TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • 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/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /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/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • 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 Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Iowa Man Wins Fight Against Court Order to Pay Support for Another Man’s Child

Boosterspice

September 26, 2016
3263 upvotes
/r/PussyPassDenied
http://whotv.com/2016/09/26/man-wins-fight-against-court-order-to-pay-support-for-another-mans-child/
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Iowa Man Wins Fight Against Court Order to Pay Support for Another Man’s Child
Author

Boosterspice

Upvotes 3263
Comments 154
Date September 26, 2016 4:17 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/54le1n/iowa_man_wins_fight_against_court_order_to_pay/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/iowa-man-wins-fight-against-court-order-to-pay.940945
https://theredarchive.com/post/940945

Comments

[–]Reality_Facade 155 points156 points157 points 9 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

Can anyone please attempt to explain any logic to this law whatsoever to me? I'm having a hell of a time trying to figure out why the hell this law would be in place in the first place and an even harder time trying to understand why it hasn't been changed. I see zero logic to it. None.

[–]Delphizer 141 points142 points143 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a way to not pay welfare benefits.

[–]bryanrobh 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That we end up paying anyway

[–]firmretention 126 points127 points128 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

iirc, these types of laws are designed with the children's best interests in mind. Even if he's not the father, the child has to be provided for, and better some poor sucker than the state. Not saying it's right, but there's the logic.

[–]leftro43 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link

I believe this is the correct answer. In some states he could sue her for fraud, but still, in the end, be required to pay for child support until the real father was located.

[–]grissomza 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Which if you think about it really acts as if the woman is property. How dare you as a man allow your woman to breed uncontrolled.

[–]leftro33 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Well it's more of a woman can place your name on a birth certificate and the state will look for you to support the child.

[–]_breadpool_ 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well shit... Bill Gates is going to be my baby's daddy.

[–]bargle0 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Much like many other parts of the law in this country, it doesn't apply to people who can afford a good lawyer.

[–]grissomza 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In California for unmarried people that requires the man to sign a waiver of paternity test

Source: that's what the sheet said when I filled out the certificate of live birth for my son, but we are married so I didn't ask more

[–]AintGotNoTimeFoThis 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You wife slipped that waiver in. You're screwed

[–]grissomza 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, she's my wife so I already waived that by not initially challenging it.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well it at least acts as if women aren't capable of anything, funnily enough. If the dad can't be found it's absolutely the woman's responsibility to provide way before some completely unrelated man's.

[–]DoxasticPoo 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What? How did you jump to that?

It's fraud. This doesn't have anything to do with who women breed with. It has everything to do with who is claimed to be the father.

[–]grissomza 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

A man is married to a woman who gets pregnant with another man, the husband is now financially responsible for the social damage this causes, the same way a man who's car has a stripped parking brake has to pay for the damage (or his insurance) when it rolls down a hill.

It comes across to me as outdated and patronizing to the women, and incredibly unjust to the men considering both parties are intelligent beings in full control of their actions.

[+]DoxasticPoo -21 points-20 points-19 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It was put in place for women. So they didn't lose income while raising kids.

You're coming up with something that I can't help but think is some kind of projection based on your world view.

It's not nearly that complicated.

[–]SheepiBeerd -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I assume he is being mostly facetious and poking fun at the similarly used logic often found by SJW types.

[–]DoxasticPoo -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ah.

[–]grissomza 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

;)

[–]mistermorteau 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

iirc, these types of laws are designed with the children state's best interests in mind

[–]Sabz5150 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

designed with the children's best interests in mind. 

And that's fine. Whats bothering is how closely aligned with the mother's best interests the decisions almost always are.

[–]Skootchy 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

At least in my situation from when I was a kid, Iowa gets a cut. They tried to sue my mom for 20k when I was 24. She paid child support, to my dad. They never even got DHS (or a divorce for that matter) but the state didn't give much of a shit.

It was a real "Fuck you, pay me" situation.

[–]MagicGin 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Is it possible that the lawsuit was over the state covering costs that should have been covered by child support? As others have pointed out, the law's basis is that the rights of the child trump that of the parent and that payment should be handed out accordingly. They might have been trying to acquire money that "should" have been paid out in child support, in the same way that your insurance company might sue the guy who hit your car.

[–]Skootchy 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I understand what your saying but this wasn't the situation whatsoever. At least not from our perspective, maybe theirs. My mother and father never filed for divorce (didn't even get married in Iowa). They never went after each other for child support in the courts. They basically just seperated on their own terms. 20 years later, Iowa decides out of nowhere that THEY were owed 20k in back child support. When I called the representative to ask them the details, (mainly to ask them if they were going to give any of the money to my brother and I) they told me that she owed it to the state, not us. Which makes no fucking sense to any of us, especially considering she DID pay child support our entire childhood. She only lived in the state for a year 20 some odd years ago. We basically told them to fuck off and didnt acknowledge it. Guess my mom won't be going back to Iowa.

[–]mistermorteau 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Guess my mom won't be going back to Iowa.

Except if some bounty hunters comes after her.

Does US states can ask an extradition to another states, like if you mom like in Alaska, does Iowa can request Alaska police arrest her, and send her back ?

She should contact a lawyer in Iowa, and see what she can do at distance.

[–]Skootchy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Theyre just demanding money for no logical reason. Fuck em. We have no idea why they thought we owed them anything. Not trying to sound all Sov Cit, but you can't just write some shit down on paper and call it legit. My parents only lived there a year, weren't married in the state, never got a divorce, never went to court over child support (or anything for that matter), then 20 years later they just say my mom owed my Dad 20k, but were not getting any of it. My mom said she wouldn't even give a crap as long as we could get the money, but were entitled to NONE of it. How does that even work? Makes no sense to any of us.

I doubt any Bounty hunters are coming, it's been years.

[–]Arimer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My understanding is that the state gets a stipend from the Federal government for each case of child support it sets up. They also tend to charge administrative fees in some states. They're pissed because by not going through the system. your mom avoided giving the state their cut.

That's why you see so much time and money spent towards child support enforcement yet none on visitation enforcement. If for the good of the child would both not be expected?

[–]mistermorteau 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

How does that even work? Makes no sense to any of us.

To nobody it makes senses.

but you can't just write some shit down on paper and call it legit.

When people starts to say "it's legit because it's the law", I remember them Nuremberg's laws ( the yellow star for jews ) been voted too.

But yes, if it been voted by the local government, it is legit, that's how it works, even it's not logical, or ethics.

[–]Skootchy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, it just seems so wrong to say "hey we decided you owe us money, but its cool because we voted on it"

Pretty sure revolutions started over things like that

[–]plasmaflare34 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And probably should again.

[–]mistermorteau 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Apparently no revolution been started because of Iowa's unfair law, but it can become a thing. /s

Usually you need someone who burn itself, because of the laws, for trigger popular/social movement.

Are you volunteer ? :P

[–]Skootchy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Charging people money for no reason is usually a good reason.

[–]WilNotJr 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

At any point was your family receiving food stamps/snap benefits, SSI, government housing, section 8, or any form of public assistance? If so, that's why.

[–]Skootchy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No

[–]Savet 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You marry an adventurous young woman, who has a promiscuous twin sister with a sibling incest fetish....and in exchange for hot twin sister threesome action you agree to let your wife bang the mailman who gets her pregnant. Since you allowed her to bang the mailman....it could be assumed that you consented to the risk of her getting pregnant in exchange for banging her and her hot twin sister together.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not clear on the picture you're painting here. how tall is the mailman and are the twins wearing heels?

[–]Savet 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think it's a little discriminatory to bring the mailman's height into consideration....and I think it's implied that the twin fun is an ongoing relationship perk where heels could be an accessory but are not mandatory.

[–]SheepiBeerd 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

NOT mandatory? Shit, let me go through my notes before replying...

[–]Lowkeylawyer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Basically, it's unlikely the estranged wife did anything egregious. What likely occurred is that she had the kid and applied for state assistance. States don't like to pay so if they can find the baby daddy they will order payment to he state even though the mother never filed for an order against the man necessarily (which I don't think she did to him here). The state tries to extend beyond dna to force payment on a technicality in their code. The state loses miserably when man bring suit as the law is outmoded and ridiculous.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The law may not contemplate cheating spouses, or the law MAY contemplate swinging spouses.

[–]TheWhyOfFry 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe the law was written before DNA could prove parenthood and this was the most straight forward way to handle things? Maybe not though, haven't researched it.

[–]mistermorteau 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because US are not commies, and prefer to give the freedom to some poor guys, the freedom to pick between prison or paying child support for someone else kid.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Think of it from a religious standpoint. The idea is that a married man takes care of his family.

Even if the children are not his.

Either that, or the state flat-out refuses to allow a woman to abort and will also not provide aid to the woman to raise that child. They'd rather spend $30,000 of taxpayer money to hunt and find the man for child support and/or jail time for avoiding child support than to pay a couple of thousand to help the brat.

In essence, men run away if it looks like a trap. The state is there to make sure he gets properly fucked over.

[–]Trickyyyxx 241 points242 points243 points 9 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

Glad he got it resolved, and I'm not pinning the blame on him by any means; but why would you not want to be with someone but still be legally married to them?

[–]Vawnn 111 points112 points113 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it was like that. He probably left one day and never looked back. That happens a lot.

[–]41145and639 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

Avoiding alimony?

[–]MacNeal 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do they have alimony in his state? No such thing in mine, though there is spousal support which is very limited, hard to get and temporary.

[–]41145and6 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dunno, I was just guessing.

[–]3randy3lue 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Does that guy look like he could be pinned for alimony?

[–]FinFihlman 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are saying he couldn't?

Don't you know Murica is crazy?

[+]newsagg -17 points-16 points-15 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That sounds vaguely racist.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That sounds vaguely presumptuous.

[–]newsagg 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nigger

[–]dinosaurtorialist -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Let me know when the clever part of your comment gets edited in so I can change my downvote

[–]newsagg 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

np

edit: did you find it yet or do you need to reference your torah?

[–]dinosaurtorialist 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Well that doesn't even make sense. You're not very good at jokes.

[–][deleted] 93 points94 points95 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Tons of reasons. Medical benefits. Veteran benefits

[–]airborneANDrowdy44 points 9 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

So, fraud.

[–]AT-ST 49 points50 points51 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There is also good old laziness. One of my grandmother's friends hasn't seen her husband since he walked out on her 30 years ago. If you ask her why she never got a divorce she just tells you, "I never got around to it."

[–]King-o-lingus 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Divorce is a pain in the ass in most states and if she never planned on marrying again it really isn't a priority. My ex and I went through the same situation until I met my current wife who demanded I finish the job.

[–]Kimchi_boy 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How did you handle your taxes?

[–]King-o-lingus 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Married, filing separately. We take turns claiming our child.

[–]smacksaw 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, often times the only way to get your entitlements is to play the game.

If they didn't want people defrauding the system, they wouldn't create bizarre requirements to get benefits (like being married)

We know a family where the woman gets benefits, but needs the husband around for the kids (one is disabled), but if he says he lives there, she gets cut.

However, he's not really "with her", so he's got a GF on the side.

The dilemma now is that he's got tenant's rights by living there, but doesn't, and the two agencies can't...she wants him out, but can't get him out, they can cut her benefits if he's not out, but he doesn't have to leave because he has rights, which means she cannot technically comply, bla bla

And you wonder why it's "fraud"? It's not always plain robbery. Sometimes it's just the system being stupid. This is why I support a mincome as well.

[–]RobotCzars14 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

States make divorce a nightmare, usually because of their old religious reasons of divorce being bad. It was 81$ for me to get married in Texas, 21$ if you take the state pre-marriage class (because religion again). Just walked in and asked for a simple form and put our names down and wait like a week. You give it back signed by an official and you get a marriage certificate in the mail.

Divorce not so much. Divorce isn't just a form you fill out. Matter of fact, googling 'Texas marriage' brings up exactly how/where I need to file a form and get it done easy. Google 'Texas divorce' and you get pages of divorce lawyers.

My parents started at 1500$ just for the paperwork from a lawyer to not contest anything, just file divorce. My mom complained about stuff and lawyer fees rocketed up anytime something had to be changed. My wife's parents couldn't afford divorce, they were on welfare and all that jazz. They just split and that was that to them. Only recently did they make it official now that one of them has some money. They were technically married and didn't even see or talk to each other for almost 25 years.

[–]doitforreddit 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How does that work for taxes and the like?

[–]tfyuhjnbgf 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Could the one that doesnt have some money get some from the one that does?

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

He may not have been able to afford a divorce. Simply paying lawyer fees and court fees to process the divorce is expensive and that's if there's no arbitration on who gets what.

[–]dragun667 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

$1200 just to sign some papers where I live. No solicitors or anything involved, it's just the cost of filing. Ridiculous.

[–]Not_An_Ambulance 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That seems really high. Where do you live?

[–]dragun667 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Australia. It just went up from $800 this year I think.

[–]rdesktop7 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It's a large PITA to get unmarried. That may be a contributor,

[–]LawnCareJesus 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Can confirm.

Source: Represented myself (Pro Se) in my divorce filing and will never get married again to avoid that nightmare...

[–]AT-ST 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I just had my ex-wife's lawyer do all the filing and draw up all the paper work. I would just read over everything, make notes on the changes I wanted made, and send the papers back unsigned.

He found out I had gone to law school after it was all said and done. My ex said he seemed irritated when she told him that. I think if he had known I had gone to law school he wouldn't have tried to play some of the games he was trying to play to get some of the things my wife wanted from me.

[–]SephYuyX 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Needs more fun details.

[–]AT-ST 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Alright, I got a few minutes so I'll tell the tale. So my ex and I got married a little bit before I deployed. Now this wasn't one of those marriages where the soldier and his girlfriend find out he is getting deployed and just decide to throw caution to the wind and get married.

No, we had known the deployment was coming, we just didn't know the exact date. We had been engaged for over a year and had been planning the wedding for late September 2012. All the word around Bn was that we would be deploying in mid October of that same year. I had then found out in late August that I had to attend a training school that started in Mid September that ran until about a week before I was supposed to deploy. So we cancelled our original wedding and just threw together a small one on September 1st. So while it was a rushed marriage, it was one we had been planning for awhile.

Now, about 3 months in I found out she was sleeping with some guy. So, I manned up and confronted her and she admitted it. She then pushed for a divorce while I was still deployed but I had JAG delay it until I got home.

At this point I should note, while I had attended Law School I did not become a Lawyer. I left with a semester left in my schooling, however I knew more than enough to fully understand the jargon used in the contracts and, more importantly, I knew how to research specific laws and apply them in my argument.

One of the luckiest things to happen in this situation was that I had deployed with a separate bank account. We didn't have the time to join our accounts before I left, so all the money I was making was in an account she couldn't touch. It just sat there the entire time. By the time I returned home I had $60k in my checking account.

Once I was home I started researching all the laws I could concerning divorce in Illinois. I spent about 3 days just reading and researching. I wouldn't say I am knowledgeable to be a divorce attorney in Illinois, but I knew enough to protect myself for my very specific situation.

My ex and I decided to go through the divorce with no lawyers, at first. We sat down one day and came up with a list of what we each wanted and what we would each give up. For the most part we divided everything up pretty well. The big sticking point was my money, she wanted half of it. Something I was not willing to budge from. So she decided to go get herself a Lawyer.

The following letter I got from the lawyer demanded:

  • Half (30k) of my cash.

  • I was to sign over the house we had bought together.

  • She wanted my dog.

  • She wanted my car.

  • then basically listed half of everything I owned.

  • She then listed all the wedding gifts as hers.

Now, while Illinois has some stupid laws, their laws concerning divorce are actually not too bad. One of them is that each party is allowed to retain any property that they owned prior to the marriage. Since all my property, my dog, and my car were all owned prior to the marriage I was not obligated to give her half of any of that. We even purchased the house prior to the marriage.

So this is when I took a day to inventory all my belongings. I didn't really own much so it didn't take long, but I wanted to be an asshole so I listed everything. Here is a sample of what I gave them:

  • Star Wars T-shirt - Black - Size Large - x1

  • Socks, cotton - White - x4

  • DVD, The Departed - x1

  • DVD, Slap Shot - x1

  • White Board - Size 8"x10" - x2

  • Serta memory foam mattress - Size King - x1

  • Dog - Mix German Shepherd/Border Collie - Size large - Female - x1

This list took 3 pages, and I listed the full name and nomenclature whenever possible. (side note, I was a Company Executive Officer while I was deployed. Inventorying shit was my life for during my deployment.) I then went on to list everything that was purchase while we were married, along with the current value of the object if bought new. This list included things like her dog, and her new car.

Before going on, it should me noted that the down payment of her car and the house were from my bank account. This was $5k for her car and $20k for the house. Now, in Illinois, as in many states, when dividing up items that were bought during the marriage they have to be divided by monetary value. If it comes out that one side would receive more value from their items they could have to pay the difference to the other in cash.

So, my counter to their offer said I would give her half of all the money I earned while I was deployed up until our split. This entitled her to about $9k. She was then entitled to half of my housing stipend that I received, I can't remember what that came out to but it was close to $12k.

In return I wanted her to buy me out of my half of the house, about $28k at that point, buy me out of my half of the "family car" (her new car), about $5.5k at that point in time (half of what had been paid on the car to that date.) I also wanted "our dog" (the dog she bought for herself) and I broke up the rest of the mutual items fairly down the middle monetarily, except I ensure that I listed everything I knew she wanted under my column. To top it all off I put that I wanted half of the retirement she had accumulated while while we were married, and half of the value of her health savings plan that had been accrued while we were married. Both of which didn't come out to much, but were a nice little kick in the ass needed in future negotiating.

Her Lawyer then sent an email stating that my demands were unreasonable and that if taken to court I would lose on every ground and might end up paying more than they were demanding. I countered his email by sending back an email citing every statute that supported my point of view. I wanted to write, "Your move" at the end, but decided not to go overboard on the jackassness.

Her lawyer then emailed me back telling me to send him a "realistic" counter. I sent him back the same exact list as before. After two weeks of negotiation he sent me this:

  • I would keep everything I entered the marriage with

  • I would get the snowblower and she could keep all the other property purchased while married.

  • I would keep all the money I earned while deployed and would not have to pay her anything.

  • We would sell the house and split the profits 50/50.

  • I would pay her Attorney fees.

This is essentially the same exact agreement my ex and I had come up with prior to her getting a lawyer, minus the attorney fees. Oh, and I was now getting the King sized mattress that I had bought. Under the original agreement we had come up with I had let her have it because I didn't want to travel back across the country with it. Plus she fucked a couple dudes on it and I didn't want to be reminded of that every time I laid down to go to sleep. So I countered that I would not pay for her attorney, and that I wanted $3500 in moving fees since I had agreed to move out and I was moving back to PA. They agreed.

Now, had I pressed it I could have come out with a lot more in assets and money than I ended up getting. However, I didn't want any of the shit she ended up getting.

As a final fuck you to her, since she made me have to deal with her lawyer for 2 weeks and delayed my moving back home until we had settled on who gets what, I threw away the king sized mattress. Besides the money, this was the big object she really wanted out of the divorce.

[–]_alivepool_ 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This belongs in /r/prorevenge or something. Not sure if there's a r/prodivorce.

[–]King-o-lingus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're a gentleman and indeed a scholar. I wish you great health and great success.

[–]CastielClean 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Missed part of my lecture in University to read this. No regrets.

[–]jerrysburner 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For some, it's too expensive to get divorced - in addition to that reference, just google "too expensive to get divorced". If you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, you may not see why it's important to get this legally formalized - you're separated, living different lives with no contact, and no intermingling of assets, money, or accounts - why spend money you don't have to divorce, i.e., a "piece of paper" stating the relationship is over? He learned one reason why...

[–]doublepulse 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My grandparents "divorced" back in the early 1990's but then my grandmother's cancer returned. She had all of the paperwork for the divorce prepared and never sent it off to the court (if a couple has no assets and nothing to fight over then it is just paperwork and a small fee to file) with work and being sick taking up her time. Over the years she would lose touch with my grandfather (drunk piece of shit) since he was in and out of jail and moved around often. Eventually she just shrugged it off, it wasn't worth the hassle of officially getting the divorce in the grand scheme of things.

[–]magicmurph 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most likely just left and never looked back, never bothered with the hassle.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm currently in that situation. I got married at 21, 3 months before joining the Marine Corps. I left for boot camp and returned home 12 weeks later, on Christmas Eve, to a wife that was 5 weeks pregnant. I made it clear that I didn't fuck up the marriage so I wasn't paying for the divorce. Here we are 8 years later and I'm still married. Here in Louisiana I could be divorced in 30 days for around $200, but it isn't about the money. She actually sent me divorce papers before when I was still stationed in NC. I signed them but she waited like 6 months to try filing them and by then the notaries stamp had expired. She contacted me a few months ago saying that she would be sending papers again, but I haven't seen them yet.

Oh and, according to Louisiana law, she can get child support from me for both of her kids since they were born within our marriage. I don't think she would try it, but I didn't think she was a cheating whore either.

[–]koc77 45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Next step - file divorce papers.

[–]hobozombie 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fucking hell, if what he went through isn't enough incentive, I don't know what would be.

[–]bryanrobh 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Why the hell would a court force someone to pay for a mistake that wasn't his.

[–]KaBar42 62 points63 points64 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So that the state doesn't have to pay for the kid.

Not saying it's right, but it's the same reason why underage males who fell prey to pedophiliac women are required to pay for that fucker's kid. Because the child is his even though the state says he can't consent at that age. The state doesn't want to pay for the kid so they drop the responsibility onto the victim, now an adult male.

It's disgusting. And people complain about states that allow rapists to sue for visitation, but they don't complain about states that literally force victims to pay for the crimes committed against them.

[–]bryanrobh 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is a real shame

[–]SheepiBeerd 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Jesus christ that sounds truly traumatic.

[–]grissomza 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Military will do it too sometimes.

[–]bryanrobh 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would be airing right away

[–]deevandiacle 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In most states paternity during the marriage is a rebuttable presumption, he would have been presumed the father unless he rebutted it. Which he did. Unfortunately not many states consider separation, even for this long, as an automatic factor.

[–]digitalpizza151 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Seems utterly absurd you can be held responsible for raising another mans cumshot

[–]kireol 33 points34 points35 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But think of the children!

/s

the man who laid seed, should be one to pay indeed. Unless you ELECT to do it.

[–]Yosharian93 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (33 children) | Copy Link

Unbelievable. What kind of fucking law is that?

Jesus christ let me never set foot in fucking Iowa

[–]ThisToastIsTasty35 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

yeah, that law is ridiculous.

it states that "ANY child born in Marriage, you're responsible for."

the includes any children they might have had cheating.

[–]Aarondhp24 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Happened to me in Georgia. My ex had been shacked up with her old baby daddy and I had to give up my rights to their child before the divorce could proceed. It was almost 4 years after I'd left that I got the letter. Shit's whack.

[–]TSwizzlesNipples 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not just Iowa - look up "presumed father" laws. Most states have them.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Why? Iowa is a great state to live in/visit. Just don't get married here and I think you'll be okay.

[–]main_motors 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I like Iowa, except Clinton, Iowa. Fuck that piece of shit town.

[–]squirreleatinredneck 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Iowan here. Upvoted for well-placed hatred of Clinton. Fucking shithole.

[–]slimjimdick 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Never heard of Clinton, what's wrong with it?

[–]MikasaTsukasa 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If it is anything like Creston or Council bluffs, I completely understand. Just stay away from towns that start with C.

[–]MostlyLurkReddit 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Crimetown's not so bad

[–]chambertlo -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Haha. No. Iowa is known as a fly-over state for a fucking reason, and it's due to shit like this.

[–]FireHazard11 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You realize that literally every single state in the Midwest calls itself a flyover state. The only times I've ever heard or seen people use the term "flyover state" are people living in that state bitching about how supposedly everyone else calls it a flyover state.

[+]Biz_Money -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Probably it's due to the fact we just grow all your food and build the computers that go in those planes people fly over us with. We're too busy to build tourist attractions and kowtow to idiots like you.

[–]WhiteOrca 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Exactly, all you do is grow food and build computers. Nobody gives a shit about visiting that. That's why you're a fly over state.

[–]99639 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Build computers? And you're from Washington? Is this satire?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Rockwell-Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa won 100% of Boeing's cockpit business. Also, the world's first digital computer was invented at Iowa State, which they failed to patent which probably explains why there aren't tech giants in the state.

He was explaining the Rockwell-Boeing thing, not saying it's Silicon Valley or anything

[–]99639 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I just didn't get the stereotype especially coming from a Washington native (Microsoft, UW, etc). They're big computer nerds too.

Iowa is a super underrated state. Tons of gorgeous places. Wasn't trying to dog it by any means.

[–]GoodGuyPaul-5 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Good to know that dumbasses won't come visit us.

[–]codene15 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Come to Iowa and see our corn memorial! Or visit our Boeing museum where you can sit in a warehouse and solder motherboard chipsets! Failing to see the vast tourism that attracts

[–]EzraQuarterPound1 points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Gateway doesn't count.

[–]Biz_Money -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Rockwell Collins has its corporate headquarters largest production plant and research facility in Cedar Rapids IA they desig and build the computers systems that go in Boeing airplanes and are government subcontractors designing and building guidance systems for missiles Boeing designs and builds.

So yes gateway doesn't count.

[–]Poached_Polyps 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We do all that in California and still have places people actually want to visit...

[–]Biz_Money -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah because California has at least five times the landmass as Iowa

[–]harrisonfire -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

due to the fact we just grow all your food

Your #1 farming product is grain to feed livestock. Iowa isn't exactly a cornucopia.

Edit: Also, no shame in your tourist attraction game. Don't forget "Cabbage Patch Fantasy Land"!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]mistermorteau 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Almost all around the world this law exists.

My BIL was the legal father of his wife kid, after their separation, he needed to abandon the kid, for the real father can recognize legally the kids, it was in Switzerland.

In France, where I live, you must prove you didn't had any sexual intercourse for 300days before the birth...

But French laws can force a man to be father, if the adns prove it.

For make people cringe, at the opposite, a woman can give up the child, by abortion, or by abandon.

[–]Yosharian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Holy shit. I had no idea.

[–]cdc194 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Idiots Out Wandering Around

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The type of rape that doesn't leave any scars.

[–]tfyuhjnbgf -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No scars huh? TIL ive been doing it too rough.

[–]yasisterstwat 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Good video. Would have been a great video if they were able to get the wife to answer a few questions like why she went after him for child support.

[–]rizings0n 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I didnt watch the video, but in cases like this, what happens is the mother applies for some kind of welfare benefits. The state doesn't want to pay, so they either find the father, or designate one, and slap him with child support. The mother had nothing to do with it other than trying to get food stamps or something.

[–]Nikon_Justus 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Came to say just that, the state will jump in the second you apply for any type of aid.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes what is her take on this?

[–]samsc2Cooking up a batch of MRE denials 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the worst part about it is the fact that he actually had to go to court over some one elses kid and not wanting to have to pay for it. That's just some bullshit. Why is there no QA or verification before some woman can put down a name? Like holy crap it's not that hard just take a few swabs while the babies still at the hospital and if things check out names can go down. If things don't check out then obviously names shouldn't and someone needs to call someone other then the ghostbusters.

[–]MagicGin -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As other people have pointed out chances are the woman applied for aid and the state automatically billed him. It's unlikely that this is malicious, it's just an incredibly fucked up state system.

[–]Lucren_333 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Paternity should be mandatory at birth. Not the biological father, not legally responsible for that child. If they want to be they can always adopt.

[–]I_am_not_your_parent 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So this was something I debated with my uncle the other day. Let's say a state is against abortion and a woman is raped and gets pregnant. She is also married. Naturally the baby isn't his but she also didn't cheat. What happens in this situation? Who is obligated to take care of the kid? I'm not from the states so I am asking this out if serious interest.

[–]JarvisMusk1 points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The woman and her husband get in their car and they drive to a state that will rid them of the fetus. Worst case, (aside from the whole rape thing) they get stuck with the bill. Best case, their insurance covers it, and uses their resources to go after the rapist for damages.

Adoption is an option if abortion is not.

IANAL. These are like, just my opinions, man.

[–]I_am_not_your_parent 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Those sound like solid plans. I think we can all agree that it's a pretty fucked up situation to be in and most definitely not one we can resolve today. Ultimate point being it's hard to judge someone and it's even harder to have one law to rule them all.

[–]Lucren_333 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow. I did not expect this. Its not the wifes fault nor the husbands. Its just circumstance.

[–]LemonyFresh 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Iowa law and many other states require husbands to pay child support for any child born during the marriage.

What the hell Iowa?

[–]TSwizzlesNipples 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most states have some sort of "presumed father" laws.

[–]RadioPimp 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

18 years, 18 years. And on the 18th year, he found out it wasn't his.

LOL. Fuck I would kill a bitch.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

man this law just isnt right. a man or woman should never be legally obligated to pay for anyone else's children. they should only be morally obligated and to let society sort it out. if you pick a husband or wife who neglects your children then you fucked up, son. that's how life should work.

[–]1TONcherk 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Could you imagine being the estranged wife and asking for the money? Do you think she feels like an asshole?

[–]Cannon1 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably not. Just gimme dems.

[–]krudler5 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She probably applied for some form of social assistance. When you do that, they go after the other parent for child support — you don't have a choice, it's the state's call.

[–]smacksaw 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Note to self: ride bareback with married women in Iowa?

???

Profit

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is actually some uplifting news.

[–]jesuschristonacamel 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Non-american here- why is a DNA test not accepted by these courts? Surely that's a definitive piece of evidence in resolving these cases?

[–]codene15 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Think of the children!!!!! Just because you didn't make it doesn't mean you shouldn't have to give up 600k over the next 18 years.

[–]shadysal 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

At least it's is not France. I believe paternity tests are illegal there. The government sites "preserving the peace within French families."

[–]ramot1 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Neither article says that she applied for the support, unless I just missed it.

It could be the state automatically orders the support

[–]BeachBum09I am way to level headed for this crap sub 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't it funny that his ex wife never even fought it? How fucked is that and how fucked is it that they never focused on that? The fact that this cunt knew it wasn't his kid but saw an opportunity for money.

[–]creatureshock 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OK, first off, he should have divorced the bitch years ago.

By law in Iowa, and many other states, husbands are required to pay child support for any child born during the marriage.

This needs to be changed. I wonder if it can be done at a federal level or does it need to be changed state by state.

[–]superawesomepandacat 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

he ain't no cuck

[–]lordtyp0 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Was this just a situation where the state was trying to collect? Or, did the estranged spouse file for it?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It all comes down to this.

There seems to be a ton of ways a man can be deemed the 'father' for CS purposes.

And only two for a mother

Give birth and adopt.

[–]SpudFucker666 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Court ordered cuckold? Court should be shot

[–]mistermorteau -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

how is it a pussypassdenied ? Except if you mean Iowa is a pussy...

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