Man who fathered 30 kids says he needs a break—on child support

[Hostile]

What does that mean?

I suppose that they shouldn't feel bad about not having a father in the home providing.

 

[Stash]

I suppose that they shouldn't feel bad about not having a father in the home providing.

Of that's the case, then No, they absolutely should not. There are other people involved who should be feeling bad.

 

[Hostile]

Of that's the case, then No, they absolutely should not. There are other people involved who should be feeling bad.

I was being a bit sarcastic. I feel very bad for the kids.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

What does that mean?

It means even though the father is not the most standup guy that his children shouldn't be faulted or stigmatized for it. They're probably ok people.

 

[Stash]

It means even though the father is not the most standup guy that his children shouldn't be faulted or stigmatized for it. They're probably ok people.

No, not at all.

How could anyone in their right mind hold it against the children?

I just hope they all can have a happy, productive life despite the fact that their father is a lowlife parasite.

 

[WV Cowboy]

How could anyone in their right mind hold it against the children?

I just hope they all can have a happy, productive life despite the fact that their father is a lowlife parasite.

Nice thought Stash, .. but we all know that the odds will be against most of these kids.

Not only because their Dad will be non-existent in their life, but their Mom is not the brightest bulb in the pack either.

Plus, single Moms have a very hard go of it. Money is short. Patience and time spent with the kids is also short.

Moms are tired when they get home from work, and then they have to do all of the "parent" things like homework, baths, housework, laundry, etc.

These kids will have a lot of unsupervised time on their hands, .. not good for teenagers.

We can, and should, hope that they all have a happy productive life, but statistics say otherwise.

 

[casmith07]

30 babies, in 14 years... amazing...

He should go to jail for making the rest of us foot the bill for his promiscuity... and all 11 mothers should be institutionalized for bein' out of their freakin' minds...

I note also that he went to court 3 years ago, when he "only" had 21 kids... so he knew he had a serious problem them, and his reaction was to go out and father 9 more kids in 3 years...

One wonders how many more children that he'll never support, either financially or emotionally, this jagoff will father...

The 11 different women might not have known about one another.

Then again, I also know of a stupid girl in Maryland who got involved with an ex-con who had 4 kids by 4 different women and didn't take care of any of them, and still thought it was a good idea to sleep with the guy without protection. She has a daughter now, and he's nowhere to be found.

To make matters worse, it's well-known in their town (small town) that the guy also sleeps with men "on the down low." I just can't fathom the stupidity of some people.

 

[TheDallasDon]

The 11 different women might not have known about one another.

Then again, I also know of a stupid girl in Maryland who got involved with an ex-con who had 4 kids by 4 different women and didn't take care of any of them, and still thought it was a good idea to sleep with the guy without protection. She has a daughter now, and he's nowhere to be found.

To make matters worse, it's well-known in their town (small town) that the guy also sleeps with men "on the down low." I just can't fathom the stupidity of some people.

Whoa......hold up 1 sec, he can still pull chicks after all this known by the whole town?
Dude must have some game or you got alot of stupid women in your town.

 

[JBond]

You should plan financially for the first kid, and then work up from there.

That's why I have only one kid.

Why bother planing when we are forced to pay for them? These are rough estimates. Someone may have more accurate numbers.

$900 a month for four different families in food stamps.

$500 a month per kid in welfare X 30

$500 a month in local SRS benefits X 30

$33,600 per month

$403,200 annually spent by the few taxpayers left to support this guy and his "kids".

 

[rocboy22]

Why bother planing when we are forced to pay for them? These are rough estimates. Someone may have more accurate numbers.

$900 a month for four different families in food stamps.

$500 a month per kid in welfare X 30

$500 a month in local SRS benefits X 30

$33,600 per month

$403,200 annually spent by the few taxpayers left to support this guy and his "kids".

this is why I don't agree with sending him to jail. That eliminates any support that he actually does provide (however small) and also make taxpayers have to support him as well. It costs A LOT per prisoner in our jail system.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I understand the desire for a forced Vasectomy but honestly, that opens up a huge Pandora's Box. If you can force this on somebody, where does it stop? Who decides how many children are too much? A lot of issues with that kind of decision and, it's not Constitutional.

 

[rocboy22]

I understand the desire for a forced Vasectomy but honestly, that opens up a huge Pandora's Box. If you can force this on somebody, where does it stop? Who decides how many children are too much? A lot of issues with that kind of decision and, it's not Constitutional.

Nobody decides this, the number of children isn't the issue. It is not being able to provide for all of them, thus putting the onus on the rest of the taxpayers.

 

[Stash]

I understand the desire for a forced Vasectomy but honestly, that opens up a huge Pandora's Box. If you can force this on somebody, where does it stop? Who decides how many children are too much? A lot of issues with that kind of decision and, it's not Constitutional.

I think you have the right to have as many children as you can support.

Our current system is broken, with hardworking, law-abiding taxpayers having to foot the bill for parasites like this guy.

This needs to be cleaned up.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Nobody decides this, the number of children isn't the issue. It is not being able to provide for all of them, thus putting the onus on the rest of the taxpayers.

then what happens if he wins the lottery and can and decides to have more children? however unlikey this scenario is, forcing someone to have a vesectomy is unconstitutional and is something I'd only expect under a dictator's regime.

 

[rocboy22]

then what happens if he wins the lottery and can and decides to have more children? however unlikey this scenario is, forcing someone to have a vesectomy is unconstitutional and is something I'd only expect under a dictator's regime.

well, too bad for him. people have to deal with the consequences of their actions every day.

anyways, if something like this ever did go into effect, I don't see how you could actually do it to this guy. I would think he would get a pass because their was no law in effect at the time when he had all these kids and couldn't pay for them.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Nobody decides this, the number of children isn't the issue. It is not being able to provide for all of them, thus putting the onus on the rest of the taxpayers.

If you passed such a requirement, somebody would have to make those decisions. How can they not? For example, lets say a 17 year old girl and a 17 year old boy gets pregnant. Are you then going to say that the boy must have a procedure because he is likely unable to pay support? Somebody would have to make a decision. When you allow somebody to be in a position to make a decision, you don't always know what may come from those kinds of decisions. It can be dangerous to make those kinds of resolutions.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I understand the desire for a forced Vasectomy but honestly, that opens up a huge Pandora's Box. If you can force this on somebody, where does it stop? Who decides how many children are too much? A lot of issues with that kind of decision and, it's not Constitutional.

I'm sick of this type of argument or stance.

" .. where does it stop?"

Don't be ridiculous.

If not this guy at 30 kids, then the bigger question is " .. where does it begin??

.. 40 kids? .. 50 kids?

You are right, we should not have to do this. But we do.
Who should we as a society be more concerned about, .. one guy that can't wear a condum, or the 30 kids he has left fatherless?

Come on, use common sense.

If society said, .. that if you father a child and can't or won't take care of that child then you will be forced to have a vasectomy, .. this type of foolishness would subside.

It wouldn't go away because we will always have morons out there, but it may cause some to stop and think first.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think you have the right to have as many children as you can support.

Our current system is broken, with hardworking, law-abiding taxpayers having to foot the bill for parasites like this guy.

This needs to be cleaned up.

No question, but the solution is not forcing people to have vasectomy's. It's not Constitutional.

 

[rocboy22]

If you passed such a requirement, somebody would have to make those decisions. How can they not? For example, lets say a 17 year old girl and a 17 year old boy gets pregnant. Are you then going to say that the boy must have a procedure because he is likely unable to pay support? Somebody would have to make a decision. When you allow somebody to be in a position to make a decision, you don't always know what may come from those kinds of decisions. It can be dangerous to make those kinds of resolutions.

I agree, definitely dangerous, and probably won't happen - I just don't really have a problem with it in general. I would possibly have a huge problem with its application and enforcement, who knows?

Also, on this particular example, I don't see how anyone could make this kid have the procedure because he is "likely unable to pay". That would be totally nuts.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm sick of this type of argument or stance.

" .. where does it stop?"

Don't be ridiculous.

If not this guy at 30 kids, then the bigger question is " .. where does it begin??

.. 40 kids? .. 50 kids?

You are right, we should not have to do this. But we do.
Who should we as a society be more concerned about, .. one guy that can't wear a condum, or the 30 kids he has left fatherless?

Come on, use common sense.

If society said, .. that if you father a child and can't or won't take care of that child then you will be forced to have a vasectomy, .. this type of foolishness would subside.

It wouldn't go away because we will always have morons out there, but it may cause some to stop and think first.

How does that solve the problem? You can be sick of it all you wish, I understand. I am sick of it too but, you can't force something like this and ignore Constitutional Rights. If you want to change the Constitution, OK, but first you have to do that. Then, you have to live with what that means.