'Bad Dads' Reality TV Show Stirs Controversy

Glen's protest doesn't meet the "smell test"

And I suppose that this reprobate slimebag private investigator using tactics that should get him a restraining order tattooed on his head does somehow pass the smell test. And oh yeah, this guy also takes about 38 percent of the cut of "child support". Never thought that I would meet somebody who actually made the CSE look honest and upright.

I agree Fox Should air "Bad Dads"

The election of Bill Clinton made Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity into household names. And the proposed Fox TV show "Bad Dads" could do the same for men and fathers rights advocates like Glenn Sacks and David Usher.

And more importantly it will finally expose the child support collection system in America for what is really is. And that is an anti-father, extortion and revenge based system for women that were never quality marriage material in the first place.

And so as a men and fathers rights advocate myself I welcome a close examination of the child support system in the United States. Because the devil is in the details, not the premise.

And if you look at the details what you will find is that in the vast majority of cases child support payments are based on the wealth of the biological father. No matter what wicket and/or deceptive acts the mother committed to conceive the child. To prevent this with law the child support system could be reformed to a (non-profit 50-50 flat rate system) where both parents would pay 50% of a flat rate equal to the amount that the state pays to foster parents that includes no access profit for ether parent.

And to all the demagogues that would question this type of arrangement I would ask why are foster care children and their parents worth less than women who lie about birth control pills and their children born out of wedlock? And why children born from sperm banks are not entitled to child support at all? Or even the basic human right to know who their biological fathers are?

Of course I'm no fool and I clearly understand in the end the child support system will not be reformed to anything like the "pie in the sky" "equal justice under law" system I outlined above until men gain the political leverage to force the issue. And that will only come when they find an antidote to all these visually undetectable and easily to manipulate female contraceptives like the pill and the patch. And the only antidote for that is the long overdue and (scientifically proven) male contraceptive pill that is being kept off the market because of the threat it poses to feminist who set up the child support system and those who profit from it.

But this bias attack on working class men and fatherhood in general proposed by Fox could serve to raise the public awareness. Maybe to the point that enough men may start to connect the dots between their inability to control their sperm in monogamous relationships and the injustices they face in the family court system.

why not bad parents

This is sexist propaganda that preys on those who are to be crucified publicly in the name of profit -there are bad moms-and moms who abuse this current system there needs to be better fairer laws. The antiqued justice system's idea that men cannot raise children helps perpetuate the fall of the American Family. The better interests of the child are not served when the child becomes the battlefield- To be a poor father is criminal under this system.

The Non-Moving Men's Movement Is The Problem

What were men doing when women's groups created bills that became child-support laws? Mostly nothing. Here in Massachusetts, we once had Minutemen. Now we have minute (MYNOOT) men. They are meek, media ignorant wimps. That is the truth. I went to endless meetings of men's groups and all they did was talk. They took no actions, made no noise, refused to enter the battlefield against feminists. Then they acted shocked, shocked that they not only lost the children they refused to protect, but got saddled with onerous support orders. There's little difference between the bounty hunter going after males and men's groups who did (and do) nothing to protect males.

If you told men the World Series would be delayed a week there'd be riots in the streets. If you tell men you're going to take their kids and make them pay much more than when they were married, guys will shrug. At best they will for a pity party with other men and call it a movement.

Yes, I'm angry. Livid actually. I watched these so-called leaders to nothing for decades. Most of the groups, in fact, are shams. They claim to be "national" yet never say how many members they have. The offices they claim to have in Washington, DC, etc. are mostly just P.O. Boxes. They claim to help men but mostly fleece needy males for dues, then do nothing. For actual help, distraught males are told to hire lawyers…who mostly cash the checks and end up losing to feminists (usually after doing little but filing useless motions). The bitter joke for divorced dads is that they’ll have to cough up $30-100,000 to contest custody, then they’ll lose and still have to pay outrageous sums.

Most insulted groups fight back. Not modern men.

So who knows? Maybe it’s GOOD that women get custody. Do we really want men raising another generation of weak-kneed males good only for mule-work on feminist financial farms?

Passing the smell test...

If the government agencies would do even an adequate job of collecting child support, custodial parents wouldn't have to hire people like Durham to collect money on their behalf. The custodial parent is owed the money, end of story. If all things were fair in the world, the costs should be passed on to either the government agency that isn't doing its job, or the deadbeat that is causing the expense.

As for the name of the show, we live in a capitalist society. That kind of name will draw in viewers.

Yes, the men's rights movements are largely a sham. They are feel good organizations that lets everyone moan about how bad they perceive their lives to be. It gives them all the opportunity to blame their ex wives for all that they see wrong with their lives whilst they portray themselves to be "holier than thou." The divorces are never their fault. They never did anything to even remotely cause the divorce. Everyone is anti-male - with a big thanks to the feminists.

Only after reading the drivel on the mens rights boards do I realize that I am an endangered species in America and have absolutely no rights, or very few rights at all. Then I step back and look at my own life and realize that those posting on those forums all seem to have some emotional and psychological deficiencies that seem to preclude them from living in society harmoniously. In other words, they are seemingly "unable to play well with the other children in the sandbox."

Let the show air. Let the world see the damages that deadbeats do to their kids and society.

to MerelyMortalMan

You are right, the men are not doing enough to stand up for what is right, and for their kids. But, may we ask, What did you do? Have you heard about John Murtari, who is putting himself on the line, and calling others to do the same. He has posted suggestions and a check list for non violent civil disobedient action at www.akidsright.org/checklist.htm.

WELL?

The above posts pretty much sum it up don't they??

Title IV-D Social Security Code/Cooperative agreements

I have protested the show but perhaps Larry Brown has a point. If the fathers nationwide know the issues, when these slim-bags approach with cameras, why don't they mention Title IV-D of the Social Security Code and Cooperative agreements between the clerks of the court and the department of human services among other bureaucratic interests within the counties and the state who use our children as a financial instrument and extort use under the pretense of best interest of the child. Indeed, why should a father be ashamed when approached, no matter his status? It cannot compare to the rank injustice and private gain sought by the state and the Federal Government. The shame is upon them for they not only work the divorce but they facilitate it for further ends which do not benefit the common good---the very charter of legislation for a polity. So, let them air and see what curiosity it peaks in the minds of sleeping Americans.

Show some respect

Divorced dads, are mostly good dads, who want desperately for nothing more than more time with their children and who largely pay their child support obligations. The problem is after going through the hell of divorce (70% of divorces are brought by women) they are treated contemptiously by society in much the same way that Vietnam veterans were treated when they returned home. It's time that society at large showed respect for the men who work all week, pay their child support, who live independently on whats left of a middle class income and take their children for the weekend. Go to McDonalds on saturday morning or the local breakfast joint in your town, you will see them being dads with thier children, and loving every minute.

Bad Dads is a cheap shot and discriminatory. What if we had a show "Dangerous Young Black Men", "Cheap Jews" or some other group and reinforced a stereotype of this group.

Fox - Cheap Shot

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

This is another type of stronghold that the radical feminist groups would like to

portray about Good Men and Fathers and give women and mothers a free pass

to do what ever " the little miss inocents" want. They preach on equality, But

they dont want equality, But total control, and power, and using Good Men and Fathers to get what they want. There has been alot of false allegations of child support, that DNA has proven that the Father, is NOT the Father, and the women,

get off scott free without purgery, for falsifying records. But does the state give the money back to the Fathers? NO!! So, really, it should be called the "DEADBEAT STATE". Put an end to radical feminism, and then you will see a BIG difference in

our world!!!

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

This is another type of stronghold that the radical feminist groups would like to

portray about Good Men and Fathers and give women and mothers a free pass

to do what ever " the little miss inocents" want. They preach on equality, But

they dont want equality, But total control, and power, and using Good Men and Fathers to get what they want. There has been alot of false allegations of child support, that DNA has proven that the Father, is NOT the Father, and the women,

get off scott free without purgery, for falsifying records. But does the state give the money back to the Fathers? NO!! So, really, it should be called the "DEADBEAT STATE". Put an end to radical feminism, and then you will see a BIG difference in

our world!!!

Men's Rights

We are mad as hell and we are NOT gonna take it anymore.

men have sold out men (and large numbers of women are willing to sell out men as well).

Misandry has ben spread too far. Man hating is too prevalent and too few are willing to address the issue.

Men have few parental rights and many parental responsibilities (child support without visitation, child support without right to adopt their own kids when the mothers offers the kid up for adoption).

Men make up the majority of prisoners in this country (not black or brown or red or yellow or white men, but simply MEN).

Marriage strike for men. Roe v. Wade for men. Criminal and civil courts are stacked against men in too many situations and you find us in droves in jail, in prisons, on probation and parole and under or unemployed upon release.

Men have four times higher incidence of suicide, shorter lifespan, fewer men represented in higher education than women, and 93% of all workplace deaths are men (not counting workplace injuries, disabilities and maimings) while women pretend they do equal work (equal work is equally dangerous).

Equal Work is Equally Dangerous!

We're NOT gonna take it anymore!

Racism and Sexism will never end; and this is exactly why!

I think the idea is completely demoralizing to the human race in general. Yes there are plenty of deadbeat men out there who have fathered a child and walked away from all responsibility. However, there are plenty of mothers who have done the same exact thing! Why in the world would you target one single sex?

If you want to target deadbeat parents, then focus the show on ALL deadbeat parents. If you're goal is to embarrass a deadbeat and prevoke them to finally take responsibility for their child(ren), embarrass the mothers who walked out on their child as well. Why should she be able to walk away scott free while a father is ridiculed for doing the same thing?

More importantly, think about what this type of show will do to the victims. The children of these families suffer enough without having their dirty laundry aired on public telivision for the world to see.

This type of idea is exactly why our world will never be free from racism and sexism. What does targeting one sex teach our children? It surelty doesn't teach them that we are all equal.

Infighting

From what I've seen the fathers rights movement suffers from the type of infighting you see on this page.

No one can agree on what to do and how to do it, so we end up fighting each other rather then the people and system that created this mess.

Today there are many groups making small steps that are adding up, like this protest.

It's hard staying commited to a cause that won't help your situation, but the actions we take today will help our children when they grow up.

Child Support System is a Sham

The child support system in this country is a huge Sham. 'Awards' are incredibly inflated, they are meant to destroy one parent, are much larger for fathers than mothers, hold parents to unreasonable demands at the threat of gun point, hurt children ultimately, increase conflict in court, are not traced to ensure they reach the children, etc. etc. None of it makes any sense and it is not working. Good Parents are being destroyed while the small percentage of 'bad' parents that do not pay will continue not paying and the system can do/does nothing for those cases. TV programs like this perpetuate the myth that there is a problem when none exists - the whole system is a solution looking for a problem and in so doing is destroying good an loving parents and in so doing the children they are trying to raise.

Let's go for it~

I could really use some of the over $33,000.00 owed to me and my son!

Lord knows,I can't find him..

Maybe this show will find him.

Sign me up!!

Speaking from my experience

All I can offer is my own experience with the system. I was evicted from my home and family (6 children; eighteen-year marriage) during multiple treatments for cancer. The opposing attorney (neighbor) and my wife inquired repeatedly as to my surgery date. I was forced to live in a van for 3 months in Cleveland area parking lots while recuperating.

My wife has done everything possible to alienate all our children, and to minimize their association with their father. For unknown reasons, two of the six have not spoken to me since the day I was put on the street. The court established that I would be court-ordered to feed my children in restaurants, (or some public place) whenever I visited, and I travel 40 miles each way to pick them up. These orders cleaned out my small bank account over several months. Multiple coordinated decisions of the court have forced me to buy food for myself and the children on my credit cards, and gasoline on credit to get to work to earn income for child support. I understand that if I fall into arrears, I could be incarcerated, and I could die of cancer in jail. I am still homeless 2 years after this began. I have 3 forms of cancer, but cannot afford to visit my various medical providers, as the money I need for co-pays is confiscated from my earnings to meet the child support obligation attached to me. The state confiscates my earnings for child support, and extracts its fees prior to forwarding the difference to the party who initiated the divorce. I guess everyone is making a buck, so I should be a happy camper.

to MerelyMortalMan

Call 617-SAD-DADS and get involved in Massachusetts. I suspect you are all talk no action like most of the whiners out there.

Feminists have had their 15 minutes but time is up, this isn't just about fathers rights it is about male rights.

Father's Rights Groups

As a 2nd wife and stepmom, I've been involved in a couple of father's rights groups. The problem I see, is that there are maybe twenty groups in each state, yet they can't seem to come together for the common cause. Just ask Matt O'Connor of Fathers 4 Justice, UK. American men have no backbone, but perhaps because of years of being oppressed.

Look how many years it took from the time women were allowed to show their legs until they were allowed to vote....decades.

Well I gotta tell you, now that 2nd wives are getting screwed by their husband's ex-wives, women are getting involved and women know how to organize. Even if it is against their own. We've had a lot of practice.

So for those "custodial parents" and lawyers taking advantage of the family court system, LOOK OUT!!!

CS in this country is a sham

First off - to all the folks complaining that they have not gotten their money and are here whining - give me a break. I raised three children for 15 years single handedly without a cent of support and quite frankly I considered myself the big winner. I just did what I had to make sure that my gets were taken care of - I worked hard and I gave them what they needed and more. They have tons more respect for me then if I was hunting down their mom to extort money from her - if a parent wants to run - fine - I don't want any part of that parent - period. Foremost - I don't want their money. Additionally in favor of the NCP - those good parents who want to support their children - the system rapes them - financially rapes them - the cases are so numerous it's comical to think anything else.

It is all the self-righteous custodial parents that are out there whining. Those are the true whiners - give me more money - oh, and it's for the kids - yeah right. The number of custodial parents that abuse these funds is outrageous and that's where the tragedy is. This system will never work:

• Child Support is usually appraised as a percent of income. Most states require that both parents cover the costs yet they rarely consider the custodial parent's obligations here. Clearly the actual expenses of the child should be used and in fact the precedent in many states leans this way. Yet courts continue to ignore the actual expenses related to a child or children in these cases.

• Most states use guidelines that are clear that child support percentages of income should be limited to a combined parental income cap of $80,000 and that to apply the percent to any income amounts above this requires significant evidence of special circumstances. However, most courts routinely apply the percent to the full income – with no reasons at all or flimsy reasons at best. This is outright financial rape of one parent.

• Huge amounts of money are collected and these are in fact placed right in the hands of custodial parents. But who is ensuring that these funds actually make it to the children. No one - that's who. We all talk about the great job of collecting for a few reasons. One - it's easy to mislead the public, by falsely implying that great things are being completed. Two - because everyone assumes the non-custodial parent has got all the human vices and the custodial parent is an angel. This is as far from the truth as possible. There are thousands upon thousands, perhaps even the greatest majority of custodial parents who use these funds for themselves not the children. There is wide-scale abuse in the setting of appropriate 'awards' so that custodial parents receive significant windfalls of money and then go on to use these for their own benefit. Is the public so naive as to think that the mere collection of these funds (often unjust amounts) ensures that the recipient is not abusing these funds?

• Assume that both parents work, then the custodial parent is responsible for supporting the child as well as the non-custodial parent. Assume the Non-custodial parent stops providing support - that parent is deemed a "deadbeat" yet what if the Custodial parent stops providing support - not a word from anyone.

• If the Non-custodial parent (NCP) stops paying child support – for any reason, including hard times, mistakes, government mistakes, etc.: Jail, License removed, tax returns seized, accounts seized without notification, can not obtain a passport, car can be impounded, etc. etc. And if a Custodial parent stops providing financial support - not a word from anyone.

• How often do you think it happens that the custodial parent (CP) gets a fat child support award and then barely spends any of it on the children. A custodial Mom can take a $1000 / month support award - spend $200 on the child and everything else on new shoes, going out to dinner, a new suit for her new boy friend, etc. Does this happen - it would be hard to imagine that it does not. Are there good Moms who spend all of the support on their children? Clearly there are. But that does not preclude the former scenario from being true and I'm afraid no one really knows the ratio - there is no accounting of how these funds are spent by the Custodial parent.

• How is it paid - this is interesting: It is paid out of the NCP's Net income, but it is based on their gross income (17%). So roughly, for most of America that means the equivalent of about 25-30% of your net income for one child. It is paid to the CP as cash - no tax implications. Wow, what a deal since the NCP does not get any Tax break for being financially responsible for their child(ren) but the CP does. Hmmm sounds a bit draconian. Why shouldn’t the NCP get a tax break, he or she is also supporting the child?

• How about if the NCP goes into arrears - is the NCP entitled to a trial before being subject to legal penalties. Maybe the Government office has made a mistake - maybe there are other ramifications - actually the NCP is not entitled to a trial prior to a judge imposing a penalty. Hmmm - a bit draconian again. In addition it sounds a bit like debtor's prison, doesn't it?

• What if the CP parent, who was working for the first 5 years of single parenthood, decides to take a lower paying job (perhaps half of the original salary) thereby removing a good portion of support from their child. Any concerns - no it's their right. What if a NCP does the exact same thing - ALARM's - the courts see this as a means to avoid paying child support and use something called imputed income - i.e. the NCP has to pay child support not based on what they are actually earning but on what the courts think they could be earning - in this case the salary earned for the first 5 years of single parenthood. Hmmm - why is that? If the parent was part of an intact family - doesn't that parent have the right to earn and spend whatever they deem reasonable? Clearly they do - so what changed? And why did it only change for one of the 2 parents.

• Does the NCP keep a bedroom for the child? Wouldn't that be in the best interest of the child - to have a bedroom at Dad's House and at Mom's house? Seems clear enough, but child support ensures that the NCP pays for both rooms - the one at Mom's house and the one at Dad's house. In fact, the NCP has to pay double for many things - cost of food for when the child is at the CP's home and also at the NCP's home - cost of clothes, toys, medicine, entertainment, toiletries, etc. Anything that the NCP wants or needs to buy for the child does not come out of the "joint finances for the child" in fact it must come out of the finances of the NCP (sometimes these are very meager).

• Let's say for argument sake that the NCP does not pay and ends up on one of these "Go Get'm" lists and then gets arrested and thrown in jail - is that in the best interest of the child. Even a cheap parent who wants to go to the park with their child is a lot better to a child then a parent that's in jail. Also the child will always see themselves as products and manifestations of their parents - so if the child learns through media and court actions, etc. that his or her Dad is in prison because he is a deadbeat - is that in the best interest of the child - clearly not. The child may begin to think they have inherited 'criminal' traits from the deadbeat parent. Or the child may be embarrassed and hurt and feel that the world is making a spectacle of someone they truly love. They may feel helpless and learn hopelessness. Wouldn't it make more sense if the government had programs to help non-custodial parents who are behind rather than treat them like criminals? After all, there are plenty of programs to help the other parent.

• What about assistance in the government units that monitor, administer, receive and pay child support. Do they treat both parents equally? I suggest that you spend sometime with a NCP parent and ask if you can listen in to some conversations with these organizations just to get a feel for what it’s like. These organization offer free legal assistance to the CP to collect funds, programs to make it easier to receive the money, counseling, etc. etc. Do these organizations provide any support for the NCP? Absolutely not - none. Except perhaps a fast track way for you to make deposits. Doesn't anyone think that it is traumatic for many NCP and that they too need help in these kinds of crises? Maybe the reason that some run, is because they are immediately assumed to be criminals rather than someone actually saying - "we know this is difficult and we know that you need help as well and we are here to help you get through this as well." After all, they say that to the CP.

• Child support is also not just about the money - it's about being stripped of your right to spend money as you see fit on your child. Let's say a NCP wants to splurge one month and buy a bike for their son - this right has been transferred to the CP. The interesting thing here is the logic behind much of this. Society and supporters of current family law claim that custody of children should go to the "Primary Care Giver." Because after all, that is what they are best at and have been doing in the past and the children are comfortable with them in that role. Now since the other parent was predominantly at work, earning money, paying bills and controlling the finances of the home that parent should continue doing so by paying the CP child support. The one missing fact here is, since the NCP was the "Primary Financial Care Giver" why does that change in the respect of handling the money: not only providing it but also determining how it is spent. So effectively the logic goes - the CP gets everything - and really logic has little to do with it.

• There is absolutely no accounting of child support provided. Where else in the United States, perhaps even the world, can a receiver of funds not be accountable to the payer as to what is being paid for: Nowhere!!! Many NCP would at least feel recognized if the CP had to document where the money was being spent.

• Since when does having a child affect a parents credit rating - well in separate parenting it does - the CP's credit rating goes up since income from child support can be listed as additional income for loans etc (that alone sounds a bit suspicious since child support is suppose to be for the child not the parent) and it is seen as a deficit to the NCP and office's of child support reports lateness to credit reporting bureaus.

• Then on top of all of this, consider that the Federal government provides approximately 60 cents on the dollar to the state for every dollar collected as a result of a child support award. Gee, I wonder if the state has a vested interest in making sure that child support awards not only support children but are as large as feasibly possible. Go to some state governor's websites and everything gets a bit clearer: "we're busy hunting down all those deadbeat parents - we won't let children starve…oh and by the way, the budget for the state is looking really good."

FOX SHOULD AIR BAD MOMS AND FIRE BAD DAD'S PRODUCER

The Child Support scheme is one of the biggest businesses in our country. It is also the most abused. "Bad Dads" are often those who have lost access to their children, been victimized by false allegations, lost their jobs, have phony "imputed income" attributed to them by egomaniac judges and more. I have first hand knowledge of all of these happening, not occasionally but as routine in the NY Family Court System.

Fox would be ill advised to foster the continued pecuniary motivations of those who make their living off of our broken Court system as well as promote gender bias. Most dads do not get a fair shake at child support or playing an equal role in raising their children.

I guarantee that anyone who denies the truth of this is protecting their own unjust enrichment or their own political views. SHAME ON FOX. This network really is anti father and anti family.

RE: I agree Fox should air "Bad Dads"

I told you guys what the REAL answer to your problem was in my first post.

And that is your inability to control your sperm in monogamous relationships. Which is why most of these women you're having problems with now were able to secretly concede these "female claimed" accidental pregnancies and extort you in the first place.

So I'll say it again, you need an undetectable male contraceptive! Why am I the only one here that seems to understand that?

Margaret Sanger the (anti-normal family, anti catholic church, anti-male, racist, feminist, founder of planned Parenthood and the true catalyst behind the first female birth control pill) said it best when she said,

"The birth control pill will be a tool for redistributing power (from men to women) fundamentally, in the bedroom, the home, and the larger community. "

And she was absolutely right. Because she knew that (not all-but many) women would use lies, deception and the innocence of children to gain an advantage over men.

We didn't get in this mess overnight. And we're not going to get out of it overnight. But censorship is not the answer because that will only cause you to lose in the court of public opinion.

So again I say, let Fox air it’s show. Because it’s going to backfire and bring public attention to our cause.

Bad Dad's

I'm sorry, but I disagree with most of what you people say. I was divorced when my 1st wife left. Of course she filed or support. This was in the mid eighties. My kids were 2 and 6. Over the next 16 years I paid out more than $40,000, to have the druggy ex raise them. She had up to 3 guys living with her at any one time. I had my visitation, but what could I do in a couple days a month. Guess who they take after, thier mother, into drugs, in jail and irresponsible.

Got remaried to a lady with 2 chidren, ages 2 ad 6. They are now 10 and 14. Thier father, if you can call him that, has not seen them in at least 3 years, his choice.

My wife left him because he wouldn't work. He quit his last real job the day before her son was born. He is more than $25,000 in arrears. He won't show up for court dates, and when they find him, he goes to jail for 6 months, doesn't pay, and they start putting out warrants for his arrest again. It is almost a year since the last warrant was issued and they can't find him. The kids would love to see this sob on tv, getting what he deserves, because they don't get what they deserve. I hope he is on the 1st episode. Sorry this is so long, but I think the intent of the show is to go after people like him.

Thank You for letting me have my opinion.

Why are men on TV sitcoms almost always dumb

I don't like the premise behind "Bad Dads" because of the obvious reasons already stated on this blog.

My offense goes further though. I find that nearly every man on fictional TV (especially sitcoms) are either dumb or bad or somehow flawed. I long for the days of "Father Knows Best", "Leave it to Beaver", and the "Andy Griffith Show". Those were men we could look up to. Now we have men who need clever woman to keep their life together.

That's why I almost exclusively watch news and non-fiction TV. My favorite shows have strong, respectable, clever men: Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs, Man vs. Wild, The O'Reilly Factor, Future Weapons, and The Most Dangerous Catch. These are shows where men and sometimes women work hard, make good decisions, are clever and funny, and rely on their own abilities.

bad Dad' Bad Idea

Clearly there are as many or more bad Mom's out there. In fact it is 4 times more likely that a child will be killed by his own mother than his father. It is just a crock that the media loves to beat-up on dads. Rarely are they portrayed as positive role models and this is really causing problems everywhere. This show is Bad News - Period! It should not be aired - it is sensationalistic junk and worse yet is a downright misrepresentation of a aserious problem in this country - the dissolution of the American family and the destruction of our children. The system perpetuates single-parent Mom homes and we all know from the stats that these homes are largely big failures.

For those of you who think it is a good idea - I hope you do not have any sons - becuase this show would bias the public more so than it currently is, to think - man, boy, father = Bad Dad first - let's ask question later. And of course, I truely hope that none of your sons end up in family court.

I am paying $4000 a month from a middle income salary to a woman who earns 200K per year (much more than I do) for one 2 year old child. I pay this in cash, right from my paycheck, after taxes and get no tax break for being financially responsible. I am also responsible for 3 other children as I am their custodial parent. In addition, I am flat broke and she is living high on the hog. The whole concept of the rich father running out on his responsibilities is a scam - happens, but rarely. It's a big joke. This is sensationalism at its best.

Only those who have gone through this and seen in detail how the machine works, knows how bad this really is - the system is totally out of control and programs like this will only make it worse.

Expose on CSE's?

There's a Habeas Corpus pending the Supreme Court of Virginia for the use by the Commonwealth of NON ATTORNEYS who have been practicing 'law' for the DCSE (div of child support) and also a Federal RICO case pending..seems Va's 'efficient' and 'legal' collection of child support is based on their lack of IT infrastructure and use of 'non attorney' social workers to jail 9,000 people just last year, so Va. could collect their 'federal incentive' $$ in amount over $10 MILLION, wasn't really based on FACTS -seems the state 'forgot' to check ACTUAL COURT ORDERS against their own computer printouts used in Courts all over the state BEFORE sending people to jail...Funny how the GOV and Att Gen are actually suing SupportKids Inc for interferring w/Va's 'efficient' and 'legal' collection practices??? Kinda like, what the judge said at one hearing, "I don't care if the order is over 100% of your gross income, come up with an extra $4000 on top of your ordered $1000 per month or go back to jail for another year" (of course, at $10/hr this is kinda hard to do)..But happens ALL the time..Go sit in a JDR Court. So 'why' is the crime rate going up and why are the jails over flowing?uhhhh, 'child support' which has NOTHING to do with supporting the kids, but funding 'the state'...when 65% of the income used to run the state comes from 'one' agency (ie DCSE) - what better SOCIALIST agenda than to create state owned slaves and reincarnate Debtors prison..it's NOT that the NCP's 'won't' pay .......it's that they 'can't' pay 'enough' for the white collars to buy an extra investment property on a private island...

Grogin has changed his position

I caught this issue on April 23rd, and contacted Scott Grogin. I was the first call he had received from the "public" about the show. He was very rude and adamant that the show would go on.

Grogin was entirely unwilling to consider our perspective, which in brief is that roughly 80% of men behind on support are simply poor men ordered to pay far more support than they earn. Many of these cases involve good men who were thrown out of society by wives who wanted a divorce for irresponsible reasons and ran off the family. We have a substantial number of forensically-documented cases of men who were tortured in prison to make them "cough up the money". The torture was done using techniques worse the Guantanamo bay -- taser shocks to the genitals and hypothermia to the point of permanent paralysis. Of course, FOX isn't going to cover any of these horrid things in its TV extortion scheme.

The jerks they would highlight (who ran out on their families and are hiding money) are a very tiny percentage of the wreckage of the entitled divorce and illegitimacy system. To portray it as the norm is misandry with a capital M.

Since Grogin would not hear our views or consider a show with a more realistic "investigative" format, I posted the first article on this issue on April 24th, titled "FOX Plans Reality-TV “Bad Dads” Colosseum “Lynching” of Poor Men". It comes up on the first Google page if you search for "fox bad dads".

David R. Usher

Senior Policy Analyst

True Equality Network