiriam says that : "The state has refused to help my children get the support from their father that they deserve and refused to take away his license or put him in jail. They can't force him to work . . .," Miriam accuses the State of Washington Division of Child Support (DCS) of failing to do something they can easily do and are required by state law to do automatically without provocation, unless she refuses to cooperate with them. Her refusal may be the reason the state balks, and that may be praiseworthy for one reason or another. However -- if that is the case -- it only further reinforces a conclusion that the DCS is fascist in nature.
Unless Miriam is leaving out essential key details, there is no basis for her statements, and I don't believe them. Such details are indispensable to any fair analysis or inference. The DCS has the immediate and virtually uncontestable power to suspend/revoke his drivers licence and any other licenses, seize motor vehicles and personal property, lein and ultimately seize real property, bank accounts and other assets, and jail him for 90 days. He may refuse to work, but they will put him in jail. When he gets out if he continues to refuse, they will put him in jail again. They do all of these things on a week to week regular basis to scores of fathers for no other reason than that they can. In most cases they improve nothing because the support is already forthcoming, but the "services" of DCS are by statute peremptory.
Any case where the DCS can be proven to have refused to collect support or use the coercive tools available to them would make a great news story. Resources including free legal assistance for mothers in child support issues are too numerous to list here, but available in the telephone directory and at any public library.
Julie, with all due respect, radical feminists skew the truth about this system in order to justify it's existence. The whole system is built on lies and distortions, turning people (men and women) against each other and dividing the greater family unit. Such tautological lies are so routine that it is not surprising that many would believe them. Please consider, there are always exceptions that prove the rule about anything. In reality almost all so-called deadbeat dads are not deadbeats by any stretch of honest reason, rather heirs to the diktats of radical feminism.
I do not aim to offend Miriam, but I refuse to listen to inaccurate and inapt comparisons by half measures that serve to keep isolated and neutralized an aspect of our culture that is immensely destructive to all of us -- even it's advocates. If you want to discuss real jerks and deadbeats, do so, but don't try to pretend that our state government doesn't regularly coerce, jail, and abuse fathers in favor of mothers because that is simply a sick joke. By law, the state requires itself to do just that.
Visit the King County Regional Justice Center on any Tuesday morning and look around. Wear blinders if you will; otherwise you will see that what I say is true.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 23, 2005 02:14 PM
He was fighting an injustice that has reverberating effects on every American. As so-called progressive fascist idealogues continue to play havoc with basic fundamental rights and liberties in favor of egalitarianism, radical feminism, and communism there will be more of this sort of thing.
Liberalism is truly a mental illness born of ignorance and stupidity.
Posted by: Amused by liberal morons on June 23, 2005 02:21 PMI feel sorry for all you bitter fathers out there that don't believe that women can get screwed by the system as well. Talk about not being able to see outside of your own box. I, at least, have stated that I know that there are many men out there being screwed by the courts and the system. Too bad, you can't see past yourself to see that it happens to women as well.
Posted by: Miriam on June 23, 2005 10:52 PMPerry Manley was trying to point out that the government was disobeying the law in its treatment of child support.
I work in this field and have done so for the last twelve years. I will make the following statements from which I will never repent and will back up face-to-face with anyone across a table (or offlist in cyberspace):
1. The court/DCS does not comply with the written laws regarding computation of amounts owed. The court/DCS uses unreliable evidence to prove the amount owed AND violates the constitution by summarily finding disputed facts without witness testimony.
2. DCS (formerly OSE) has an unofficial custom that SEOs are NOT to consult the official policy manual when doing their daily jobs. I have sworn deposition transcripts on this point from two SEOs, one of whom is an attorney.
3. DCS takes taxpayer money and pays bounties to individual SEOs who are the most agressive in pursuing those in arrears, regardless of the equities of the individuals involved.
4. DCS falsely certifies that individuals are deadbeats who owe the state money when it knows that most of the certified individuals do not owe the state any money. This certification is done by computer programs which have as the sole referring criteria that the names on the list are recorded as being six months in arrears. No human reviews the certification before the computer makes the certification. No determination is made whether there is a state debt.
5. Every name on the DCS arrears list increases special federal grant money to the state for enforcement. As a consequence of this, names are easy to put on the list, almost impossible to get off the list, and all inferences are that arrears are valid unless proved otherwise.
6. State law specifically authorizes the payment of a child support obligation (whether by court order or administrative order or simple social duty) by means of non-monetary payment. The statute is RCW 74.20A.020(9). DCS deliberately ignores this law and if confronted with it, an SEO will simply state that our system doesn't deal with that.
7. A recent audit found that about half of all "deadbeat dads" in WSSR records were either in prison/jail or in the graveyard. I have no information whether this has ever been corrected but submitting these names to the federal government is criminal fraud under the False Claims laws.
As we speak, the Pierce County prosecutor has initiated a contempt against my wife for alleged child support arrears. Her former husband has an income of at least $10,000 per month. With a competent attorney, we have stopped them in their tracks. They are afraid to proceed because they know we have made the proper legal arguments in the proper order and THEY DO NOT WANT TO RISK LETTING ANYBODY ELSE SEE HOW WE DID IT.
I can promise Miriam this - you are fighting political power. It is not in their political interests to actually succeed in getting you the money. They shoot themselves in the foot if they do.
Do yourself a favor - mentally forgive that debt so that you can move forward with your life. Perry Manley could not do that, though he was trying mightily. Fight the system intelligently and never believe anything a government worker tells you.
Posted by: platypus on June 24, 2005 08:28 AMBitterness festers after injustice is allowed to stand. You and I both know that this system is crooked and broken - and I have seen truth mixed into almost all of these posts. Whether you make 36,000 per year or 336,000 per year, it takes approximately the same amount of money to feed a 16 year old boy. A pair of jeans are going to run you at least $30. If he's a clean cut kid, he's going to get haircuts... you can pay more - but you can get a haircut for under $20. Drivers Ed costs over $200 and if he takes running start thats nearly $200 just in books.
It's reasonable that both parents should contribute to the financial responsibilities associated with parenting. I think there should be a cap, and it should be WELL under the current crazy amount.
If we could all try to hunt for solutions - maybe we could get somewhere - but I for one - will not be in favor of dividing the childrens time up according to whom has the most money - or any other crazy thing that would not be in the childs best interest.
We as republicans are fixers not whiners. We are independent and not victims. We need to stand up and fix this.
P.S. Platypus - pardon my confusion - but is Pierce county trying to get money for - or from - your wife??
Posted by: Julie on June 24, 2005 11:31 AMI love your comments- but CS arrears is worse than credit card debt. They spin interest on it.
I have tried to help one of the 'most wanted' come up from underground. His debt started at 5k and has grown to 85k and by all estimates would be 150 by the time anything meaningful could be done.
Get this- the defining moment in trying to help out here was when OSE said they would "agree" to not put him jail- HE WOULD STILL NOT HAVE ANY TIME WITH HIS KIDS. ZERO. In all fairness they don't have the power to intervene in that way- or they don't try to- because they are only a collection agency.
This all snowballed out of control because his wife's attorney ratcheted the coffin lid down hard via a temp judge who she was buddies with early in the divorce- after all of his savings (50-60k) was gone in attorney fees and he was going into debt to make the support and continuing to fight (he already 5k in arrears at that point) he said screw it and bolted- then she got full custody as a result and he's barred from ever seeing his kids.
Many men report OSE does't honor these agreements and later put them in jail or confiscate their vehicles or drivers licenses based on arrears anyway- despite making payments-
Anyway--- I'm very happy every one has discussed this issue and the it's been very educational for those conservatives who had no idea how bad this system is to the notion of family in this state.
They are claiming she owes back support to her former husband.
They (not ex-husband) filed the Petition to register the out-of-county decree here in Pierce County. At the same time, they file ex parte order to show cause re contempt BEFORE she even had a chance to answer the petition. This is barratry but more importantly, it is legally frivolous on its face since the State has no standing and the prosecutor lied in the pleadings by saying the State did have standing.
The child support order they claim they are enforcing is titled Agreed Order of Child Support. It does not contain her signature. Therefore, under contract law, it cannot be a valid enforceable agreed order.
They did not issue or serve a summons, which is a mandatory requirement for the court to obtain personal jurisdiction over my wife.
Last but not least, my wife made all these arguments in a special appearance and then obtained an attorney to argue the points of law.
The enemy is burnt toast, and the enemy knows it. The enemy is afraid of a federal lawsuit, and there is good reason for that fear. The issue is not simply whether my wife prevails; the issue is that if she prevails the enemy will have to modify all child support enforcement practices to conform with the rulings of the court.
It would be the end of business as usual. THAT scares the enemy to death.
Posted by: platypus on June 24, 2005 04:30 PMYou sound for real. If so, I apologize for any statements I made that may have seemed unduly harsh or unfair to you. I recognize that generalizations about any complex subject are not useful and often lead to misunderstandings.
If you have been wronged by your ex-husband and the state, I am sorry – especially for your children. Let me summarize my views regarding your situation.
1. Almost no one can completely trap a true deadbeat.
2. When I commented that the state is “required by state law to do automatically without provocation,” this is required by RCW 74.20A.020. As Platypus pointed out, DCS has the lee-way to ignore the law unless you can force them into compliance. While both you and Platypus point out the first situations I have heard of where they refused to comply, I have no doubt it could happen. Corrupt systems are driven by corrupt motivations.
3. When I said, “unless she [meaning you] refuses to cooperate with them,” that means take something (anything) from the state. I repeat what I said earlier to Julie, “The whole system is built on lies and distortions, turning people (men and women) against each other and dividing the greater family unit.” This is socialist communist fascism, and all of us are saddled with it. In short, had you “cooperated” by taking some sort of assistance from the state, they would help you. Even at that, if there is a case number and an Order of Support unless he is a real flake, it is uniquely odd that the state would simply refuse to do anything.
4. Otherwise, you are left to fend for yourself. I suggest finding out where he works and banks, get a writ to withhold and seize assets, and nail him on your own. Go to the County Law Library and get the forms and inquire about the filing procedures. This is the same course of action all of us have to follow to collect if we win a lawsuit.
If you want anything from the state, drive them crazy with paper work (documentation) and persistence. Call them every week like clockwork so they know your name and your situation becomes a pain in the a$$ nuisance to them. Keep a written record of each conversation. Follow each with a letter referencing the telecon and send one every week demanding answers as to why this, why that, why not this, why not that, etc. Be cordial but persistent and don’t take “no” for an answer. For your sanity’s sake make a game of it. Like Platypus says, “Fight the system intelligently and never believe anything a government worker tells you,” especially a judge (believe me they lie all of the time). I know because I have caught them in open court. Get everything in writing – if they refuse – you know they don’t mean it.
I utilized this routine while living in abject poverty and physical illness for a period of over six years and I won. The system is corrupt and it is meant to undermine women as useful co-conspirators to destroy the family.
Join the battle, and good luck. Let me know if I can help.
First of all, thank you amused. I am for real and I wasn't complaining, I was only pointing out that the state doesn't only hurt the men in these situations. I told the head of child support "enforcement" who called me on the useless governor locke's request that I would call them every week because I believe that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. His response was, "Now you have just threatened to harass us and I can now forbid you to call us again. This is under governor locke's orders." Right now, he is paying child support. Thank you for your advice and your apology, I appreciate it.
And, yes, I refused to cooperate with the state (by your definition) because they have a little known clause that I read and clarified with them. This states that if I accept any help from them; they have a right to ALL of my child support (past and future). This is even if the help received is less than I would get from child support. I declined.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2005/gay062305.htm
Posted by: Roger F. Gay on June 26, 2005 12:01 AM