An option if stuck with a lifetime of alimony payments

[tom]

As you know if you stay married over 10 years you can be required to pay alimony for the rest of your life as in the example of California, laws vary by state. Amounts can be high and can get upped as time goes by. At that point leaving the country to escape this unjust theft is a real option worth considering. I would consider this if I was stuck with a lifetime of payments to a lazy bitch. This is from an answer on the answer bag.

Look at the list of countries that are signors to the Hague Convention. Then take a look at which countries have active reciprocal treaties with the U.S. Then take a look at other treaty signors like, NAFTA. Whatever countries are not on those lists, are places you can move to. That is, if you still can get your passport. Keep in mind, that in accordance with Federal Law (i.e. 1994 act passed by the Clinton Administration), any person with more than $5k in arrears is automatically subject to have their passport privileges revoked.

You might want to take a look at the Philippines as a starter country. They accept new citizens with glee. You can always migrate to another country at a later time. Employment comes easy for English speaking individuals. You would want to change your name once in the Philippines and ensure that you obtain citizenship, even if denunciation of your U.S. citizenship is ever required. Then when you file for your visa in the Philippines, you do so under your new identity. At that point, you'd be ready to go to another country (if desired), and apply for citizenship.

If you have ever been fingerprinted, you could never enter the U.S. under an assumed identity. That is unless your fond of bars and cement.

You must remember that it is a civil debt. You are not a criminal. Therefore, you really ought not worry about any extradition. Though, you must be concerned about whether the country you move to is a signor to a treaty with the U.S. If they are, then they will with few exceptions, have a clause that would require them to enforce a garnishment of earnings, bank levy, or execution on other assets, if the U.S. requested such action.

Here's the deal with support though. The U.S. makes hundreds and hundred's of billions of dollars on the Child Support System. Each state make billions of dollars on the system, as it is. Every citizen pays taxes for the welfare system to be available to all citizens. Though, once a parent (usually females) seek state assistance, welfare, food stamps, low income housing, etc., then the state will assess the total amount spent on that individual welfare beneficiary, against the non-custodial parent. This is of course, unconstitutional, unethical, illegal, and fundamentally wrong for a great number of reasons.

That isn't a secret either, you may feel free to research state and federal laws.

This equates the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for the government each year.

In most cases, they issue a garnishment against the non-custodial parent for the maximum that they are able to or for the pre-negotiated or court ordered monthly amount. Then deduct their cut of what they spent on the custodial parent for welfare purposes, and then disburse a check for the remaining balance to the custodial parent.

This of course, means that if the custodial parent is supposed to receive $500.00 USD, they might receive a check for $50.00. In some cases, $50.00 every other month or so. This of course creates the impression that the non-custodial parent isn't paying the amount that is agreed upon or that they are court ordered to pay.

The non-custodial parent thinks that the custodial parent is getting every cent that they are being garnished for and then just assumes that the other parent is simply greedy, playing games with the children, or is just simply devious.

All the while, the government even supplies the labels to then be associated with the non-custodial parents. Such as Bill Clinton said, "deadbeat dad's." Unfortunately, its usually the mother that ends up having the child, so there is a lack of equality in America not only in the placement of children with fathers, but also as far as insensitive insults supplied by the government to assign to female non-custodial parents.

In short, the government acts as the middle man in this equation because its profitable. Very profitable. In order for them to ensure that the system maintains itself, they must keep the people deceived. Which is fairly easy considering that the majority of cases in Child Support Enforcement Offices, are cases that can demographically be categorized as poverty level, lower class, or low to middle class cases.

Which subsequently means, that there is usually a lower IQ associated with both parents (*This is certainly not always the case, just a generality). A lack of formal education or training associated with the parents. A lack of income for the non-custodial parent to retain legal counsel.

Therefore, nobody ever questions the government. They never read the laws in their state and therefore never come to learn that its a racket. Literally, a conspiratorial racket to exploit the poor, the under educated, the working class (usually males), for profound revenue generation. The only cost is that the statistics have changed over the past 40 years.

Nearly 60 percent of all marriages end in divorce now. Drug abuse and alcoholism is now common place amongst custodial parents (usually women).

And most recently, the #1 cause of suicide in America is no longer drugs. Its the inability of non-custodial parents to provide shelter or food for themselves due to child support and the inability to have a meaningful relationship with their children. (No, I didn't cite a published census data, I don't want to waste the time, I'm not writing an article. Feel free to look it up. Its a fact.)

So, going back to the civil vs. criminal. Its a civil judgment against you to pay a certain amount of monies. That's it. Now, the government will absolutely pay a state prosecutor to go after you for additional civil penalties if they can't find you and they will most certainly attempt to obtain a contempt of court action against you. Though, if you truly are leaving, then its irrelevant. And of course they have the prosecutor represent the custodial parent, because they financially benefit from the equation. For if there were no monetary interest for the government, they wouldn't be involved.

You should also be aware that the most states and the federal government has ruled by legislation passed and judicially from the bench, that there is absolutely no defense that may be used to explain non-payment. Whether you loose your legs, suffer severe mental disabilities or impairments (like after a severe car accident), suffer from a lay off / termination / or other loss of a job, and even if you suffer from homelessness. According to the U.S. government in all 50 states, there is no defense for a 'judgment debtor.'

Additionally, the federal Anti-Peonage Act that prevents the government from establishing an debtor's prison against citizens has been ruled not to be a defense.

It may be interesting for you to note that the State of Georgia, Michigan, and Tennessee, have found that the legislatively established child support schedule is unconstitutional. You can read the findings of the courts on-line for specific details. One might imagine that it has something to do with the concept of three (3) branches of government and that by legislating what a judge's decision in a case will be, before the case is even heard, would essentially do away with one of those branches. Though, there are other reasons, no doubt.

Bottom line. America is not the 'be all, end all.' If you have been robbed of your ability to have a meaningful relationship with your child as happens everyday across this great land, and if you are unable to support yourself due to your court ordered obligations, then you must assess what assets you still have hear, interests in staying, and whether or not your personal suffrage out weighs your other considerations.

If you are not bi-lingual, reasonably educated, hold a unique skill, or have mastered a universal trade, you might want to re-consider the idea of leaving the United States. If you graduated high school, junior college or a university, have a trade skill that you can use in other countries as well, then leaving may be of consideration to you. Especially if you have determined that your opportunity at achieving a reasonably acceptable life in the U.S. is not possible and/or that your personal suffrage is extreme enough to merit such a journey.

Either way, good luck to you.

[tom]

What often happens is a chick will divorce and collect alimony then get a live in guy to help pay her bills, sort of a economic polygamy.

[polya]

So Tom, what is the option - it sounds like you think most guys should stay in the USA and pay it? I personally know how hard it is to leave your country as next year your parents might need you to nurse them, so you have to return home to a waiting jail cell.

[Teal Lantern]

Every state has his-fault frivorce.

[bartdivanov]

Thanks for sharing, great post!

So Tom, what is the option - it sounds like you think most guys should stay in the USA and pay it? I personally know how hard it is to leave your country as next year your parents might need you to nurse them, so you have to return home to a waiting jail cell.

polya, Why do you think you a jail cell will be waiting?

[Ghost]

.

[droid]

What ever happened to polya?

[Teal Lantern]

Just a theoretical question: how long would it take for the cowards running this meat grinder to back down if, each time a man was persecuted for trying to be a husband and father, he started shooting every jackboot daddygov thug in sight?

They won't back down, they'll double down.
Theoretically, cupcakes' lawyers (and advice columns) will tell them to claim they are "scared" of their "gun owning" soon-to-be ex-hubbies and file a restraining order along with the frivorve paperwork.
You come home to changed locks, cops out front and a TRO, who do you shoot?

The "I'm scared" tactic has already been used plenty of times to get local police to do the dirty work.
Can't contest a frivorce if you're dead.

Might as well throw in some bad cases to make bad law.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/bi ... ivo/npmn9/

[Ghost]

.

[Mr S]

Become a Filipino citizen as an option? That's a laugher. It takes 10 years of ongoing residency to apply to be a citizen of the Philippines and you have to give up your previous citizenship. You have to also get approved by congress through lawyers and all that. Also, why would you want Filipino citizenship? It's almost completely worthless outside of the ASEAN countries. You can't just immigrate to another country from there cause you're now treated as a Filipino citizen, not American or whatever other country of origin no matter what your birth certificate says. Plus, if you're over 35 many countries age discriminate in relation to immigration policy so you're screwed in that area too. If you don't have a means out of the Philippines and you're stuck there, it sucks. It's only good for guys who know they can leave if they have to, if you have no other options cause you gave up your citizenship then somehow don't make decent money anymore, the Philippines will be hell on Earth. It's only marginally tolerable if you have money to avoid the poverty, if you don't have money you're better off being poor in America or where ever than in PI.

[traveller]

I think if divorce happened to me, not only would I publicly shame her for making me and herself adulterer and adulteress until she came back to me or remained single, but I would refuse to pay a single penny of alimony. Even if it meant me being sent to the chair.

[Cornfed]

I think if divorce happened to me, not only would I publicly shame her for making me and herself adulterer and adulteress until she came back to me

Publicly shaming a Western female over sexual immorality. The fact that you would take her back in the circumstances is also rather lame.

[Adama]

I think if divorce happened to me, not only would I publicly shame her for making me and herself adulterer and adulteress until she came back to me or remained single, but I would refuse to pay a single penny of alimony. Even if it meant me being sent to the chair.

A woman cannot make her husband into an adulterer. Take note in the passages where it says her husband causes her to commit adultery. If a woman goes with another man, it is adultery for her and the man she goes with, not the man which she left.

[chanta76]

Doesn't prenuptial protect you from alimony? Plus..there is no fault divorce..but I guess if the ex-wife wants to fight it out..it can be a problem.

Child support..I understand...somebody has to help with the money with the kid ..but child support stops once the kid is 20 years old..

best thing to do is if there is a divorce...make an agreement with the ex-wife but if she fights it out..I can understand it would suck.

[Ghost]

.