“Montanans who don’t pay their child support could be denied hunting, fishing and trapping licenses, under a bill presented by Republican state Sen. Mike Lang,” ktvh.com reports. “Under current law, the state Child Support Enforcement Division already can seek to deny certain hunting licenses to people who aren’t paying child support. Lang’s Senate Bill 172 would change the law to say the state can deny a child-support scofflaw a wildlife conservation license, which is needed to obtain any Montana hunting or fishing license.”

Apparently, “The Montana Wildlife Federation supported the measure Tuesday and no one testified against it.” This despite the fact that it looks a lot like a slippery slope, from denying child support scofflaws hunting licenses, to revoking their concealed carry permits, for example. Or maybe that’s just me being paranoid.

In any case, at least anecdotally, the strategy is effective.

Sarah Partridge of Glasgow, who testified for the bill, said she hadn’t received a child-support payment for seven years, despite the state’s best efforts.

But when a letter was sent to her ex-spouse threatening to withhold hunting licenses, seven year’s worth of payments were paid in one year, she said.

“We wondered how many other people found themselves in a similar situation,” she said. “This just allows (the state) to use this as another tool in their tool box to collect what’s outstanding.”

An outstanding idea or a worrying expansion of government power? We report, you deride.

113 Responses to Montana to Withhold Hunting Licenses From Deadbeat Dads

    • This!!

      No fault divorce is an unmitigated disaster, as is giving women custody the vast majority of the time. Make joint 50/50 custody with no child support or alimony.

      Frivolous divorce is usually the real problem. Deadbeat fathers are far less common than are whoring mothers.

      This proposal is more mysandry by white knight cuckservatives.

      I’m not bitter, not divorced, not a father, my wife is a sweetie, and my folks are still married after 49 years.

      I’m just tired of seeing good men divorce raped, and children deprived of their fathers, all because mama ain’t “haaappy”.

      • This is one of the main reasons I support free, safe, and legal abortions. People should not be forced to bring a kid into this world if they cannot provide for the kid, and the adoption system in this country is completely screwed up, and a lot of people use the foster care system to leach money off the government while abusing their kids while good foster parents often get screwed over.

        • You can sign your rights away you don’t HAVE to pay for the Baby if you don’t want it, BUT start keeping it in your pants if you can’t handle the responsibility that comes with sex!

  1. “seven year’s worth of payments were paid in one year” – wow, that guy was a total asshole.

    My buddy, who has never been able to afford to pay child support, but who has, indeed, paid it for quite a few years (usually via 50% of his minimum wage, or barely above, paycheck getting garnished) cannot hunt in this state because they won’t let him get a hunting license. I get the idea of utilizing it as leverage to try to collect from deadbeat (as in assholes who can afford it but don’t) dads, but it is also used as a club to punish people for being poor, which is hardly the business that the government should be in.

    • If a person is “too poor” to pay to feed and clothe their child then a.) they shouldn’t have one, b.) failing that, they are too poor to have recreational hobbies that require annual outlays of cash, and c.) not responsible enough to take care of your kids, then you’re not responsible enough to be out in the field with a gun.

      • Hunting is the cheapest way I k ow of to put 40lbs of meat in my freezer. State land plus an old mossberg 500 and some second hand camo is all that is needed.

        I agree with punishing deadbeats…but for those who can’t afford it, and are doing their best they are getting screwed. Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish. I agree with the intent-however.

      • Perhaps the woman should find a better man to open her legs for? Unless it was rape, it was her choice, and it’s not the government’s job to bail people out of bad decision making.

        • That’s sophistry, because the government isn’t bailing anyone out. No money transfers from the government to the individual under these auspices.

          The woman may very well have made a poor choice of mate. Be that as it may, fundamentally the conception is a contract between the two parents to raise that child. Perhaps the guy doesn’t want a kid. Too bad. He sat down, played a hand, and this is how it turned out. He knew what he was getting into; he knew the risks.

          All the government is doing is enforcing the contract by compelling the father to pay his share. Not only is that a right and proper role of government, which it serves every single day via courts nationwide, but it’s one of the damn few legitimate roles of government.

        • No compelling of A to pay B some arbitrary sum according to some hokey implicit “contract,” will ever be anything resembling a legitimate role of a legitimate government. If there is a contract, present it, signed. Then, maybe, compel each party to follow what they, personally and explicitly, signed up for. And no more.

          Making up BS implicit “contracts,” is nothing but welfare for ambulance chasers and a handover of freedoms to tax feeders. As well as a subsidy for the kind of leeches who would rather stomp their boots in favor of Big Massa, than do something productive and useful with their pathetic little lives.

          If Little Miss Government Apologist can’t feed her kid and thinks daddy can, drop him off at daddy’s for feeding. Or don’t, and sit under a bridge while the two of you starve to death. No reason to drag government into it either way.

          Overgrown, overeintrusive, overmeddling government and legal institutions, is what is destroying America. Not “deadbeat dads.”‘ Nor other such nonevents and irrelevancies, which people have dealt with successfully for millennia, with exactly no government meddling needed.

      • Put differently –

        If your wife finds a new honey, (or otherwise tires of you) and kicks you to the curb, and you are now too poor to pay the money the state demands, then the state will also deprive you of one more of life’s simple pleasures.

        If you are too poor, then the state will take away your ability to legally feed yourself. That doesn’t make much sense.

        • And the alternatives are either that the child goes without or the People of the state pay to raise your kid on welfare. I get it, it’s a crappy situation and it’s hell to be poor.

          Here’s the thing, though, neither the kid nor the People of the state asked to be in this situation, nor did anything to bring it about. The parents and only the parents did. So, of the “unfair” remedies, the one born by the parents is the best. Pay up, player!

      • My sentiments exactly.

        There are better ways to enforce these rules than depriving people on the margins of society of a way to put food on their table.

      • Oh, I guess I forgot to mention; it is, in fact, entirely the state collecting money from my friend. The mother never got any child support money (and never asked for any). She received government assistance to pay for the birth (hospital, doctor, etc) only. When she moved to another state (years later), the state decided that my friend was solely responsible for that expense, plus interest. All of the child support that he owes (and has paid for the past 20-ish years since the mother moved to another state) is to the state. The child was always provided for, the mother didn’t ask for any child support, though my buddy did give her money and/or buy things for his kid as he could (though there was a serious damper on that since 50% of his paychecks were going to “child support” rather than towards supporting the child). In fact, for several years his kid was living with him and he was still paying “child support.” I think unless something drastically lucky happens, he will owe “child support” for the rest of his life or until his kid pays it off for him. I wonder if that is a debt that will be canceled when he dies? If not, his kid could end up owing child support for himself!
        You think you know deadbeat dads, and you think they are all jerks who choose to use the money for themselves rather than giving it to their kids… but you are wrong.

      • My ex is over 100,000 in arrears. Hides from child support, lives in a 500k house. Has not seen his child in 8 years. Doesn’t care to. Never bought a birthday present or any gift.. ever. I could care less if I see child support, I’ve lived just fine without it. But if he looses his ability to hunt and fish which is what he loves I find it hilarious and ironic.

    • Often times Moms can’t afford it either and they have to do without to make ends meet while Dads say sorry I can’t help you and still manage to hunt, drink, and have fun! Having a kid isn’t cheap or easy but if your gonna make the choice to have sex and have a baby then you better be doing EVERYTHING you can to pay for the baby! Stop making it about what He does She does make it about making sure that baby is WELL taken care of even if it means you pitch in more then the Mom/Dad!

  2. This is part of the problem with America, is dead beat worthless fools who don’t want to be fathers. If they stuck around and actually did their jobs, we wouldn’t have half of the issues we do currently.

    Apparently the guy referenced in the article had plenty of cash to go get licenses, tags, ammo, guns, and equipment, so why couldn’t he pay up?

    No problem with this whatsoever. Maybe dads should try taking their children with them, and stop being worthless parents.

    • “This is part of the problem with America, is dead beat worthless fools who don’t want to be fathers” or mothers for that matter too. And this is why we need to keep abortion legal and available. Forcing people to be parents just because they had sex is repugnant.

      • How about asking women to take responsibility for their decisions? Too much to ask? Right now women have 100% reproductive rights and men have jack shit. In reality, some skank can put my name on a birth certificate and then immediately start taking my money. If I then pay out of MY pocket to prove the kid isn’t mine, I won’t be getting my money back and the skank in question won’t even get a slap on the wrist.

        Abortion should be illegal and basdardry should return as a legal concept. Maybe when women are required to be smart about who they let into their pants, we’d get fewer idiots running around because their momma didn’t know more about their baby daddy other than his street name.

        • As much as people might not want to hear what serge has to say here he is correct that women have 100% control over this and men have no input unless the woman is nice enough to allow it.

          Think you’re happily married and overjoyed to hear that you’re gonna be a daddy? Guess what bud, she can legally terminate that pregnancy and hit you with divorce papers pretty much any time she wants. In a lot of states she needs little to no reason to divorce you and without a prenup there goes half your shit.

          Hell, you can lose nearly everything if she has a good lawyer and you don’t know what’s about to hit you in the face. My cousin lost pretty much everything to his ex-wife. Kids, house, cars, 80% of his money, oh and he had to pay her child support to boot. He went from a nice stable life to living in a shitty apartment scraping to make rent and pay an electric bill in all of six months. Oh, and like some fucking movie guess what this lady does? Marries the lawyer that represented her! Yeah, I’m sure that wasn’t planned at all. She just decided to get a divorce and stumbled across her soul mate in the yellow pages. The house? Sold to pad the lawyers retirement accounts and finance what I hear was a really, really nice vacation to Spain, Italy and France. They took the cars my cousin paid for, sold them and used the cash to buy a Mercedes. Then this asshole has the nerve to show up to my cousin’s business and actually thank him for the Mercedes and tell him “One word: prenup”.

          Now, the divorce issue aside, how is it acceptable that she terminate her pregnancy without even consulting you for an opinion? True, men can’t have a baby but neither can a woman without the genetic material a man provides. I’m sorry, there is a huge double standard here. If she asks and your opinion differs from her opinion you’re a misogynistic asshole forcing patriarchy down her throat no matter which way it is that you feel. If she just goes behind your back and has an abortion, tough fucking luck for you because now she’s an empowered woman. She has 0 responsibility and you have all of it.

          So someone, please, explain to me how it is that the woman holds all the cards and can bankrupt you to boot but somehow this is more than 50% they guy’s fault? The truth is, whether you want to admit it or not, currently when it comes to this kind of thing in most places the deck is way, way stacked in the female’s favor. Is there even a term like “deadbeat dad” for women who abandon their kids? I’m pretty up on my slang and I’ve never heard of one.

      • Can’t force anyone to be a parent. Parents are much more than participants in a sex act that results in a pregnancy. By not using birth control, the baby daddy has forced himself into making a choice. He can man up and provide, be a deadbeat dad loser and have everyone else pay for his action, or become a murderer.

        • The point is that paternity fraud is a thing. So long as men have no options after the kid is conceived, forced child support is simple discrimination.

      • Nobody’s forcing anyone to do anything but take responsibility for their actions. Don’t want to be a parent? Don’t have sex. Better yet, don’t have unprotected sex.

        Plenty of contraceptive options exist. Oh, they’re not 100% effective, you whine? They’re damn close, when used as directed. But hey, hedge your bets, if you must. Double bag that bad boy, use a spermicide, and put her on the pill or get the shot. Plenty of options for redundancy out there.

        Geez, what some people won’t do to shift blame and escape responsibility.

        • So why is it that women are able to change their mind after the fact and terminate a pregnancy against their would-be-coparent’s will, whereas a man attempting to force a woman into an abortion against her will would be treated by the law and society as a monster? And why can a woman abandon her child at a hospital/fire station/police station (to the point they now have anonymous baby-dropoff boxes specifically for that purpose) with no legal consequences (in fact, she’ll probably be lauded as a “hero” for “making such a tough decision”) or put their child up for adoption, whereas a man who decides he no longer wants to be a father and stops supporting his child is a “deadbeat” and a “loser” and judged harshly by both society and the law? Hell, if a woman can’t afford to support her child, the gov’t steps in and gives her gov’t housing, and childcare, and special shelters and programs to get her back on her feet. If a man can;t pay to support his child, they give him gov’t housing too… the kind with bars and forced sodomy. If women have the exclusive right to decide on a biological abortion regardless of what their partner feels about it, men should have the right to decide on a financial abortion regardless of what their partner has to say about it. I’m not saying EITHER situation is morally right or makes sense. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Any other option is hypocritical and unfair.

    • Quit blaming men for everyrhing. Sure, there are some deadbeat fathers, but MANY divorces are caused by women kicking out their child’s father. These unfaithful women (and their white knight cuckservative defenders) are a bigger problem than deadbeat fathers.

      • That some loser guy can’t keep a woman is no more my fault or my responsibility than is that he can’t keep it in his pants. Zip up or pay up! There’s your right to choose, player.

        • Give the kids to dad, and make the adulterous woman pay him child support. Take away her Facebook, IPad, and smartphone if she doesn’t pay.

          I favor responsible fatherhood. It’s just that the laws of the last 50 years are profoundly unjust, and harmful to children, men, and women. As a society, we all pay the price.

          Both men and women need to be held accountable for their actions.

    • If people really care about kids and families, they should oppose “no fault” divorce.

      That is the elephant in the room.

  3. As someone who has had ex cash school fees and other cheques in an account in another name then claim I didn’t pay I don’t believe in this at all.

    Having wages garnished in bad enough without extra restrictions. We all know ex partners on either side never lie.

    • Good thing Texas does it through garnishments that go through the AG’s office first, then the noncustodial parent receives their money.

      • Still not enough.

        I don’t pretend to know the details of Texas law having never lived there but in other states I have seen women openly discuss going to the salon as soon as the check came in from their baby daddy.

        The concept of “itemized receipts” is one that needs to be introduced into this. I don’t much care if you go out and buy high end diapers but going to the salon to get your hair and nails done or buying lobster dinners isn’t what child support is about and if you get caught doing that kind of thing you should lose custody and be jailed for a bit to think about the fraud you’ve committed.

        Based on how openly I’ve seen this discussed I would hazard the guess that it’s not terribly uncommon.

  4. It depends on the state I suppose, because some states have some really arcane divorce laws, earning them the nickname “mommy states”, where in any divorce the mother pretty much automatically gets all the children, possessions, and money.

  5. I do not believe that the right to keep and bear arms equals the right to hunt. Tags for game are limited and rationed from the get go. Plus, there are few groups of people that I have less respect for than deadbeat dads

  6. Years back I was at an on base military FREE tax assistance center. A woman came in ranting about where was their REFUND!!! May I see your paperwork, (checked online, REFUND SENT TO some state due to delinquent child support). I asked does your husband have children he pays child support to? YES, but what does that matter?!?!?! Well good news, he does not owe as much now the refund was sent to that jurisdiction. She went off even more, to calm her down I offered a FULL refund 😀 That calmed her down for a moment or two……..(remember the FREE part) She stormed out, my department head, JAG type came around the corner asking what I had said to her to cause to leave in a huff. He laughed, said I have to remember that if I have to deal with anyone.

    Taking care of family should come before going out to have fun. I understand that some stock their freezer hunting, just don’t pull out a Blaser R8 with a S&B scope on top of and claim you’re po.

  7. Meh. Deadbeat dads suck. On the other hand so do dumbass women who make a series of quite obviously bad decisions, end up pregnant and want to blame everyone else in the world for it. Sorry, I’ve seen way, way, way too many people who have no business having kids shack up with someone who’s obviously a loser, get knocked up and then want money from that same idiot who doesn’t have any.

    Hey, folks, if you’re not in a stable relationship and financially capable of supporting children then maybe, just maybe, letting him hit it raw and not pull out is a bad fucking idea? It’s not like you got pregnant on your own.

    And if you do manage to screw this whole life thing up there’s this thing called “adoption”. So many people in this country want to adopt that the wait list is enormous and children are being adopted from outside the US. If you can’t afford the kid, then put on your big girl pants and let someone who can afford to take care of the child do so.

  8. Go for it! If the father is only a “sperm donor” then at the very least he has a moral and civil duty, right you might say, to help pay for the care and upbringing of his children. I do believe in gun rights but I also believe in the right of a child to have a childhood without neglect and with due support from both parents.

    If it takes losing privileges or rights for a deadbeat parent to “man up” then I’m in. I don’t know where the slippery slope is in this case – if you have a legal obligation to pay for a child and you lose gun/hunting rights then is it ok to use that as leverage to enforce the payment of court costs, fines, and taxes? I’d lean towards yes but carefully.

    I have used guns all my life and have a CCW and regularly carry what my friends call a hand-canon, when I run out of ammo I can club my way to safety…so this isn’t a knee jerk reaction. For 18 years I’ve worked with children and families and I see the damage that a deadbeat parent inflicts on a family, this is a good way to help address this issue.

    • Yeah… because fraud has never been involved in any such situation. Bring back legal bastardry. The kid isn’t entitled to jack shit unless I was married to his mother or decide to be nice and acknowledge him.

    • You ever see the damage frivolous divorce causes families? How about telling women to “woman up”, and honor their marriage vows for better or worse?

  9. Timothy
    I am not a fan of deadbeat dads. The problem in many places is you can be accused of being deadbeat by ex. Several men I know paid cash then were accused of non payment

    I used cheques and still had to prove I paid years later and I had paid about double the legal amount.

    In the two most extreme cases I know of personally the children lived with dad and somehow the mother was claiming child support.

    • I’m not saying that all women are innocent and all accused men are guilty. But a limited and rationed thing isn’t a right in my eyes and I struggle to find sympathy for “men” who can’t/choose not to support their kids

      • So why do you have pity for women who can’t be bothered to pick a man worth their time or take a fucking pill?

        • I happen to know a woman who lost her kids in the divorce and then refused to pay child support that he was due. I had sympathy for her husband and felt she was garbage. If you looking for a comparable comparison

        • How about the fact that the man has exactly no say in this?

          A woman can abort the kid.
          A woman can give the kid up for adoption.

          A man has exactly zero options other than to pay up or go to jail.

          How is this not misandrist discrimination?

        • Frankly, I think most states are ridiculous about giving women full custody. I haven’t argued that point. My two points are that hunting isn’t a right and deadbeat dads losing a privilege doesn’t generate sympathy.

          At what point did I say that I was pro choice? At what point did I say the dad should have no say in adoption decisions? Either copy and paste, or quit putting words in my mouth

        • The man has a choice. He chose to penetrate without protection.

          What you characterize as him not having a choice, is more accurately described as him not getting a do-over. Grow up and pay up!

    • I sure as hell would figure out (or my attorney) how to pay the bitch so I didn’t get stiffed. It is still dad’s responsibility…stop whining and making excuses about evil women.

      • Why? Because some woman put your name on a birth certificate and then told you the kid was yours? Go google paternity fraud.

  10. No. And I’d be willing to wager that the amount of hunters that don’t pay child support and actually hunt, is probably 3. In the whole state.

  11. Perhaps I’m sheltered, but the few guys I know can afford to pay the child support.

    Reward of hunting after responsibility of fatherhood.

    Too many examples of walking away from parental responsibility, so I have to agree with this one.

    • Why should men be required to support a child who they didn’t choose to bring into the world? If a woman can abort her baby, a man has every right to abandon it.

      • If you’re man enough to help conceive a baby, you should be man enough to help take care of that baby. HOWEVER, the courts need to realize that dads are NOT ATM machines, and should not be raped financially to the point where they cannot support themselves, too, as well as the kid. But I have absolutely ZERO respect for any so-called man who walks out on his kids – that person is no man at all, in my book, but some low and crawling sort of vermin.

        • Yeah… because paternity tests are always required to put a name on a birth certificate. Save me the bullshit. If a woman can abort a baby or give it up for adoption, not giving the man a choice in supporting the kid is just plain sexist. You wanted equality ladies… come get it.

      • I don’t agree with abortion but at some level there is a difference in a child who’s life was snuffed out before birth versus a child who’s dick of a dad decides to walk out and abandon the child.

        • Really? Because the way I see it, the woman is far more responsible than the man for that kid being born. That makes it her responsibility to make sure that the dude she sleeps with will support that kid without a government gun to his head.

      • When a man sticks his penis into a woman, he just decided to bring a child into the world. The woman also just made the same decision, when she opened her legs.

        Abortion is murder.

      • Your basic quarrel is with biology, not the law. The man exercised his right to choose at the moment of penetration without protection.

    • You’re sheltered, all right. The guys you know who “can pay” must be rich, or had good divorce lawyers. I have to live with my parents – ridiculous, at my age – because I get to take home less than a third of my paycheck after the support and health insurance is taken out (the court requires me to keep health insurance on the kids, even though their mom has excellent coverage through her job). My ex is a unionized state employee, makes about twice my pay, AND gets a nice fat check from a cellphone tower company for being allowed to have their tower on her property. Heck, I haven’t been hunting in several years, in part because I can’t AFFORD a license!

      • A good lawyer – perhaps. That saved me from my child support payments burrying me.

        Rich – I wouldn’t say ‘rich’ but having enough money to prioritize a hobby over child support is a fair statement.

        Not arguing the “baby’s for income” mentality. Those women can definitely cause an undue amount of suffering on society and the alleged father (if in fact it is the accused).

        However, the sentiment to put a “helmet on that solder before he goes into do his duty” (wear a condom) is part of being responsible if you don’t want to end up in those situations in the first place.

        • Yes, but what if a father is in a situation like mine? I was married. I WANTED kids, and so did my wife. But here is where the problem comes in: to me, having kids was just a part of the bigger picture. I love my kids dearly. I grew up in a traditional, conservative, functional family. Only two other people in my family have ever been divorced: an aunt, who never had (or wanted) kids, whose husband turned out to be a self-centered womanizer, and a cousin who was the “black sheep” of the family, who got knocked up before she got out of high school, never married her first kid’s dad, married the father of her other kids, claimed “domestic violence” against him (which according to her boiled down to yelling at her), and then ended up divorcing him and marrying another guy who had kids already.

          My ex, on the other hand, comes from a broken family. According to her, her “real” dad was a molester; her step dad was an alkie. Her mother, I can attest from sad experience, is a nutjob. My ex has two older sisters, both of whom have kids. One lives out on the Left Coast and is married; the other lives just down the road from my ex, is divorced, and has three adult kids. My ex has pretty much admitted that the only reason she married me is because she wanted kids. Before we had kids, we had some fertility problems (and spent tons of money on treatments), and she would spend hours in front of the TV crying while watching shows like “A Baby Story”, “Adoption Story”, and “Babies” Special Delivery”. She got very angry with me when I told her, after she suggested it, that I did not want to adopt a “special needs” kid – she was so desperate to be a mother that she wanted ANY kid at all. I figured, for myself, that if we had a “special needs” kid on our own that it was God’s will, but that I wouldn’t choose one just to have a kid. When our son was born, she started to turn nasty and emotionally abusive towards me. When he started walking, any and all bruises he got on him (caused by a typical toddler’s stumbling into things and falling) looked like “finger marks” to her. She even came out and asked if I ever had the urge to shake him, to which I replied, “What kind of monster do you think I am???”. After she became pregnant with our daughter, she accused me of being responsible for a bump on his head that wasn’t even there when I took him over to her mother for baby sitting before I went to work (my ex was so paranoid about child molesters that she wouldn’t let anyone outside of family members watch our son). She threatened to leave me “for his safety” if I couldn’t come up with a plausible “explanation” as to how he got that bump. Her nutjob mother, for her part, ranted and raved about how our son would end up dead if my wife stayed with me. Under severe stress, and suffering from insomnia, I ended up making a mistake that cost me the job I had held for 10-1/2 years. My mother-in-law accused me of losing my job on purpose so I could “run away with my son”, and threatened to stop babysitting if my wife stayed with me. I got a new job a few weeks later, but shortly before that a couple cops showed up at the door telling me I had to pack up and leave. Apparently, my wife had told her OB doctor that I was “emotionally abusing her” and the stress was “jeopardizing her pregnancy”, and the doc, without even trying to find out both sides of the story, sided with her. So began a long and stressful battle over parenting time with my son (and my daughter when she was finally born). When the divorce proceedings in court finally began, the judge even said that the way SHE had treated ME “could be construed as domestic violence” – but when the kids started preschool, she was granted primary custody because, in the words of the judge, “the mother is naturally the more nurturing parent”. After all, it wasn’t the kids who were being abused, just me, and as a father, I don’t count for squat. The judge didn’t even change his mind when my ex tried using dirty tricks to get even more custody and she was found in contempt of court! My ex even lied to the court and told them that she “has the same spiritual beliefs” as me. Funny, she tells the kids that she does NOT believe, and so the only time they go to church is when they are with me (or when it’s Scout Sunday, my son goes with his Cub Scout pack). I thank God that my kids love me, and that I have a supportive family.

          So don’t automatically start making statements about “wearing a condom” and that sort of thing. In today’s society, even a loving father who tried to be a good husband gets screwed by an evil woman with a hidden agenda and emotional problems.

  12. I hate deadbeat dads, but not everyone who owes child support is a deadbeat dad. They require a pretty unreasonable chunk of your wages (never experienced this personally, but an old boss of mine who I had a very high opinion of had to deal with this every time he got paid). Not to mention that there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to ensure that the money is actually spent on your KID. The money goes to your former spouse, and she can spend it however the hell she likes.

    Oh, and a word of advice to anyone who may get divorced or is currently going through a divorce: be very careful about paying for your kids before the courts tell you to, because even if you’ve been paying for as long as you’ve been divorced and even if you have signed and notarized receipts, they will still insist that you owe back child support as well. I’m not saying be a deadbeat, not at all. Your kids are your responsibility. Just be mindful of that fact.

  13. I don’t like this, not at all. On the one hand, deadbeat dads are some of the worst kind of scum. On the other hand, there are a LOT of people who are behind on child support not because they don’t make a reasonable effort but because the courts demand that they pay through the nose. Oh, and if you fall too far behind, they’ll take your license. “Well, you can’t pay the amount we decided you should, so we’re gonna take away your driver’s license and make it even harder for you to make the money we want! That’ll teach you to fall behind on your payments!” It’s a broken fvcking system.

    • Let me add another dimension to this:

      A dad who is in desperate financial straights might truly need to hunt and fish to provide enough food for himself. If he has minimal income and enough of it (although not the total amount that he owes) goes to his children, he quite literally may not have enough money for food for himself.

      There have been four hunting seasons in my life where harvesting deer was the difference between getting by and facing some really dark decisions. Taking legal hunting off the table for people in those situations is heinous.

        • Hunting and fishing can be incredibly inexpensive sources of protein, especially if the hunter already has his firearms and the fisherman already has his fishing gear.

          Consider the hunter who already has a rifle/shotgun and suitable clothing: for nothing more than the cost of a hunting license (perhaps $15), one cartridge (perhaps $1), and round-trip gasoline (perhaps $4) to drive to a suitable hunting location within 25 miles, that $20 investment could yield 70 pounds of pure venison meat (no fat, no bones). The equivalent cost for pure beef (no fat, no bones) would be on the order of $300 to $600. Even the equivalent cost in chicken would be on the order of $250. That is a pretty good return on an investment of $20, especially if the hunter is unemployed.

          If the hunter had low-paying work at $9 per hour (which is about $8 per hour after taxes) and their hunt and butchering took 8 hours, then they could have earned $64 rather than hunting (and saved the $20 expense). Still, $84 doesn’t buy anywhere near 70 pounds of low cholesterol, zero fat, zero bone meat.

          Depending on how and where you fish, the numbers could work out very similar.

        • Where we spend half the year in MT, it surely is. Friend of mine and his wife yearly get both elk and deer tags. Then, right before hunting season, taking the screen off the kitchen window is on his honey-do list. So that she doesn’t have to go outside to take her animals. Elk are particularly bad, breaking into wherever he has stored the food for his horses for the winter, and two elk is cheap for the damage the herd does.

  14. I was working 2 full time jobs to support me and my kids. I got custody. My second job was in security. At that time I was making 7 bucks an hour and making do with a Taurus .38. My partner was bragging about his new and expensive 1911 style .45. It was mighty pricey on our wages. He just worked security with no side job.

    Within 2 days of his bragging he came in to work crying alligator tears. The state of CA was pulling his drivers and security licenses for non payment of child support. Lots of non payment.

    When I asked why the pricey new pistol and not paying his support his answer was “Aren’t I entiteled to a life, allso?”

    I treat the stories of the ex wives screwing over their baby daddies as I do the stories from the msm about the deadly assault rifles. A large grain of salt.

    • well, he did procreate, so don’t those children deserve a life too? Each situation is different and I am not foolish enough to think that some innocent or helpless parents will get caught, but when you become a parent your roles, responsibilities, and obligations change. It doesn’t mean you lose yourself, but you have to think of the lives that you helped bring into the world. Sorry, without knowing all the details in the story you presented , the man owed.

      • Maybe I didn’t tell it well enough. I wasn’t feeling any sympathy for him. He was a deadbeat. Plain and simple. Here in CA if you don’t pay your child support they take any and all licenses. I support that rule.

        Course I view it from a single parents point.

  15. Washington State takes away deadbeat dads’ driver’s licenses if they don’t pay. I’m not sure about other licenses though. I’m all for it. When I was paying child support and my share of daycare expenses, it was tough, but I kept up. It was easier after the kids didn’t need daycare anymore. Never had any qualms about paying my share.
    My wife’s ex, on the other hand, owes her over $45,000. She’ll never see it.

  16. What next – confiscating guns from dads who can’t pay their state-mandated financial rape? Not every dad who doesn’t pay child support is a deadbeat – some are just dead BROKE! And the office of the Friend of the Cunt does not seem to be answerable to anyone. I found out too late that my (ex) wife married me because she wanted just one thing – kids. Once she had the kids she wanted, she lied to the police and said I had “emotionally abused her” so that they would show up and tell me to leave. I didn’t get to see my son (my daughter hadn’t been born yet) for three weeks until a temporary parenting time schedule was forced on her by the court. When my daughter was born, I didn’t find out until three days after the fact, and since she hadn’t been born at the time the original temporary parenting time schedule was made, she wasn’t covered by it (after all, to a liberal an unborn baby is a “non-person”), so any time with my daughter was controlled by my wife until the court stepped in two months later. Three years afterwards, I lost my job and was unable to find work for over two years, and not for lack of trying (I live in an economically depressed area). I had no income short of my VA disability check until I started receiving unemployment, and the FOC refused to lower the support amount – in fact, they jacked it UP because I “wasn’t paying medical insurance” (this was pre-Obozocare, but the court mandated that I had to carry insurance on my kids, despite the fact that my ex makes over $20 per hour, is a state employee, and has excellent healthcare benefits). To add insult to injury, HER lawyer had the gall to ask me why didn’t I move down-state where there were more jobs. I looked her in the eye and told her that be damned if I was going to leave my kids behind. Meanwhile, the FOC labeled me a “deadbeat dad” because I couldn’t pay the full amount they demanded, despite my being unemployed. I have been employed full time now for four years, and grateful to just have a job, but the company hasn’t given out pay raises for several years (I haven’t gotten one in two years; other people have gone longer without one), and between the child support and being forced to carry insurance on my kids, I am forced to live with my parents just so my kids have a decent place to stay when they are with me (and my mom watches the kids when I am at work during the summer, since when school is out for the summer I get them all week every other week, instead of every other weekend like during the school year: my ex lives over 60 miles away).

    I can see nailing the true deadbeats – the ones who COULD pay, and still support themselves decently, but choose NOT to pay, but somehow we need to rein in the court system and the legislators, and get them to stop treating all divorced dads as if we are ATM machines.

  17. If men have no recourse on the birth of a child in that a woman can abort “her” child and the father has no say in the matter then the mother is responsible for that childs care and welfare (or should be.) After all it is her body and her choice.

  18. WV has went a bit further, getting a hunting or fishing license while in arrears is a crime. There was a guy in Harrison county got arrested for it recently. It’s pretty rare though.

    Also worth pointing out that (to my knowledge) child support payments are made to the state who then distributes it to the recipient, to verify payments are actually made.

  19. Many years ago I paid child support. Both kids(over 40 now ) were worth supporting but I was hounded for more when I didn’t have it. And she was remarried only 6 months after the divorce. My money seldom went to my kids FWIW. And I don’t see how denying a license has a damn thing to do with child support-especially if the guy is eating his catch. Yeah slippery slope. Kinda’ like losing your guns from domestic abuse with zero proof. Women lie all the time…

    • I think when a person with custody gets remarried, their new spouse assumes responsibility for the kids. Not that that should push biological dad out of the picture. But a marriage certificate indicates family and step dad needs to assume financial responsibility.

      • Dream on. Absent a legal adoption, the step-parent has no legal duty to support the children of the other spouse. Many do–but it is not a legal obligation.

  20. A hunting license is a privilege and not a right. The State owns all of the wild game in the state, and it can set whatever rules it wants in allowing you to capture it. Are there unfairnesses in the divorce and family court? Yup. But if you have a problem, get a lawyer. Doing it on your own is likely to get you screwed to the wall by the spouse that has one (and the court).

    • “The State owns all of the wild game in the state, and it can set whatever rules it wants in allowing you to capture it.”

      While that may be the way that the courts treat the matter, it is absolutely gross. It is no different than the situation in Medieval England where the monarchy claimed to own everything and would enact sanctions on any serf who harvested a wild animal without permission.

      Should the state set rules for commercial activities that harvest game? No question because such commercial activities could quickly decimate a wild game population — not to mention take the harvested game out-of-state for profit. The state should never, ever be in a position to enact sanctions on a person for trying to avoid starvation.

      • And that is exactly why suppressors are NFA items. It had nothing to do with mob assassins. They were added at the last minute because government control freaks were afraid starving Americans during the Great Depression might go out and hunt deer “on the sly” to feed their families, without paying off the government first by getting a license that they likely couldn’t have afforded.

      • You are correct. The rule does indeed trace to Medieval English law and the concept of Sovereign as the owner of all things and all lands within the realm. In fact, noble estates were not originally heritable, but were assigned by the King at his fancy–and removed just as easily. Heritable estates were much more a product of the Magna Carta, and the transference of sovereign power to the nobility, who in turn exercised the same sovereign power within their estates as the King had done. In exchange for their estates, the King demanded fealty, and more importantly, men at arms and knights to fight his battles.

        It also has practical applications, as demonstrated by “the tragedy of the commons”, a parable that within a shared-resource system where individual users act independently according to their own self-interest, their behavior is contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource through their collective action. the story goes that if one starts to abuse the resource to the disadvantage of others, it being a “common” owned by all, others will then act to increase their burden on the common in order to protect their individual interests. Sovereignty solves this dilemma.

    • Technically, maybe. Historically, yes. But realistically, they may have been grazing in your fields all year, taking food that could have gone to more domesticated beasts. So, morally, not so much.

  21. Seems to me the same skills used to hunt ought to be employed in baby makin’ or no baby makin’. First, know your quarry. Skank ho or classy lady? What kind of load do you need? What kind of danger may I be exposed to? “Gun” safety is your responsibility (wear a condom), not your “huntin’ buddy’s” responsibility. So if you’re too dumb to hunt, you really shouldn’t get a license for it.

  22. So, am I the only one still staring at that deer? I mean honestly I couldn’t read any of the article or a thing any of you said. That thing is awesome.

  23. I would comment on this

    But I was that poor kid and was Poor$$$$
    its just to painful to write about—-

    one thing –if deadbeat dad is there for the events in life, that should count! in more than one way!

    all I can say is this–both his own sisters said this after he died and we got insurance money 40 years after the fact
    “the best thing he ever did was die for you kids!”
    even his parents disowned him!

    so do please keep yapping like you know—go right ahead!

  24. Honestly if I lived in that state, and was too poor to make the payments, I would probably poach a deer or two. Fuck it , what are they gonna do? Take away my hunting licence?

  25. I’m fine with denying recreational licenses to deadbeat dads. They need a kick in the ribs to get them to pay for the child they helped create.

    If the state starts denying rights without due process, I will take issue with that.

    • How about the state denying men the right to control their reproduction by putting 100% of the control in the hands of the woman and 100% of the responsibility on the shoulders of the man?

  26. For everyone who says that paternity fraud is not an issue, let me tell you an interesting anecdote.

    My buddy deployed to Iraq. In his second month out, his dependapotamus told him that she was pregnant and that the kid was his. So after he gets back and the kid is born, some oddities start happening. His “wife” divorces him and walks away with most of his pay and benefits along with most of his shit. Here’s the kicker, my buddy is AB+, “his” kid turns out to be O-… So obviously, the kid isn’t his and the alimony and child support were cancelled? Right? Wrong, the court didn’t give a shit and my buddy is still, 12 years later paying alimony to a skank who cheated on him and child support for a kid that biologically can’t be his. At the time, he also racked up a handful of NJPs because of the utter shit his personal life became and it threw him about several years back in promotion. He didn’t make E6 until two years ago even though he’s one of the most squared away Marines I know. (That’s right, he’s a 31 year old E6.)

    So tell me how our child support and paternity law systems are not fucked up beyond all recognition.

    • In many states it’s all about who she says is the father. In PA once a father is lister on the birth certificate it’s a done deal. Even if you prove by DNA tests it’s not yours the state considers you the parent, like you adopted the child.
      Your friend should have suspected the timing and gone for a DNA test on himself and amniotic test on her. If she balked file for divorce and get in front of it. Being in a deployment his options were seriously limited but 18 to 22 years of payments is a bitch.

    • I just don’t understand the desire to have kids. Is your life really incomplete without having extra mouths to feed ?

      Babies are gross, anyway. ?

  27. What do they withhold from the women who violate visitation, shack up with non role models and move the kids far away ?

  28. How about denying hunting fishing and trapping licenses to custodial parents who dont comply with visitation orders if government is going to do the same to deadbeat parents. Frequently child support is not being paid because the custodial mom denies court ordered visitation and judges will not sanction moms. Best way to take child support issues is to make custody 50/50. But the child support industry along with the family law establishment opposes shared parenting because it hits them in their pocketbooks.

    • +1 to that. Having been raised (if you could call it that) by two incredibly selfish people I can just tell you that no matter if it is the man or the women irresponsible parenting is hardest on the child. I would agree that I they can pay they should even if it was only one night. Grown ass man grown ass consequences. By the same token anyou money paid should be probated and be subject to audit so it is going where it is supposed to be going. If we’re going to have dumbass govt interference it might as well be actually helping somoene

  29. This kind of drivel, is what one inevitably eventually endsd up with, once people get sufficiently suckered by Progressive charlatans to buy into the whole women’s suffrage scam. Short of a full on collapse followed by armed insurrections, I can’t see any way out of this. At least until the seemingly more progressive resistant Muzzies come to our rescue.

    I do know some women who recognize their, or more accurately their sisters’, being able to vote, is enough of a net negative that it ought to be rolled back. But for every one of them, there are thousands of well indoctrinated drones and dronettes towing the party line and cheering for Massa, just as their well meaning progressive indoctrinators have told them to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *