TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Just passed……men are screwed again.

Plastic_Efficiency35

May 7, 2026
10 upvotes
/r/Divorce_Men

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us-start-revoking-passports-thousands-192857639.html

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Just passed……men are screwed again.
Author

Plastic_Efficiency35

Upvotes 10
Comments 64
Date May 7, 2026 10:07 PM UTC
(2 months ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/Divorce_Men
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/Divorce_Men/comments/1t6p3yi/just_passedmen_are_screwed_again/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/Divorce_Men/just-passedmen-are-screwed-again.1579841
https://theredarchive.com/post/1579841
Top posts by Plastic_Efficiency35

Joy of a divorced man

254 upvotes
February 21, 2026
/r/Divorce_Men

Seek and destroy.

61 upvotes
September 30, 2024
/r/Divorce_Men

Bro to Bro,man to man,father to father….

42 upvotes
February 25, 2026
/r/Divorce_Men

Shattered

15 upvotes
August 22, 2024
/r/Divorce_Men

I hate divorce.

4 upvotes
October 8, 2024
/r/Divorce_Men

Stay strong ,brothers!

2 upvotes
February 16, 2026
/r/Divorce_Men

Comments

[–]Proud-Competition157 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wonder how this will affect newly divorced dads who will be in arrears from day one.

[–]bg555 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was about to hate on this article until i read why they are revoking the passports. I’m 100% ok with this! 🤣

[–]wulffboy89 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same page as you! Pay for the kids you chose to have.

[–]conceptcreature3D 5 points6 points7 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well I mean are there really men wanting to travel abroad that owe that much back pay? Maybe Elon Musk?

[–]UnknownUsername113 28 points29 points30 points 3 months ago (23 children) | Copy Link

So pay your child support.

I’m sure I’ll get a bunch of heat from this sub but if you have children it’s your responsibility to pay for half of their childhood. Stop letting wives stay home because that’s how you get killed. Your income, in most states, is combined with your ex wives and divided in half if you have 50/50 custody. Thats absolutely fair. If you don’t have 50/50 fight for it.

[–]carterrockhouse -2 points-1 points0 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Im sure the super majority of men wouldnt have an issue paying child support if it were fair and reasonable to begin with. Why has no one shown a study on how the child support fee schedule the states use to determine child support came about?

[–]nvn911 6 points7 points8 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

>If you don’t have 50/50 fight for it.

You must be new here.

Most fathers would love for 50/50 child support to also equal 50/50 custody.

In a majority of cases that's not awarded.

[–]Frank_Lawless1 point 2 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That’s not true.

[–]ABBucsfan 6 points7 points8 points 3 months ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with most of it, but "letting" them stay home? It can be a point of contention and you can apply pressure, but it's ultimately up to them unless you're willing to divorce over it. I personally had some heated discussions over it myself. In Canada there are also Bs stipulations where you can have them 39% of the time and it's considered full custody for them with zero offset of income. You owe the full amount as if they make $0. After pulling dirty tricks that proved false I had to crawl my way up in custody and she fought tooth and nail once I was at about 35% until we basically said we were leaving mediation and doing arbitration since there was no good reason to deny 50/50. Couldn't even claim any tax benefits until that 40%. Seen as single no dependents

[–]warwww 17 points18 points19 points 3 months ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Why does one parent have to fight for equal parenting time in the first place?

[+]UnknownUsername113 -11 points-10 points-9 points 3 months ago (15 children) | Copy Link

That’s a good question. But… it doesn’t just happen to men. In fact, most men who have less than 50% are likely doing so because they want to or they were forced to due to criminal issues.

[–]NohoTwoPointOh 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wrong. The states are compensated for each dollar of child support collected. This conflict of interest forces a NCP situation to the higher earner.

[–]CRobinsFly 6 points7 points8 points 2 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I've been litigating incessantly for 5050 timesharing for the previous 24 months. I only recently got 35% TS a couple of months ago after the court ruled they couldnt find her in contempt because our parenting plan was "ambiguous" regarding the timesharing I was supposed to have. It said I was supposed to have 5050.

I have zero criminal record. A TS clearance. 840+ credit score. I wfh (or used to - just got laid off).

So try again on the because they "want to" or "criminal issues".

[–]UnknownUsername113 -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So why are they awarding her more custody? There has to be a reason they’ve given you.

[–]CRobinsFly 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

The parenting plan contained a step up process to increase my timesharing to 5050 as a "goal". I met thresholds for an increase a year ago.

This meant increasing timesharing via the court clinic guidelines (+1 day to the 2 week schedule every 3mo until equal timesharing is reached - almost a direct quote). I clearly asked 9 times for compliance over the course of the year, it became an exhibit the court accepted as evidence.

She stalled and essentially broke the plan when she said "I refuse to increase your timesharing further with a new schedule, the current schedule is all that is required". Hence lawsuit. I was at 27% timesharing. Oh and when I continued to pressure her, she hit me with a DVRO and continued it for 90 days cutting off all contact with our daughter. She didnt even perform the supervised visitation that the order required.

Court said no one was wrong and 27% timesharing for the previous year was "close enough" to the next required step of 35%. I am definitely appealing, that's an error of law that should be rejected in a de novo contract review. Anyway, the court must have felt bad and awarded me 27 days of replacement parenting time on top of my 35%. Mother is already refusing to schedule it at MY discretion, she wants to control its consumption via strict and defined schedule over the course of the next 2yr, which will continue to avoid ever granting me 5050 - so I need to sue again now.

Ultimately, "Because mom says so"

[–]miami2881 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why did you have to gradually step up in the first place?

[–]CRobinsFly 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Court Clinic guidelines state it is required for parents who have been less than fully involved.

I had to move away for a year at divorce onset due to work so I conceded maybe I needed a little adjustment period to "coming back" and we agreed to that parenting plan with the process while I was gone.

The thing is, ex obviously never anticipated that I would actually come back and force her to follow the plan. I did, within 1mo of having agreed to the plan. And when I did come back she stated that she was suspending the parenting plan in full and cut off all contact. That was the first lawsuit 24-36 months ago. After 8mo the Court ordered the plan implemented entirely as written and gave me immediate overnights but ordered 5k atty fees against me (wtf).

We progressed through several stages successfully but then she blocked 35%+ because it drastically reduced her child support. She was able to get an extra year out of it. ~18k$ profit. But I did make her pay through the nose via litigation which probably approached 60k$ just from this stage, atty fee award 100% denied.

Again, if the parenting plan were implemented entirely as written, I would have had 5050 timesharing in 2024.

[–]Least_Attorney9006 4 points5 points6 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They’re awarding her more custody because “she said so.”

If women didn’t challenge 50/50, it wouldn’t be a problem.

But by going to court and filing motions to have anything but 50/50, then the court intervenes.

If women stopped challenging it, men wouldn’t have to fight it.

Stop saying “there’s a reason men don’t have 50/50” when the reason is “women are preventing them from having 50/50.”

And btw - in my case, after 5 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of me fighting for it, the final reason I don’t have 50/50 is that I couldn’t “get along” with my kids mother.”

Yeah, no shit. She spent five years trying to take away my parenting time and took all my money. Of course I can’t get along with her.

But that was enough for me not to get 50/50

[–]nvn911 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because he likely left there family home? Because the wife falsely accused him of DV?

There's a myriad of reasons why yet none of those reasons have to be true.

[–]warwww 7 points8 points9 points 3 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Huh? Due to criminal issues? How in the hell did you make that jump?

My gosh. Criminal issues?

Are men disposed to being criminals by default?

[+]UnknownUsername113 -7 points-6 points-5 points 2 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I believe I gave two options, didn’t I?

The only reason any parent would lose time with their kids is if they willingly gave it up or they had a record that prevents them from showing that they’re a stable parent. The same goes for women. It really is that cut and dry. If you believe otherwise then name a scenario.

[–]warwww 5 points6 points7 points 2 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I have a feeling my words will fall flat.

Do you truly think that the reason most fathers have less than equal time with their kids are because they are either criminals or because there is something which prevents them from being a stable parent?

Am I understanding you correctly?

Do you know how many government officials within the family court and social system told me not to even “fight” for joint custody seeming that the state I live in is a “mother state” (their words, not mines)

[–]CRobinsFly 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I live in a "child" state and the overwhelming feedback I have been given from people is I should just give up and walk away. I recently won 35% TS after 2yr nonstop litigation (ex's bill is probably 100k+) because my parenting plan says I should have 5050.

And you know my reward?

The court-appointed parenting coordinator has begun imputing speculative impermanence to me and saying that because he thinks I might give up and move away in a year or two, that he wont recommend more parenting time for me. My parenting plan literally said I should have 5050 a gd year ago!!!

[–]warwww 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wow - so they are expecting you to abandon your kid?

Can you somehow get that in writing so they may be exposed?

It’s par the course though. I had a mediator (ex female judge) ask the same. I said to her, would you ask the mother that? No real response.

Ps, to this day I still don’t know what a “mother state” is. I’ve read through tons and tons of family law material and haven’t come across it. Those who work within the system seem to recognize it, odd I don’t see it any in laws or statutes. 🤷🏽‍♂️

[–]CRobinsFly 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yup. He has said it verbally to me before on more than one occasion. Today's straw broke the camels back and I more or less sent him a demand letter that he put his position in writing so I can actively sue over it. I may even go to the news, too - my state already has serious drama as it relates to PCs since they are framed as intentionally stoking conflict.

His finding would be especially pernicious relative to his written finding that mother has an on-again-off-again relationship with a man my daughter considers and calls her second dad... and their relationship is essentially prioritized via mother's TS over mine - "he's her extended family too"

He's worried about me but he's not worried about this other guy who's abandoned and left 2 other families as clearly shown by court records?!?

If you cant tell I'm quite upset right now.

[–]warwww 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As you should be. I’d be livid myself

There’s honestly no reason to do this to any parent.

All any of us want to be is a parent to our kids. It’s really that simple. To parent them, help them in their upbringing, teach them, love them etc.

Why is any of this necessary? It’s heartbreaking really the way they treat kids as if they are some possession to be fought over.

Please see if you can get what he said to you or is inferring in writing. Any justness in a system designed for profit and conflict is a win.

UV light often destroys bacteria- expose him. So that he doesn’t do this to other kids.

[–]BreakGrouchy 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly and then wonder if you have the money pay for both . I recently had to have child support free my passport paperwork up . I didn’t owe anything actually. But they had me listed as behind .

[–]streetsmartwallaby 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because the system sucks in some places and some choose notbto.

[–]Outrageous_Owl_11251 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Texas doesn't even recognize 50/50 custody

[–]Consoleforever93 7 points8 points9 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Correction: Men who have kids!!! One of the best things that came from my Divorce was we didn’t have children together.

[–]SasukeFireball 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I’ve noticed the government and other agencies love to throw in that word “privilege” when it’s time to revoke the rights of people, or leverage a quality of life dependent resource to control or influence them. Housing in a rich country is “a privilege”, transportation, medical assistance.. you name it. When it’s time, it becomes a privilege.

[–]MavinMarv 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Childfree I’m good.

[–]pengwin77777 14 points15 points16 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I currently owe an insane amount in child support despite reporting immediately that I was unemployed. FOC keeps messing up and keep charging me more despite me doing everything right and reporting everything immediately. So for those of you that think it can't happen to you, it can. This is all even while having a lawyer who is actively working to fix it. Even when they garnish your unemployment they still believe and charge you the full amount as if you were employed.

[–]SasukeFireball 3 points4 points5 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gross.

[–]Syloi 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

100k is the start. It will be going down to $2,500 in waves.

[–]DivorcedDad26 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Umm... If you owe over $100,000 in back child support, you don't need to be leaving the country. Male, Female, or other. It's about the kids, pay your damn bill.

[–]Odd-Yoghurt1869 16 points17 points18 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Child support is bullshit. I support my children when they are with me, not forced away from me.

[–]RyanBanJ 6 points7 points8 points 3 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If you bothered to read, it goes down to $2500 which is not much and can easily happen today with a layoff and a court being uncooperative.

[–]DivorcedDad26 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You got me, I skimmed and didn't read in full detail. I had too many friends growing up that the parent (lets be honest, in the 80's and 90's, it was the Dad typically) vanished and didn't support them growing up at all.

I agree that every situation is unique and that there are definitely some situations where the court is more heavy handed than it should be. For example, if they didn't index the 2,500 for inflation from the 90's until now then they probably need to. 2,500 in 1996 dollars is more like 5,200 - 5,300 today.

Still, even in your example, if someone is laid off I would argue that most people probably shouldn't be traveling out of the country.

[–]RyanBanJ 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There are possible jobs that might involve abroad travel such as federal contract gigs. I could be laid off, and found a gig that requires travel to designated areas like Iraq. Based on the article, they are sticking with the law from 1996 which unfortunately does not count for inflation so it's $2500.

My concern is that many could fall into that trap for trivial amounts. I don't support deadbeat, I had a deadbeat dad in the 80s so I get it. But for the dad's that try and has to fight the system and the mom I do see this as another weapon.

[–]DivorcedDad26 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I completely agree with you. I would also think that these jobs fall into the "abnormal" category statistically. Meaning I think it's a low percentage compared to the total number of jobs on the market. I'm NOT saying that this low percentage doesn't potentially impact a bunch of people though.

It's just my thought, but I believe that jobs like that require international travel typically pay over 6 figures annually. They should be clearing over 70k annually after tax which is over $5,800 per month. In theory, they should be able to clear $2500 fairly easily.

I'm open to changing my mind though. Anyone out there have a job that requires a passport that is paid significantly less than 100k annually?

[–]NohoTwoPointOh 3 points4 points5 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Contract work, getting help from relatives, regular job with an overseas company…

[–]DivorcedDad26 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious about the "help from relatives." Can you expand on that for me?

I would think that most divorce decrees in the US would keep you from taking the kids out of the country. I personally couldn't imagine being away from my kids any more than I'm legally required to be. I can't wrap my head around leaving the country and my kids as a US Citizen to get "help" when my finances are jacked up enough so I couldn't cover $2500 to make the passport problem go away.

I'm genuinely trying to understand.

[–]NohoTwoPointOh1 point 2 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Grandma ain't making that flight by herself. Some of our family members live abroad and need companionship on long journeys. Especially if they're bringing enough things for an extended babysitting stay of several months plus.

[–]Terrible-Mind2633 6 points7 points8 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just to help everyone who is saying this isn’t targeted towards just men or that women pay child support, to gain perspective. Understand that 85% of all child support is paid by MEN and men on average also pay higher amounts than women do.

[–]warwww 5 points6 points7 points 3 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Does this disproportionately affect men?

[+]too-far-for-missiles -6 points-5 points-4 points 3 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This sub would have us believe anything to do with spousal/child support is 100% designed to destroy men.

[–]warwww 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Well in all fairness and given the levels of proportionality, most things appear to work against men. It is not politically correct to say that these things do.

I recall a female judge (retired) telling me in not so many words that “I am big, smart and strong…”

Imagine a male saying this to a woman within the context of accepting less in a settlement offer.

We as a society dare not even broach the subject of mandatory dna testing - who does that affect most?

[–]Haunting_Mango_408 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Did you really just say “mandatory DNA testing -who does that affect the most?” Come’on man, you’ve gotta be kidding right? Why would you need to DNA test the mother who carried and birthed the child!?!? Oh my effing God, that’s too funny!!!

[–]warwww 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You’re missing the point. “omg, lol”

Nobody mentioned dna testing the mother. That’s outright stupid and just plain dumb.

Meaning that there should be a dna test performed before child support can be ordered.

Would eliminate many woes in society and prevent men from unknowingly supporting kids that are not theirs.

[–]Haunting_Mango_408 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ha that’s better! Now you’re making sense. For a second there I thought you felt victimized as a gender for being asked to prove (or disprove ) paternity. I don’t know what state you live in, but the laws are wildly different country to country, and state to state (if in the US). What state doesn’t allow dna proven paternity if requested? Lastly, many dad’s love their kids to death, regardless of genetic affiliation. It makes me think you might spread your seed without really being a dad?

[–]warwww 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I tend to think there’s a special and sacred bond between a child who carries ones dna.

The same as it is between a mother who births a kid.

When I hold my kids knowing that they’re half of me, that’s a different type of feeling imo. But maybe that’s just me. Not to say that you can’t learn to love a kid that’s not yours, it happens absolutely! I’ve dated women with kids I’ve cared strongly for.

There are many states where even if dna testing proves that the man is not the father he is permanently on the hook.

Heck France outlawed it entirely. Why is that?

[–]Haunting_Mango_408 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s an interesting topic! Don’t you think it’s a bit of biological instinct, while also being a learnt concept at once? Or maybe it’s a biological instinct reinforced by a learnt societal concept created to justify favoring your own DNA ? What do you think of mothers who carry, birth, raise and love children from the egg of another woman? Wouldn’t that disprove the DNA warranted love concept?

[–]FutureCorpse699 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That’s not directed at men or women. And it’s if you owe 100k or more.

[–]RyanBanJ 3 points4 points5 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It starts at 100k, aim is $2500 once HHS pulls more data

[–]Comfortable-Angle660 3 points4 points5 points 3 months ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Don’t agree with it. We are comparing a civil matter with travel rights which is guaranteed by the US constitution. I also disagree is payments of any type in general, and I say in general, because it disincentivizes the receiving party to work. Many a single mom sits on their @ss receiving only child support.

[–]throwaway_coy4wttf79 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wait, I can just not pay this?

[–]Puzzleheaded-Loan238 24 points25 points26 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you owe more than $100k in CS, you have bigger problems than not having a passport.

[–]aardy 5 points6 points7 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

$100k is the old policy; $2500 is the new policy.

[–]phalo 12 points13 points14 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If a parent isn't paying child support that was court ordered, I completely agree with this. Regardless of whether it's the mother of the father.

[–]rdwrer_711 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, sorry you can't flee the country to avoid CS

[–]Traditional-Fix-5442 6 points7 points8 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Uhmm woman pay child support as well ...

[–]warwww 3 points4 points5 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My divorce mediator seems to disagree and got visibly flummoxed when it came up. 🤷🏽‍♂️

[–]koolllG_uy1911 14 points15 points16 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Child support.. not Alimony.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter