![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I saw this article a while back, and the more I thought about it, the more sad and ironic it became.
Passport Rule Helps Collect Child Support
The price of a passport: $311,491 in back child support payments for an American businessman now living in China, $46,000 in such payments for a musician seeking to perform overseas and $45,849 for a man planning a Dominican Republic vacation.
Of course, the standard MRA answer to this is, "The mother won't let me see the kids." Bull-frakking-crap. This may happen in some cases (usually for good reason) but it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. That child support is owed the child, whether the father (or mother, if she is the non-custodial parent) sees him/her or not.
I don't see what's so mind-boggling about this concept. You sire--or birth--a child, and you're responsible for it. Period. This is especially applicable in the case of men, because for so many centuries they were able to simply walk away, with little done to stop them.
Boy, that karma's a bitch, ain't it?
Passport Rule Helps Collect Child Support
The price of a passport: $311,491 in back child support payments for an American businessman now living in China, $46,000 in such payments for a musician seeking to perform overseas and $45,849 for a man planning a Dominican Republic vacation.
The new passport requirements that have complicated life this summer for thousands of travelers have also uncovered untold numbers of child support scofflaws and forced them to pay millions.
The State Department denies passports to noncustodial parents who owe more than $2,500 in child support. Once the parents make good on their debts, they can reapply for passports.
Gee whiz. Isn't that amazing. They can come up with the money when they want to get a passport, but they can't make regular payments for their children.Of course, the standard MRA answer to this is, "The mother won't let me see the kids." Bull-frakking-crap. This may happen in some cases (usually for good reason) but it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. That child support is owed the child, whether the father (or mother, if she is the non-custodial parent) sees him/her or not.
I don't see what's so mind-boggling about this concept. You sire--or birth--a child, and you're responsible for it. Period. This is especially applicable in the case of men, because for so many centuries they were able to simply walk away, with little done to stop them.
Boy, that karma's a bitch, ain't it?
