And now for the feminist perspective

The "Fathers Rights Movement" exists to dodge child support

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 02-08-03

The "No Spin Zone" continues to echo the feminist perspective regarding the plight facing men who dare to have sex with women. The topic of discussion was the unfair advantage that the courts grant to a pregnant woman, regarding their exploitation of unplanned children for money. Glenn Sacks was attempting to make a distinction between men who consciously decide to be fathers, and men who become fathers due to an unprotected "poke in the whiskers":

The National Organization for Women (NOW) has portrayed a father's fight for child custody as "the fathers’ bitterness about being required to pay child support" \1

"The 'Father's Rights Movement' is all about men who are attempting to avoid supporting their children" \2 spewed the stand in for Bill O'Reilly, capping off the interview with Glenn Sacks. The stand in, John Kasich, is a former member of the House of Representatives, where he built a reputation as an attacker of bloated government. All members of the House of Representatives believe child support demanded by each state is the same as that state's welfare benefits. \3 Mr. Kasich has been deceived into thinking child support is reasonable in all states.

Bill O'Reilly entitled a previous segment "Is it your constitutional right to have babies and not support them?" \4, regarding a Wisconsin man who was ordered by the court to "cease and desist" impregnating women.

When the California governor, Gray Davis, vetoed a bill to end paternity fraud, the Bill O'Reilly interview with Dianna Thompson was mysteriously postponed. It seems that Bill O'Reilly is still snake bit from the interview with Stephen Baskerville, who proceeded to lay down the family law, defending Deadbeat Dads, and made Bill O'Reilly like it. \5

The hypocrisy of this "No Spin" perspective becomes glaring if you are familiar with the many crusades launched by Bill O'Reilly concerning charities not handing over money to the intended recipients. The public misperception seems to be that a child has a legal right to the money paid for its support. As if to say "There is no incentive for a woman to get pregnant seeking child support, since she would have nothing to gain".

A father earning $53,000/yr net income in California must pay $1,100/mo to the mother of his child (tax-free, regardless of the mother's income, for at least 18 years, never account for a dime). \6 If the mother is on welfare in California, the taxpayers pay her $384/mo and $243/mo for the child for a total of $627/mo (food stamps, work requirements, strict accountability). \7

The public misperception as a function of circumstance may be described as follows:

The public perception of a "Deadbeat Dad" seems to revolve around a father's inability to keep his family off the welfare roles. The state's perception is that if Dads don't fall behind in child support the state will lose all federal funding. The federal perception should be that the states must implement the child support guidelines as reported to the House of Representatives in the Greenbook. \3 If the state child support guideline were the same as the state welfare benefit then the public perception would equal the truth.

If I were a former member of the House of Representatives (John Kasich) and learned that the financial demands forced on my constituents were fraudulently reported to hide the common denominator to welfare reform, I would demand to "make it accurate, or make it law". The family law solution is already in place at the federal level and is waiting for our legislators to demand that we enforce it. \3

Gone are the days when a woman would attempt to get pregnant to guilt the man of her dreams into marrying her. Now getting pregnant represents a tax-free windfall for at least 18 years without any responsibility to account for a dime. This very lucrative arrangement provokes gullible women to:

These startling revelations may raise more questions:


\1 NOW Family Court Report 2002., The complete PDF document is at the following link
\2 FoxNews, John Kasich vs Glenn Sacks, "30 Years After Roe v. Wade, How About Choice for Men?"; The nested paraphrase "The 'Father's Rights Movement' is all about men who are attempting to avoid supporting their children", was necessary due to men's and father's rights movements coinciding when child support is at issue, and to avoid legal liability by propagating a baseless allegation that drinking beer at night causes guys to get mad at paying child support; The actual quote by John Kasich was "I think the men's rights movement frankly was Glenn honestly was founded by a bunch of guys drinking beer one night mad that they had to do child support payments. I think it is just irresponsible."; The Glenn Sacks approved paraphrase is "...the men's rights movement...was founded by a bunch of guys drinking beer one night mad that they had to do child support payments. I think it is just irresponsible."
\3 Interstate child support guideline data was obtained from Table 8-2 of the US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means 2000 Greenbook, Section 8, entitled "Amount Of Child Support Awarded By State Guidelines In Various Cases",; Pirog, Klotz, and Buyers (1997) have examined the differences in child support guidelines across States. Their approach was to define five hypothetical cases of custodial mothers and noncustodial fathers that capture a range of differences in income, expenses, and other factors that influence the amount of child support payments computed under the guidelines adopted by the various States. State 1997 guidelines were then applied to each of the five cases to compute the amount of child support that would be due. In each of the five cases, the mother and father are divorced. The father lives alone while the mother lives with the couples' two children, ages 7 and 13. The father pays union dues of $30 per month and health insurance for the children of $25 per month. The mother incurs monthly employment-related childcare expenses of $150. The income of the father and mother that is entitled "Case D" specifies a father = $4,400/mo and a mother = $1,760/mo.
\4 Bill O'Reilly, FoxNews, 10-10-02, "Is it your constitutional right to have babies and not support them?",2933,65322,00.html
\5 Bill O'Reilly, FoxNews, 10-16-00 "The O'Reilly Factor": "Deadbeat Dads",
\6 Interstate child support guideline data was obtained from and assumes 0% custody, $4,400/mo NCP net income (Vermont and New Hampshire are not included in the analysis since you must pay to find out how much you would owe in these states),
\7 TANF benefits across all states was extracted from Table 7-9 of the US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 2000 Greenbook, Section 7, entitled "Maximum Combined TANF And Food Stamp Benefit For Families Of One To Six Persons, January 1, 2000",; Food stamp calculations assume that the family does not receive an excess shelter deduction. In very low benefit States, combined benefits shown reflect the maximum food stamp allotment for the family size, but in some States the excess shelter deduction would increase food stamps (by up to $83 monthly—more in Alaska and Hawaii). Calculations assume a single-parent family with no earned income and use normal rounding rules. Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507,,

Jim Untershine holds a BSEE from Mississippi State University and has 13 years experience in feedback control system design. Mr. Untershine is currently using the teachings of Werner Heisenberg and Henry David Thoreau to expose Family Law in California as the exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country.