'Bad Dads' Reality TV Show Stirs Controversy

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

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...

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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."

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!!!

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.