July 16, 2008
Originally published May 5, 2006
At the end of last month, I noticed that my April child support check still had not cleared the bank. I sent it off with a letter I wrote to my son, so I wondered if the darlin' ex-wife simply saw the letter and threw it away, along with the check. I hoped not, because it's been a while since she sent sheriff's deputies to my house, and I would prefer to keep it that way.
I sent her an email at work, asking about the check. She replied a day later, saying that she received the check and she just hadn't gotten around to depositing it yet. (That's how badly she needs the money--- that check STILL has not cleared.) I noticed from the address on the email that she must have remarried, because she has a new last name now.
I resent like hell paying her that money. I see it as a got-dam award for shitting all over me. But it could be worse. I could be paying her for somebody else's son.
Florida would become the 17th state since 2001 to alter a centuries-old legal principle that holds men responsible for children born of a marriage regardless of whether the men are the biological fathers, says the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) in Washington, D.C. The principle, which comes from English common law, is designed to keep children from being left without support.
You GO, Florida. I resented being treated as nothing more than a human money-tree in divorce court, and Quinton is MINE (At least I'm pretty sure he is.) If I went through that same experience over a child fathered by somebody else, I might nut up and go postal.
Divorce law treats fathers badly enough when they ARE the daddies. It's a double-clutch fucking when they aren't. That crap just ain't right.
Of course, a woman would NEVER lie to a man about who is the father of her baby, just as a woman would never lie about rape, either.
All content © Rob Smith