The Truth Of The Matter

            Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman on February 26, 2012 while walking through The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Florida.  Trayvon was returning to the home of his father’s girlfriend when Zimmerman a community watch coordinator of Peruvian and White American decent observed what he felt was suspicious behavior by Trayvon and began following him.  While following Trayvon, Zimmerman place a 911 call to Sanford Police and all we truly know beyond this is that Trayvon Martin is dead and George Zimmerman is claiming that he shot Trayvon out of self-defense.  No matter which side you believe, it does not take away from the fact that Zimmerman who is not a Police Officer or other law enforcement agent but a community watch coordinator shot and killed Trayvon.  What is more upsetting is that other than being brought in for questioning, Zimmerman has not spent a second of his life in prison for it, and at the moment there are no trial dates set in regards to it. 

What’s even more disgusting is that in the wake of Trayvon’s dirty past coming to light people are really reacting to it as if Zimmerman did our society a favor by shooting Trayvon.  The media reported that Trayvon had been suspended from school for being in possession of a baggie or baggies containing marijuana, for either missing school or being late too many times, and for writing graffiti on a hallway locker at his school that lead to a search of his backpack that found him in possession of burglars’ tools (a screwdriver) and a woman’s rings and earrings. 

The media was right in reporting this because it is their job to report as much credible material as possible to the public but in the court of public opinion knowing these facts true or not should not justify Trayvon being dead.  We all have done wrongs in our lives; some that we have been caught for and others only we will know about.  Either way with that being said would any one person be doing society a favor for shooting anyone of us?  At days end like it or not, and whether or not anyone cares to honestly admit to this, we are all opportunistic people who given the right circumstances provided that we know we will 1000% get away with it would do anything we felt like doing, and with that in mind Zimmerman is no angel either.  It’s been reported in the media also that Zimmerman whose father is a retired magistrate judge has had his troubles with the law also.  According to rolling out.com Zimmerman has been arrested on charges of domestic violence, and in two other separate incidents he was arrested for resisting arrest while also assaulting a police officer and also for resisting arrest.  In all three cases the charges were ultimately dismissed. 

Now based on this I could make an argument that if Trayvon did in fact attack Zimmerman on the night of February 26^th he would have been doing society a favor for beating on a man that has reportedly assaulted police officers, resisted arrest, and attacked a woman or family member.  I could sit back and make an argument that the Sanford community that hired Zimmerman knowingly hired a perp who in the eyes of some simply turned around and did society a favor by killing another perp in Trayvon but I’m not.  The fact of the matter is that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.  When the police are involved in shootings like this right or wrong a thorough investigation is done, and discipline is handed down.  Depending on the outcome further action may even be taken so what makes this any different?  Had the roles in this unfortunate situation been reversed Trayvon would be in jail awaiting trial right now with a bail amount that I couldn’t even imagine, and if anyone thinks that I’m wrong for saying that I challenge you to prove me wrong. 

The bottom line is that it appears right now that Trayvon was killed and enough is not being done to make sure that this situation receives a thorough investigation.  George Zimmerman is still a free man when if the shoe again was on the other foot Trayvon would be behind bars and a plea of self-defense wouldn’t be a good enough defense.

Devestating News

Newly passed trespass bill makes protesting illegal

A Payday Loan

Having recently joined the rank and file as a father who has been ordered by the family court to make bi-weekly child support payments to my ex-wife to assist her with our four year old son, I can honestly say that I was frustrated and at times disappointed with the way that I was treated during my support hearings.  Before I get into that thought I am going to share with you my side of how I arrived at this point to begin with.

In the fall of 2007 my ex-wife gave birth to our son, and by the end of December that same year she and I were married.  By the spring of 2008 I was contemplating if we needed to stay married because things were not working the way that they should have been for us to be married.  Things came to a head for me when I spotted her and her ex-boyfriend coming from family court one day while I was with our son heading to go visit my mother at work.  I was under the impression that she was at work while I had taken our son to the doctor to see about his foot.  The reality as I found out was that while I was with our son at the doctor’s office she was at family court with her ex-boyfriend requesting that the court put a stop on his child support payments that he was making to her for their daughter. I was honestly hurt when I saw all of this mainly because I had our son with me, and I remember thinking to myself how do I explain this to him because I knew right then that our situation was over and I was moving on.  By the fall of 2008 I had submitted my uncontested divorce papers, and in doing so I was very adamant about paying child support to my ex if she felt she needed the money.  My ex-wife made it very clear to me that she did not want any of my money so after unsuccessfully attempting to put myself on child support payments with the court I just simply continued to do everything for our son just the way I had been doing since the day he was born.

Ironically in December of 2009 my divorce was finalized with the courts and I was now free from my marriage.  Post marriage everything was great for me until a couple of years later when my ex decided to petition the court for child support payments from me after we spoke and I explained to her that I had truly moved on and was with someone else preparing for my second child.  My ex stated to me that she now needed to make sure that her son was taken care of because she didn’t know what would happen with my new situation.  Translation, in the event that you and the girl you are with now break up in five years, let me get what I can now before she does.  Especially since I’m not working, living at home with my mother, and honestly really could use the money now.  Needless to say this was the beginning of my frustrations because now I’m thinking to myself that I have been the one doing everything financially for our son so why should I now give you anything.  In any case I dropped my son back to my ex after taking him to get his haircut one day, and before I left I had been served with a summons to appear for a child support hearing.  Before I continue there is no ducking and dodging that my feelings were very strong for my ex-wife and the relationship we had at the time.  At days end my ex-wife brought my firstborn child into this world, and I also married her so I would be lying to you if I said that I did not love her at the time because wanting to have children with someone is a huge situation to be in and there be no love for the person that you are with.  With that being said, I remember my first court appearance like it was yesterday.

My ex and I entered into the court room and within minutes of sitting down the conversation was the support magistrate asking who did my son stay with, and my ex answering by saying that he lived with her.  Next the support magistrate then asked me if I acknowledge being my son’s father and I replied yes.  The magistrate then asked for my pay stubs from work, and with a few key strokes on his calculator determined that I needed to pay my ex three hundred and seventy five dollars in child support every two weeks.  So much for all the other paperwork that I had brought in to show the magistrate that the court had the wrong father because not only was I supporting my son, I was and still am his primary source of support.  I ended up getting a lawyer which helped because as I have found out magistrates are more likely to hear you more when a lawyer speaks on your behalf, and eventually I was able to get my payments down to one hundred and fifty dollars every two weeks after proving to him that my ex and I had shared custody of my son.  Even with that knowledge on the table the court still sought to up my payment amount and my ex and I ended up making settlement on three hundred dollars every two weeks.  At days end again I need to make clear that paying my ex the child support is not a problem for me because my view of the situation is that the money belongs to my son.  My issue with the whole child support situation is that with my view in mind there is no measure of accountability placed on my ex to make sure that the money she receives is being used towards the support of my son like it should be.

In an earlier piece that I wrote titled, “Corporate Mother,” I alluded to the idea that some mother’s view their child as a business decision.  The business decision that I was referring to with that statement was the decision to take a father who is doing his job and actively living up to his responsibilities to court for child support payments.  The child support system not just hurts but in as many cases as it can cripples a person financially.  Now regardless of if the father needed to be taken to court for the support or not, my stance is that the mother receiving the payments needs to be held accountable for what is being done with that money to ensure that the money is being used to support the child, and not just tax free money that mom is collecting for herself.

A father trying to minimize or show that he should not be paying child support would have to prove his case by first being able to show that he has more than just a visitation schedule with his child, and then it’s about him being able to show how he supports his child in the form of medical expenses, daycare expenses, living expenses, and so on.  What’s troubling is that in showing all of this he is basically accounting for every penny that is spent to support his child to avoid being crippled financially by a system out to do just that but for a mother receiving the money she never has to show how she spends every penny of that money to support her child.

Mother’s receiving child support payments are not asked to come before the court every three years and show receipts for medical expenses paid, daycare costs incurred, or changes in living expenses. On the other hand a father making payments could be summoned back to court every three years and be subjected to incremental increases in his support payments of one percent or more depending on the circumstances for the lifetime of the payments.  Now where is the fairness in that because if this is the case shouldn’t mom have to come back to continue to show a need for the money that she already receives?  Even at the request of the father a mother is not obligated to show how the child support is being spent on the child which says to me that until a measure of accountability is put in place unfortunately it will always be likely that the child never even sees the money being given to mother.

It would also just make sense to make sure that a mother receiving child support is at least working, and living in her own situation where she is independent.  How do you justify making child support payments to someone with no job?  In a situation like this it should be obvious that the person is unable to even care for themselves to an extent so if they aren’t working and the other parent is obviously somebody must be taking care of the child other than the unemployed parent. 

In addition to this it should also become obvious that if the mother has no job that the support payments being made by the father likely will serve as her only means of income, and also her only means of supporting herself, and how does that help support the child when it’s supporting mom also?  Now if there is a legitimate reason that mom is unemployed then of course I’m not suggesting that she be forced to work; but if all things are equal and there is nothing to suggest that mom can’t work she should be working to at least be able to show that she has some financial responsibility in the situation regarding herself at the least.  After that then a better and more honest calculation can be made to determine what a father needs to pay in order to supplement what mom makes in order to help support the child before we just put it all on the father.

In closing what I am saying truly applies to those fathers who are taking care of their children.  If a father taking care of his child or children must go through the ringer of the child support system all I’m really saying is at least give him a little protection too in the form of the security of knowing that the money he is paying out is really supporting his child or children, and that it’s not just a payday loan that never has to be bad back.

Be Great,

Chris…

Corporate Mother

Corporate mothers are bringing down good fathers, and destroying the works of strong mothers in the process.  I have a lot of respect for all the mother’s in the world that are out there keeping their families together, and doing what they have to do to make sure their children grow to be great in life.  Who I do have a problem with are those corporate mothers who secretly view their children as a paycheck, and use them along with the family court system to gain a steady payday through child support payments.

It’s unfortunate but chances are a corporate mother has had her children with a father cut from good stock.  Meaning he is the type of father who does the things he is supposed to do for his children.  Whether the relationship with his children’s mother works or not he will still be actively involved with his children, and is going to do more for them than the family court system is going to force him to.  He is also a father that does not have a problem paying child support because he understands that he has a responsibility to his kids, and that there are other components that go into raising his children besides money. 

Corporate mother’s could care less about the other components that go into raising their children because their attitude is, "show me the money," and their children are nothing more than a business decision they needed to make.  Dealing with a good father corporate mothers do not understand that taking him to court for their child support payday is actually doing more harm than good to the children, and in the long run bringing them more aggravation. 

Having children creates a partnership between a man and a woman. So if we are going to look at it as a business, we have to look at it as a business partnership.  In a business partnership two people invest their hard earned money into a business in order to get it going.  Not only that they also invest a lot of their time, energy and efforts into that business because once it gets going they want to see it profit and grow.  With that in mind, parents make a lifelong financial investment into their children from the start, and in addition they both invest a lot of their time, energy and efforts into their children to see that they profit and grow. 

A business plan is not drawn up with a short term goal in mind seeking short term gains.  A business plan is laid out over a span of years with long term gains in mind.  The thinking of responsible mothers and fathers is long term. High school diploma, get him or her through college, and teaching independence and not dependence.  Corporate mothers think short term, “show me the money,” and as they say money is the root of all evil.  Dealing with children as a business, and chasing the money takes away from the time a father spends with his children as well as the mental and physical bond he builds with them.  This hurts him and his children in the long run because the time that he wants to devote to them and the time they want from him is being spent in family court fighting over money. 

Looking at the bigger picture corporate mothers do not realize that taking the, “show me the money,” attitude is what dissolves their partnership with the father of their children, and makes everything about business.  Once the child support order is in place the corporate mother becomes the employee, and her children become a product.  She now has a salary and is being paid to take care of her children when she is with them.  Dad's only concern now is making sure his children have what they need when they are with him, and that’s the aggravating part for the corporate mother.  She gets her payday but it’s really not enough for her to operate with and she can no longer ask her former business partner for a loan.  She can get a raise but she’s a union worker now and she has to go through her union (Family Court) to get it. 

It’s truly sad that there are mothers who think like this when it comes to their children because money driven mothers are beginning to put the same type of negative stigma on good mothers that dead beat fathers have already established.  What’s even more sad is that with all these men who don’t want to be bothered and all these mothers looking to get paid, a huge shadow now looms over the few good fathers, and strong mother’s who have gotten it done on their own, and those who continue to make a way out of no way for their children.

My closing thought is to say to the dead beat father stay out of the way so the good father can restore the faith in fathers that you have broken. To the Corporate Mother I say attend Florida University and F U for trying to bring good active fathers down, and trying to destroy the works of strong independent mothers.

Be Great,

Chris...