Actor Brendan Fraser Broke, Can't Afford $900,000 Child Support Payment to Ex-Wife

Forest_Person · 2015-08-15T11:13:52+00:00

The former "Mummy" star went to a Connecticut court to try and reduce his annual $900,000 child support payment to his ex-wife Afton Smith,...

[–]Kaylen92 366 points367 points368 points 10 years ago (160 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 351 points352 points353 points 10 years ago (111 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kaylen92 119 points120 points121 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 43 points44 points45 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki 62 points63 points64 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RedditorJemi 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Craysh 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]za72 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]za72 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]90blacktsiawd 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]za72 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingMong 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spank859 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ckiemnstr345 32 points33 points34 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]mochacola 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tedcase 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dangerousopinions 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]emperorhirohito 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]quaggas 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-PM_ME_YOUR_GENITALS 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bertreapot 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]BullsLawDan -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]springy 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]springy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And I've said elsewhere in the thread I want greater accountability for the spending of child support received by the custodial parent. That doesn't mean we should have noncustodial parents pay a lower percentage of their income, though.

Let's look at an analogous situation. Aid to Africa. There is no doubt there are many people in Africa that could do well with aid from the West. But we know that much of our current aid is funneled away from the poor and used to fund civil wars by corrupt government and local warlords.

Now, does that mean we should give less aid? No, it means we should place greater oversight on the aid that we do give.

We can't give child support "to kids" because kids can't care for themselves. But certainly some accountability by the custodial parent - even if it's as simple as an annual accounting of the household budget - would seem appropriate.

[–]bertreapot 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]BullsLawDan -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

not at all. we all know that money is going to support the mom's lifestyle. it has nothing to do with the kids.

How do we know that? Because a bunch of bitter posts on the internet say so?

if the kids want a lifestyle based on their dad's income they should live with their dad.

So the richer parent always gets custody?

if they want to live with their mom, the dad can provide enough to feed, clothe, and educate them. not to put their mom up in a mansion and give her enough income for retirement.

Again, why punish the kids? Why force them into that situation?

The kids shouldn't have to choose what they "want" in terms of a lifestyle. Putting aside the fact that in most cases (like here) the children aren't even old enough to make the choice of where to live.

The parents fucked up, not them.

Your whole notion of how to best care for kids is so fucked up its beyond belief. It reeks of the kind of bitterness that really does so much harm in our world.

This kind of nonsense of "well too bad for the kids if they ever want to see their mom, dad has all the money" is exactly why people cringe or laugh when you say you want to talk about "men's issues." It's embarrassing for people like me who are trying to enact real reform.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BullsLawDan -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]springy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BullsLawDan -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]laihipp 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Analpinecone 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]scriv78 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anotherasianreportin 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nonsense. Go play with this for awhile and tell me income doesn't matter.

Uh, yeah, it's exactly what I'm saying: the formula is the same regardless of income. Thanks for proving my point.

Obviously I'm way oversimplifying, but yes, rich parents will pay much more based on the argument that they can afford it, and poor parents will still pay based on the argument that the children need it (even if the parent with custody has much higher income).

No, they won't. Every parent will pay based on the same formula.

Once each parent's income is determined and their share of custody is determined, child support in all 50 states is literally just an algebra problem. There's no "someone's getting screwed" or whatever at any time because the math doesn't change.

A few states make narrow exceptions for very poor parents, but those exceptions involve paying less, not more.

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

When did I say it's a different formula? Even in my joking response, I said it was "the formula" meaning one. It's just a formula that screws over parents without custody. The formula minimizes positive around a value determined under the paradigm of providing what the child needs and doesn't maximize because if you're rich, you can pay more.

There's no "someone's getting screwed" or whatever at any time because the math doesn't change.

That does not follow. Just because it's a formula doesn't mean it's inherently fair. What the hell is with a statement like this? It makes no sense...(looks at your history)

Ah, you're a lawyer. So you probably think this makes you more intelligent than I and felt insulted that I posted something as basic as a income guideline at you instead of a legal review or something. Well, sorry, but I'm not trying to engage in questions of the law; I'm sure the judge that ordered these payments was applying the law as written. I'm engaging in questions of whether or not the outcomes of applying the law are fair. Sure, child support is based on "disposable income." Sure, it is supposed to account for what is feasible. I'm sure when you got your degree they told you all the intricate ways in which it is designed to be fair. But are you seriously going to say there is gender parity in how it is applied? Are you seriously going to say that the system is not rife with people for whom the formula does not work? Are you going to seriously suggest that judges are not swayed by their own biases, and that tends to heavily favor women?

A few states make narrow exceptions for very poor parents, but those exceptions involve paying less, not more.

And you're defending that only a few states do this? ALL states should do this. That's the main problem! I'm far more concerned with this than with Mr. Fraser, who will not end up on the streets. That was actually the point of my initial reply, you may notice, to insert a reminder that the poor are who get screwed more than the rich by child custody proceedings. I guess you'll probably say that the law is made to protect them and all they have to do is file correctly or whatever. But then again, the poor ones probably can't afford your fees.

I'm not going to respond to you again unless you make a decent and truly unique argument, you are either a troll or you have some weird legal-formula fetish. You are not reading what I say, but what you want me to say for you to argue against. I have no use for any of those.

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That does not follow. Just because it's a formula doesn't mean it's inherently fair.

But it doesn't make it unfair, either.

Ah, you're a lawyer. So you probably think this makes you more intelligent than I

It makes me more knowledgeable about the law, that's all.

But are you seriously going to say there is gender parity in how it is applied?

Yes, absolutely there is gender parity in how it is applied, because it is unequivocally gender neutral. The formula does not make the distinction of which gender parent is making more money, it orders payment without respect to gender.

Are you seriously going to say that the system is not rife with people for whom the formula does not work?

Rife? No. There are occasions. But consistent application is the cornerstone of justice.

Are you going to seriously suggest that judges are not swayed by their own biases, and that tends to heavily favor women?

There's nothing to "sway". It's math. There's no bias in determining percentages. It literally could be done by an Excel spreadsheet (and in many cases it is).

And you're defending that only a few states do this? ALL states should do this. That's the main problem!

Well the question is why those are needed. A percentage formula automatically accounts for poverty because obviously the amounts are lower when income is lower.

I guess you'll probably say that the law is made to protect them and all they have to do is file correctly or whatever.

We do a poor job with indigent people in our justice system, for sure. I've worked for many agencies, both paid and volunteer, that are working to change that.

Arguing against a mathematical formula, or suggesting that a simple math equation has gender bias, is not the way to go about that, though.

But then again, the poor ones probably can't afford your fees.

Ah, right. Personal attacks. Always the resort of someone with no real argument.

I'll just point out that lawyers donate a far larger portion of their services than any other profession, and make less money than most other professions from a median standpoint, especially per hour worked.

But I guess you won't respond... Down vote and move on, like any time this sub is confronted with a dose of reality that interrupts the "Women bitches, courts terrible, never get married" bitter circle jerk.

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you, that was a much more better response than I thought I'd get given your last, so I'll activate my "unless you make a decent and truly unique argument" statement. Sorry I got a little heated there, but it seemed like you didn't even read my comments before you decided what you were going to say. I'll pick on three points.

Yes, absolutely there is gender parity in how it is applied, because it is unequivocally gender neutral.

But men are not given custody at the same rates (this is also part of what I was referring to in judicial sway). Do you consider this to be due to more-or-less legitimate causes? Or are you simply separating the phenomena?

There's nothing to "sway". It's math...

Uh... then why have judges at all? Why have lawyers? Judges determine which aspects of the case are legitimate concerns to be used as inputs into the formula, and are (varying by state) given leeway to adjust the final outcomes within some bounds. It's only done by spreadsheet if neither party contests anything. You're oversimplifying to remove the human element here.

But then again, the poor ones probably can't afford your fees.

Ah, right. Personal attacks.

I'll go ahead and apologize, though that was not intended as a personal attack. Given my anger at your initial response and my general tone I can see why you'd think it was. Sorry about that.

I think, and I'm guessing you'll agree given your previous statement, that a very real problem with justice in general is that poor people tend to not be able to (or think that they are not able to) use those legal tools which are available to give them fair outcomes. If someone is entitled to a reduction in payments because of some changing circumstance, he must generally pursue that, yes? If he does not, while the law may be fair, the outcome is not. While many lawyers do lots of pro bono work, you do agree that it is not enough to make up for this gap in sum, yes?

The main contention that kicked this discussion off, however, was that you objected to my implication that the payment is too high for both the rich and the poor. You have not offered a counter to that, other than to say it is not inherently unfair in that it is determined by a formula. That's pretty unpersuasive, but I consider what is "fair" in this case to be a matter of opinion. I was merely expressing my opinion, and you decided to take exception to it. Do you have a reason for it, or do you simply not agree that the payments are too high?

[–]Mylon 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coo_coo_ca_choo 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]eyenot 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coo_coo_ca_choo 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

So the states set high child support amounts in order to receive more money from Federal sources? It's amazing how in all the five years I've worked for the state we've had possible furloughs hanging over our heads because they were afraid they wouldn't have enough money to pay their employees. And it also appears to employees on the ground in my state that they're moving toward privatizing child support services within the next few years. It may not be a state government sponsored service in the near future.

And yes, there are private remedies when parents aren't paying their support, but when it comes down to paying an attorney thousands in order to collect hundreds or opening a case with the state to do it, which would you choose? The middle class today is not the middle class of the past.

Having child support taken from someone's paycheck is a federal law. We have to enforce that. A few people don't like it, but in my experience with people that it is actually happening to they prefer it that way because then they don't have to worry about it.

It's true that the system has changed and grown. It was initially begun to try and recover funds that were being paid out in other programs sub as TANF, but the truth is that we can do enforcement cheaper than it is for the average person to hire an attorney.

Most of the time frames in that article focused on things that happened 10-20 years ago. Even in the last 3-4 years things have changed drastically in the way we do things in our office day to day. The Supreme Court decision in Turner vs. Rogers tied our hands on doing District Court enforcement. I see people complaining on reddit all the time about men being put in jail for not paying child support but in my experience in my county, it just doesn't happen. The requirements to be able to file a Civil Contempt (Civil being the important word there, as in opposed to Criminal) are so narrow now that it just doesn't happen. Maybe my county just happens to have a decent judge that follows laws and court decisions they way he should, but unless we can 1. prove someone has income and 2. Prove that that someone could purge his/her debt with that income, we cannot even file a Contempt action to set a hearing date. We used to have dockets that had 25 cases in the morning and 25 in the afternoon, but now we have maybe 6 for the whole day, and those are basically the cases where the only time the person will pay anything is when they are in the courtroom. The only way to get payments from them is to keep having them come back.

Most of our problem cases are the ones where the people are on drugs or they're alcoholics and they just can't get their lives together enough to maintain employment to be able to pay. Some of them are people that are so undereducated that we can clearly see they aren't capable of holding down a job. Every time someone comes in my office and complains about how the kids' mother does drugs and he doesn't want to pay for her drugs, I wonder why the hell he's not calling child welfare or contacting an attorney to file for custody to get his child out of that situation. A lot of these people aren't thinking about what is best for their child, all they care about is not paying their ex. They ask about custody and visitation issues but we have no jurisdiction on those matters. They ask if they can turn over their rights in order to not pay anymore but that doesn't do away with their obligation to support their child in my state unless someone else adopts the child.

If someone goes to prison we've started modifying their support to $0.00/month so that it doesn't build up for years while they can do nothing. If someone is injured and has proof from a doctor that they are unable to work we modify to $0.00/month. I did this for a man just last week, he was paying between $500-$600 on three separate cases, was in a car accident that broke his back, the judge then ordered it to $0.00 and two of three mothers were completely pissed. They walked out of the hearing. Tough shit ladies. He cannot work anymore.

In my personal experience, we DO NOT inflate people's child support obligations so the state can receive more federal funds. We actually go out of our way to reduce our uncollected funds because it helps no one to have hundreds of thousands of dollars of uncollectable arrears on our system from thousands of open child support cases. Reducing uncollected funds = reducing obligor's obligations.

My point is, that these stories are perpetuated that men are being screwed on a daily basis, and maybe they are in some places. But I've also had people tell me thank you because I did something that helped them. I've pissed off those bitchy mothers just as much as if not more than I've done something that "screwed over" the man. Every case is different, every person is different.

Edit: Wikipedia link to Turner vs Rogers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_v._Rogers

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

What state is this? In my state, NY, there's a statutory minimum $25 monthly obligation, regardless of income. I don't think this applies to incarcerated individuals, and it's been successfully challenged, on state constitutional grounds, in some other cases. But that's the general rule, and I wasn't aware of an exception for disability.

But states have widely differing CS policies. In Florida, a person with $800 in income (assuming the custodial parent had no income) would owe about $200/mo, despite being below the poverty line. In NY, same person would owe $25/mo. Same with incarceration - Turner v. Rodgers imposes some minimum protections, but even those are often ignored. I read recently that Georgia has been flagrantly disregarding it, without consequence despite a state-level challenge. Some states are still locking up lots of obligors.

[–]Coo_coo_ca_choo 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm in Oklahoma. I understand that states do things very differently. Even within my state the district offices tend to do things differently even though they aren't supposed to.

Our general policy is that if someone is currently not working but is by all appearances able to work, they would be imputed at minimum wage. This includes custodial persons. A minimum wage order with both parents' income at $1257.00 equals a $222.50/month obligation. We used to set most new orders like this when neither party appeared for the initial paternity order hearing. Now, if nobody shows up for the paternity hearing they are both imputed at $0.00/month income which of course reflects a $0.00 obligation. If either party wants it to go up they have to provide a written request for modification.

Another recent change in our state is that they used to take judgments prior to an order being entered back 5 years if the custodial person requested it. Now, by law they can only go back 2 years. The laws are changing gradually. If it can happen here, it can happen everywhere else too.

The person would have to have some kind of proof of inability to work. In the instance I mentioned before the man provided a letter from his doctor that said it was in the doctor's opinion that the man was currently unable to work. That was enough for the judge to enter him at $0.00 income. In cases where Social Security is a factor we also give credit to the obligors for funds that are sent directly from SS to the obligee for the child. We also cannot legally enforce SSI cases. SSI cases are closed as uncollectable. We can collect some from SSA cases, but again, they get credit for what SS pays directly, so the obligation is less than your average order.

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coo_coo_ca_choo 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Q. Isn't it unconstitutional for the court to order a person to work just to pay off a child support debt? A. Some delinquent parents have argued that requiring an obligor to meet a court-ordered child support obligation, without consideration of his or her current employment status, is unconstitutional because it violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude or because it creates a criminal penalty for a civil debt. In a recent case, the California state supreme court examined this argument in detail and ruled that enforcement of a child support order did not run afoul of the Thirteenth Amendment's slavery and involuntary servitude prohibition [Moss v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. 4th 396, 950 P.2d 59 (Cal. 1998)]. Specifically, the court found that "there is no constitutional impediment to imposition of contempt sanctions on a parent for violation of a judicial child support order when the parent's financial inability to comply with the order is the result of the parent's willful failure to seek and accept available employment that is commensurate with his or her skills and ability." In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished child support from other types of family support and narrowed 100 years of the state's common law in this area. California's highest court also reviewed U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cases, Congressional legislative history, the state constitution, and analogous areas of common law in order to reach its holding. Based on this review, the court determined that the crucial element in slavery or involuntary servitude is the requirement that the oppressed person be bound to one employer or one form of employment. Since child support orders do not require the obligor to work for a specific person or in a particular line of work, the court held that enforcement of such orders does not rise to the level or slavery or involuntary servitude. The court also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has outlined exceptions for the performance of other civil duties, such as jury service, military service, road work, and enforced labor as punishment for a crime, such as work camps.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/archive-case-in-brief-courts-uphold-criminal-pen.aspx

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Coo_coo_ca_choo 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Coo_coo_ca_choo 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Govedo13 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dead-bolt-dad 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are mistaken. The state does get federal incentive payments based on increasing the gross amount of child support collects.

These federal reimbursements under the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act give the courts a financial incentive to order sole custody with the lower earning parent and to restrict the non-custodial parents access to their children in order to increase the gross amount of child support collected.

See http://www.fathersunite.org/Child%20Support%20Incentive%20Abuse%20Report.pdf for documentation.

I've written my legislators trying to get the reimbursements changed to reward states for increasing the percentage of parents sharing the responsibility for providing for their children's needs, but the states make too much money from these federal reimbursements to voluntarily change the way they measure child support compliance.

[–]Coo_coo_ca_choo 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]haberstachery 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LordEnigma 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]swagrabbit 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConfirmedCynic 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cl3ft 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Pyrepenol -24 points-23 points-22 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 27 points28 points29 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]Pyrepenol -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Because in family court living at home raising the kids is equal to going out and working all day to earn money. Yeah the stay-at-home mom might be a lazy piece of shit, but the fact is that raising kids is still hard work and almost always requires outside assistance-- either from a spouse monetarily, a babysitter to take care of the kids if the mom decides to work, child support, family, or something. If two parents split up the "built-in" system for raising a kid breaks down and the courts have to step in to figure out the best way to keep the kids together with their parents without favoring one of them, in turn causing the kids to favor that parent unfairly. They want the kids to have as close to a normal life as possible with both parents equally involved in raising them.

It's a complicated subject but in the end everything is done for the benefit of the kids themselves, not the parents.

[–]Forest_Person[S,🍰] 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Pyrepenol -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forest_Person[S,🍰] 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pyrepenol -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That might be how it works out when you read about it on the horrible stories posted here, but there are plenty of cases of divorce going very well for all parties involved. I'm talking from personal experience, friends i know whose parents are divorced-- not from the horror stories we see all the time.

Lawyers are always going to suggest the most despicable options, it's how they make their money (and they are usually the ones to blame when divorce goes poorly for the man-- not exactly caused by the system, but still supported by it). Feminists are also going to suggest the most despicable options, because many of them are fucked in the head and find men untrustworthy overall.

Somewhere in there is a happy medium and I like to believe that the system is gravitating towards it, even if some cases do indeed get fucked up in the process.

[–]Pyrepenol -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pyrepenol -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pyrepenol -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Manheiser_Busch 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chortle-guffaw 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LurkerOrHydralisk -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]BullsLawDan -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Ask the men that get thrown in jail for failure to pay truly unreasonable amounts of child support about why it shouldn't be.

Those cases are ridiculously rare. You're arguing all children should be punished because a few men are too stupid to hire a decent attorney.

Also, there's no one in jail for inability to pay. People are in jail for refusal to pay. Big difference.

Hint: You need to have enough money to pay for food and a place to live after paying child support and alimony.

The legal formula for calculating child support takes that into account. So that's already considered.

And alimony is rare and getting rarer by the day.

Also try talking to men that have lost their jobs and been unable to find a new one paying as well as their old one - they have similar stories.

Parents who have lost their jobs are eligible for a recalculation. Did you even read the article? That's what Brendan Fraser is asking for.

If your income decreases, so does child support. But not automatically.. you've got to ask the court, since the court made the order in the first place.

You're still arguing that kids should suffer because their parents hate each other too much to continue contributions to their well-being.

[–]garglemesh42 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zinkify 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Those cases are ridiculously rare.

And yet my father was thrown in jail for a bit for not being able to make his full payments. He owns his own small business and business was slow for a while.

Also, my mother spent the vast majority of the CS on herself. She was buying new curtains and clothes and shit ALL the time while I was eating state-paid school lunch and working/buying everything myself once I was 15.

Anecdotal sure, but -I- was the kid and -I- suffered more because of the CS system.

Also, go fuck yourself.

Edit for extra fun fact: at 15 my father reapplied for custody of me. I didn't want my life turned upside down so I asked for custody to be left alone. The judge refused to allow me to testify(right term?) on my behalf and threatened my mother's lawyer with contempt for bringing a letter of my wishes to the court.

At 15 the State decided I should have zero input on which parent I wanted to live with. The system is totally looking out for the kids, right?.... oh yea, I got sent to live with my father. New school, new district, new everything JUST as I was starting to recover from my fucked up childhood.

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]leftajar 26 points27 points28 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]scdi 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Detox1337 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]leftajar 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Phunwithscissors 77 points78 points79 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]mochacola 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Phunwithscissors 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]vegasmacguy 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forest_Person[S,🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Forest_Person[S,🍰] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 34 points35 points36 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Excedere 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Litig8 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CaptainChewbacca 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're right, but that rationale is terrible. It effectively says that fathers ought to pay alimony as a form of child support. While the welfare of children is certainly important, the onus of ensuring it is maintained ought to be equally shared by mothers and fathers. Women who get custody and alimony payments are often so well taken care of financially, that they don't need to work, and thus don't bother. The system is practically set up to enslave men to their ex-wives, or rich people to their poorer ex-spouses if you really want to stick to the whole "the laws are gender neutral" argument. In practice though, a gender bias clearly exists, even when you account for income levels. The laws/policies you're talking about didn't come about because mothers truly were concerned about the welfare of their children—they came about, because the children in question were expressing a preference for the parent who could better provide for them financially. It's worth noting that this likely only becomes an issue in children who reach a certain age, and no longer require as much of the caretaking/nurturing that requires parents to take time off from work. I can't back that up with research (some might exist, but I don't have the time/energy right now to bothering looking it up), but it just sort of makes sense, no? I really feel this is simply a judicial effort to keep children with their mothers, based on an unjustified preoccupation with mother-child bonding. Regardless, it clearly produces inequalities in parenting relationships and financial struggles that disproportionately affect men more than women, and society has yet to acknowledge that this is a real problem.

[–]RubixCubeDonut 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zinkify 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BearCubDan 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zinkify 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kaylen92 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Manheiser_Busch 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mochacola 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mochacola 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mariox19 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BearCubDan 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]darren559 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow, their rationale makes it all ass backwards in my case. So, ex-wife cheats on me behind my back and then files for divorce after 14 years of marriage. Didn't find out about the cheating until after divorce. She moves in with the man with whom she was cheating with into a nice lavish house in an upscale neighborhood a month after the divorce, this guy bought her the house as soon as we divorced. So she is living a very posh lifestyle, which of course my kids are, and that's all cool for my kids, have no problem with that.

Here is the thing, after I pay my child support dues every month, I am left broke and can afford nothing but a shitty one bedroom basement apartment, and I have no debt. They have ordered me to pay about 35% of my gross pay to child support a year, thus I can not afford a house, rent or to own. So my kids sleep in my bed and I sleep on the pull out couch when they come over. Why isn't it in the courts best interest for me to be able to at least afford a house with bedrooms to house my kids? Cause I don't have a vagina, that's why.

[–]Captaincastle 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thenewfoundlanders 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frostatine 58 points59 points60 points 10 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]DRUNK_CYCLIST 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frostatine 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DRUNK_CYCLIST 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DRUNK_CYCLIST 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DRUNK_CYCLIST 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DRUNK_CYCLIST -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DRUNK_CYCLIST -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]klunka_hb_erryday -71 points-70 points-69 points 10 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]mja211 66 points67 points68 points 10 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]ametalshard -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]klunka_hb_erryday -41 points-40 points-39 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mja211 36 points37 points38 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]klunka_hb_erryday -43 points-42 points-41 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]riseofazrael 28 points29 points30 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]klunka_hb_erryday -29 points-28 points-27 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AKnightAlone[🍰] -52 points-51 points-50 points 10 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]kweazy 27 points28 points29 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]AKnightAlone[🍰] -44 points-43 points-42 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

He has a skill people are willing to pay money to see. He isn't robbing people.

He's not robbing people; he's manipulating large groups because of the power of popularity. That's the entire concept of acting. You pretend to be heroes and every other characterization of people. People like you even when they don't know you. The entire premise of why Hillary Clinton is winning over Sanders. A person with more money and popularity is conquering America rather than a person who's actually completely selfless and acting for the benefit of America. How is that situation not just plainly considered abuse? Do you think they choose Leonardo DiCaprio for so many roles because he's the best actor in the world? Of course not. I'm sure there are plenty of amazing actors who've never really even gotten a part. Why? Because it's not even always about skill. It's a whole jumbled compilation of reasons, but mostly just because they're popular, therefore they have the power to manipulate people.

[–]bettygauge 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mja211 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AKnightAlone[🍰] -29 points-28 points-27 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]AKnightAlone[🍰] -13 points-12 points-11 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AKnightAlone[🍰] -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The "not at gunpoint" reminded me of libertarian statements. I was drunk all day yesterday, so I don't recall specifically what I was about to get at, but judging from right now... I was probably going to say the flaw in libertarian views is that they don't account for different types of negligence. Average people aren't particularly smart, so any social evolution is going to occur in a lopsided way. If that goes unchecked and without regulation, we ultimately end up requiring violent revolution to pull out of the automatically-formed state of feudalism.

By extension, the same flaw will happen when we willingly give disproportionate amounts of money to popular things around us. Like, isn't it strange that Pepsi is so concrete? Could you imagine someone saying, "Whelp, the Pepsi business failed. No more Pepsi in the world." It's like Pepsi is its own staple element like water or something. So name recognition and popularity leads people to keep buying it. And I don't believe that's because it's even the best. It's probably entirely because of some sort of emotional connection we've formed due to overexposure.

I dunno, this is beginning to genuinely sound like psychotic rambling, but I was making this whole argument to shine some light on a flaw. Basically, it works like gravity. The bigger the object, the more easy it is for it to get even bigger. And that's what ultimately leads to negligence. It was a bit of a stretch comparing a successful actor to these thoughts, but I think my point was that it's essentially not even about merit. Simple determinism.

On second thought, just ignore everything I just said. I'll even go up and downvote myself on all of this.

[–]bettygauge 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PmYourWittyAnecdote 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AKnightAlone[🍰] -27 points-26 points-25 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RussellLawliet 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]AKnightAlone[🍰] -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RussellLawliet 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]klunka_hb_erryday -13 points-12 points-11 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]klunka_hb_erryday -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]klunka_hb_erryday -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]klunka_hb_erryday -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Subtlefart 30 points31 points32 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forest_Person[S,🍰] 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Champigne 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Subtlefart -15 points-14 points-13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sasha_ 41 points42 points43 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pantsoff 39 points40 points41 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mja211 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pantsoff 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mja211 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ecko009 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Endless_Summer 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]remmbermytitans -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]remmbermytitans -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]B_P_G 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]remmbermytitans -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archerbro 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Unconfidence 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, because we're packaging it as "financial abortion", in large part. The thing is, a lot of people want some balance to abortion, which puts reproductive power in the hands of women by offering unto them a choice denied to men. We're going to have to come to terms with that it just won't be balanced, because we don't bear the children.

What we need is a default expectation of legal parental surrender. The idea is that when a child is born, unless someone specifically agrees to accept parental responsibility, they cannot be held to it. This would apply to women as well, such as might be the case with a pro-life woman who wanted to surrender custody to the father without facing possible child support payments. If this was in place, men could be upfront with women in the cases that they don't plan on being a parent, leading to less cases of women being stuck in unexpected single motherhood. Furthermore it would lead to more women who feel incapable of handling the parental role to remand that role to the father, as opposed to subjecting the child to poor parentage out of social obligation. Finally it would help to normalize the idea of single parenthood, which is currently vilified by much of the right.

But as long as we try to say that we're looking for some balance to abortion, we have no chance of having this lift off, as it'll just come off as reactionary and anti-feminist, not progressive and pro-men.

[–]B_P_G 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Assembled 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ironhorse0709 33 points34 points35 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Frostatine 34 points35 points36 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]droidtime 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scdi 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spoona96 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AspiringSquadronaire 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]StoobieGacks 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smoke_DeGrass_Tyson 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]fart_sucking_poop -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChaosOpen 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bhobh 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]masterrod 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ramot1 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ironhorse0709 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]B_P_G -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]B_P_G 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CMOS222 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forest_Person[S,🍰] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]CMOS222 -22 points-21 points-20 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zosimasie 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forest_Person[S,🍰] 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]CMOS222 -21 points-20 points-19 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forest_Person[S,🍰] 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]CMOS222 -17 points-16 points-15 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forest_Person[S,🍰] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Forest_Person[S,🍰] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Forest_Person[S,🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Glennus626 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pepsiarizonasquirt 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pimpin_Soi6 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConfirmedCynic 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]springy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Factushima 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ethos1983 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Swiggy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Unenjoyed 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SixteenBeatsAOne 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redmeatball 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Criket 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LuvBeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SupremeAuthority 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aksuVOIMAMIES 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ParadoxicalIntent -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Youareabadperson6[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ParadoxicalIntent 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Youareabadperson6[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ParadoxicalIntent 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Unconfidence 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]curveball21 -27 points-26 points-25 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azothlike 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stemgang 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]akaijiisu 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AgainWithRestarting 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments