TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

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

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

      Popular

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

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

Shocking moment screaming three-year-old boy is bound to a staircase by his cruel mother after her ex-husband missed £114 child support payment

JohnKimble111

November 16, 2017
386 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5088147/Mother-ties-son-ex-missed-114-child-support.html
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

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

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

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

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Shocking moment screaming three-year-old boy is bound to a staircase by his cruel mother after her ex-husband missed £114 child support payment
Author

JohnKimble111

Upvotes 386
Comments 65
Date November 16, 2017 8:53 AM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7db6pp/shocking_moment_screaming_threeyearold_boy_is/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/shocking-moment-screaming-three-year-old-boy-is.1174202
https://theredarchive.com/post/1174202
Top posts by JohnKimble111

Women Should Have to Register for the Draft, Congressional Commission Says

6700 upvotes
March 25, 2020
/r/PussyPassDenied

BBC admits its viral “women write better code” story was fake news

6298 upvotes
December 28, 2016
/r/MensRights

Gender pay gap in modelling sees men paid 75% less than women

6153 upvotes
February 8, 2018
/r/MensRights

Toxic Masculinity

5904 upvotes
March 10, 2018
/r/MensRights

After feminist cry sexism over BBC pay, official review uncovers more underpaid men than women

5789 upvotes
January 31, 2018
/r/MensRights

Controlling girlfriend, 22, who starved and stabbed her partner, banned him from her bed and took over his Facebook account is jailed for more than seven years

3826 upvotes
April 16, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

'If you tell anyone I've cheated, I'll ruin you': Cambridge don is cleared after his PhD student fiancee accused him of assault 'to get back at him' for calling off their wedding after she had affair in Galapagos Islands

3770 upvotes
September 16, 2017
/r/MensRights

Amber Heard loses bid to get $50 million defamation suit by her ex Johnny Depp thrown out

3737 upvotes
March 28, 2020
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]pooshhMao 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

'You little shit, you were supposed to make me rich!!1'

[–]Hirudin 134 points135 points136 points 8 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

Child support is not for the children. It's an excuse to extract wealth from the man and give it to the woman. If it was for the child there would be a system in place to ensure that the funds were only spent on things the child could benefit from.

[–]RX142 30 points31 points32 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where it is used for the children, unfortunately there isn't much of a framework to ensure that.

[–]not_just_amwac 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dare say those are the majority, too. There's always a few bad apples to spoil it for the majority.

[–]rivfader84 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

My mom was the one whom paid child support as she lost custody of me, she was not blameless for the reasons of losing custody she just socialized with the wrong crowd for the first half of her life. She paid monthly to my Dad, and my Dad used that money on me. It was for clothes, books, toys, and I went to catholic school so it went toward tuition. When I graduated high school my mom mailed a check for 2000 dollars that was not anything forced even though we were not on speaking terms at that time. I opened up my first bank account with that and it helped me cover college costs.

I don’t think I’m an exception to this either. I believe for the most part child support is a good thing, it’s just unfortunate that there are a minority of cruel people out there that abuse it.

[–]Halafax 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I believe for the most part child support is a good thing, it’s just unfortunate that there are a minority of cruel people out there that abuse it.

There is no mechanism to determine what is or isn't abused. None what-so-ever. If it is, you have very little ability to get the system to care.

My ex bought speed with what I paid. When that money ran out, she made kiddie porn with one of our kids to buy more.

I didn't know about the drugs, but I knew there was a problem. I was paying 2400 a month, the kid's shoes were falling apart. I got told "go buy them yourself", but I was flat fucking broke from paying my support obligations. The system didn't care, told me to fuck off and stop being a nuisance. I couldn't do anything, for my own kids, and the system laughed at me. That's family law and children's services in my state. Absolute shit-stains.

That's the counterpoint. Sure it can work, when the parents aren't assholes. When one of them is, it doesn't work at all. Maybe there should be >some< guidelines? Some test of success? Anything at fucking all?

[–]xxsolojxx 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Amen brother. Here’s to hoping the kids are ok.

[–]Halafax 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My ex got caught, she's in prison now. My kids are ok-ish. Healthy, getting pretty good grades, social. They're still in therapy, and prolly will be until they go to college. It's been a shit show.

I'm tired, but I'm doing the only thing I ever really cared about. I got pushed into the margin of the custody equation because the system only cared about my ability to pay support. Being good at that doesn't mean they should take away my parenting time, but that's how the system justifies what it does.

The family law system is shit. Everyone involved in it has blood on their hands.

[–]tothecatmobile 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

If someone gives me $20 to give to you, I don't have to give you the exact same $20.

If we agree to split the bill for a meal, it doesn't matter if I give you the money before, during, or after the meal, I'm still going you the money for the meal, regardless of what you might actually spend the physical money I gave you.

The idea of child support isn't for the children only works if they recipient doesn't spend any money on the child, ever.

[–]sweet-pie-of-mine 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

The problem is for example if in a scenario a mother has custody and the father is paying support . If the mother spends 800 a month on the child and the father pays 1300 and the mother goes and spends the rest on clothes and jewelry the rest of the money is not going to the child what so ever.

[–]Hirudin 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

mother goes and spends the rest on clothes and jewelry the rest of the money is not going to the child what so ever.

and then the mother goes back to court whenever possible to up the amount because whatever money is left after taking care of the kid belongs to her (assuming she is taking care of the kid, which isn't a requirement).

[–]sweet-pie-of-mine 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That’s the moral issue that it’s not required. Why should the father pay for the shopping bills of the mother when the father earned it. It supposed to be for the child. That’s why child support exists. What reason is there ethically the father should pay more than the mother spends on the child. If 800 dollars is spent a month on the child then each parent should provide 400 of it. Why should he pay for her shopping bills( outside of current legal reasons)

[–]Hirudin 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why should he pay for her shopping bills( outside of current legal reasons)

Like I said initially, it's because supporting the child hasn't ever really been the main goal of child support. It's a no strings attached wealth transfer from fathers to mothers (most of the time) that has the possibility of benefiting the child.

The transfer of wealth is the end, and the "welfare of the child" is the means.

[–]tothecatmobile -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

And how many scenarios like that exist?

$1300 a month is nearly 3 times the average child support payment in the US, and spending $800 a month on a child is around the estimate spent by lower income single parent families.

[–]Hirudin 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

You seem to be dead set on arguing against accountability for child support payments.

Who cares if it's burdensome to track all these expenditures... the welfare of the child comes first. Surely the drop in quality of life for the mother is of secondary concern when the welfare of the child might be at stake... that is of course... unless the welfare of the child was never the actual goal.

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

The point being made is that detailed accounting isn't necessary. The amounts of child support payments are modest enough that as long as CPS is doing sufficient monitoring to assure the child is not neglected, then the parent is spending more than the payments on the child.

Is the child going to school in clothes and shoes that fit, healthy and well-fed? Then there is more than $800 a month being spent on the child. No further accounting needed.

[–]tothecatmobile -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The accountability comes from not neglecting a child.

[–]Hirudin 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What does that even mean? The whole point of the accountability system would be to ensure that the money is spent on things the child actually needs. You seem to be awful fearful of any kind of oversight for a mother's spending habits. Don't want us to see behind the curtain?

[–]tothecatmobile -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It means the only way a parent isn't spending child support on the child, then they're spending far less than it takes to actually look after a child.

That would be neglect.

[–]Hirudin 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Which is impossible to detect without having a system in place to ensure that the money is spent on the child.

[–]tothecatmobile 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Neglect is impossible to detect?

[–]corpseflower1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If no one can be bothered to look, yes.

[–]tothecatmobile1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If that was even the case, your answer is to implement a system that only prevents neglect in households where a parent receives child support?

[–]Hirudin 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Lets suppose a child requires $20 of services. If the child support is set at $40 then there is $20 left over after the child is taken care of. My point is that that extra $20 shouldn't simply be available for be spend on whatever flippant thing the mother wants to spend it on. It should be mandatory that that money be spend on the child because 1) the father would probably be much more willing to hand that money over knowing it's actually being used for what it is supposed to and 2) it would discourage the mother's motivation to return to court for cash grabs since the money can't be spend on designer clothing or bar tabs.

[–]tothecatmobile -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The average money a single parent spends on a child is far more than the average child support payment.

How often does the situation you're describing actually happen?

[–]Hirudin 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The average money a single parent spends on a child is far more than the average child support payment.

How on earth do you think they actually calculate these things? Of course the mother claims she "spends more than the child support payment." How else would you convince a judge to increase the amount of child support?

[–]tothecatmobile -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The average spent on a child includes all families, not just ones that receive child support.

[–]utahncomments -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

$114 (I assume euro's) Isn't really a lot of money...

[–]The_German_One-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

$114 (I assume euro's)

Are you really that dollarcentric that you see "$" not as a sign describing a special currency or a number of currencies used in a limited area on the world, and instead see it as a sign for any kind of "money"?

The currency used to get to an amount of 114 is written just in front of the number, and the actually used currency with its respective amount is written in the article.

(hint: it's not USD in the title, and it's not EUR in the article.)

Also, I'd dare to say that 114 of whatever currency in the country this is about is more than 114 of the same currency in GER, UK or USA.

[–]utahncomments 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That is the European abbreviation for a dollar. Jesus, dude. No need to be butthurt

[–]The_German_One1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is the European abbreviation for a dollar

Sooooo? I don't get it. Nowhere in the article it's about dollars, yet you speak about dollars, and then assume that by dollars anyone (which needs to be one of the people that brought up dollars, so, only you) means euros... And so you made four currencies out of two.

Or do you think that "£" is the "European abbreviation for a dollar"? Then no, just no.

Edit: Let the downvotes fly in, because the numbers don't care and the dimensions don't matter. You know what? I weight two meters, I'm four kilograms big, I can see six megawatts, and I earn eight Kelvin.

[–]utahncomments 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol, I'm a "dollar bully."

[–]The_German_One1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

dollar bully

I have no idea what that is.

[–]charliebeanz -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

That's an opinion, and a biased and baseless one at that. Raising a child is expensive, especially for one person.

[–]Hirudin 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Then surely you wouldn't be opposed to implementing a system to ensure that what little money is available for the child is actually spent on the child.

[–]charliebeanz -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

According to reports, the average cost of raising a child for 18 years is more or less $300,000. If my math is correct, that's $16,000 a year, and $1,300 a month. The average child support payment is $430 a month.

Logically, it's not hard to see that most people who receive child support aren't saying "Woo hoo! More cash for me!" and then going out to buy crack while their kids starve. Most people need that money to help with bills and necessities.

And I can't say that I'm against a person spending a little money buying themselves something nice with the extra money after spending $1,300 of their own money to care for their child. If the kid is taken care of and has everything they need, why must we insist that a parent not spend any money on themselves and instead buy more things for the kid?

[–]Hirudin 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

And I can't say that I'm against a person spending a little money buying themselves something nice with the extra money after spending $1,300 of their own money to care for their child.

I can. It's not theirs. It's for the child. If there's money left over after all the child's needs are taken care of it should be sent back to the father, because it was originally the father's money, not the mothers. Let's not pretend this money just fell out of the sky.

[–]charliebeanz -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

A parent who spends $1300 on a child each month should return money to the parent who chipped in less than a third of that cost?

If I have $70 for a gift for my mother, and my sister gives me $30 for her 'half', should I give her money back if the price comes to $90?

[–]Hirudin 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If all of the child support money was already spent on the child then there is nothing to return. Problem is nonexistent.

[–]charliebeanz 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That's unrealistic and not how things work. If Dad spends $200 on school supplies and clothes for the kids, and Mom gives him $50 to help out, he should say no thanks, I've already covered it, here's your money back?

[–]Hirudin 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What on earth are you talking about? The topic is government mandated child support.

[–]charliebeanz 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm trying to give you an example with smaller numbers so it's easier to understand.

We can go back to the original numbers, in which the total cost is $1,300, and one parent only pays $430 while the other parent pays $870. Why should the parent who pays double what the other does give money back to them?

[–]Hirudin2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They wouldn't. The point this whole time was that if the money was not going to be spent on the needs of the child, presumably because all those needs were already covered by the amount paid, then the additional money should not be spent on frivolous things, like "gettin her nails did."

But the problem now, is that there is no method of accountability. There is no way to determine that the child is actually getting what it needs and the money, supposedly for the child, can be spent by the custodial parent on things other than the need of the child even when the needs of the child have not been met.

[–]charliebeanz0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The thing is that you're assuming the one parent (mother, in your scenario) would be paying for certain things regardless of whether she had a child or not, such as rent. These costs increase with children, so she's paying more than she would be otherwise. I assume this is why you think Mom and Dad are both paying equal parts, when in fact they are not. Mom is paying more than double what Dad is paying, and you are saying that it doesn't matter if Mom has spent nearly $900 that month on child care, Dad sent $430 and there's $20 left over so it belongs to him. That just doesn't seem fair to me.

[–]charliebeanz -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

How do you imagine that would work? Vouchers that can only be used to purchase formula and toys? How would that work with things like rent and utilities? Would that compensate the mother for money she spent on the child instead of on herself?

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

I'd assume that things like rent and utilities would be included too. It would be like a debit system similar to those setup for SNAP.

Would that compensate the mother for money she spent on the child instead of on herself?

Nothing. It's the welfare of the child we're talking about here. Her welfare is secondary, just like the father's is.

[–]charliebeanz -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Like I said, if the child is taken care of and has everything they need, why can't a parent buy themselves a pair of pants or something?

[–]Hirudin 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

And I agree. That money should be sent back to the father so he can buy some pants.

[–]charliebeanz -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The parent who spent only $430 on childcare? Not the parent who spent $1,300? Interesting.

[–]Hirudin 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

We're assuming that there was money left over after all of the child's needs were taken care of in this scenario. If the total cost is $1300, and the child support was $430, then this wouldn't be the case.

[–]charliebeanz -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Sure, let's assume there's money left over after all the child's necessities are taken care of. Shouldn't the leftover money go to the person who spent 2/3rds more on the child?

[–]Hirudin2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What on earth are you talking about? This is basic addition and subtraction. If it costs $1300 to raise a child for a month (and that's generous because now we're including things like rent and utilities, which are things that the custodial parent benefits from also and would have to spend money on even if they were single) then the $430 is already entirely spent. There isn't anything left over to worry about. The point is moot. $1300 is a bigger number than $430.

[–]charliebeanz0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If the money is already spent, then who's money is supposed to be given back to the other parent?

[–]Hirudin2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

God damn it's like talking to a wall. If the money is already spent on the needs of the child then there is no money to be sent back.

If the money provided is more than enough to meet the child's needs, then the rest should be sent back.

[–]charliebeanz0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If a child's needs are only $900, I agree, because then each parent is paying the exact amount of money for the child, and any left over would go to whoever paid more. Buuuuut, seeing as how one parent is paying double than the other, any left over money should go to the parent who contributed more.

[–]NebulousASK 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This should be a capital offense.

Seriously - take her to court, convict her, lethally inject her. No adult that would do this to a three-year-old is worth breathing air on this planet.

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

Primary care-giver.

[–]Gentlemanlyness 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

After reading the article, this story doesn't seem to have anything to do with CPS or any other government body. The mother didn't even have legal custody of the child, she just agreed with the father, who had custody, to watch the boy temporarily while her ex-husband would pay some amount of money agreed upon between the two. The article says nothing about any legal procedures, it seems the two just arranged this out of court between each other.

Of course, I still hope the mother is punished for this, and I feel awful for that three-year-old, whose probably scarred for life. However, you can't blame any legal system for this here, only this one psychotic child abuser

[–]killerbake 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My mom used my child support on drugs and herself. My dad wanted it to be given to me as part allowance and part w/e else I needed.

But no my mom went and did crack with it.

I'm seeing a pattern here.

edit word

[–]SlowCash 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My mother supported her shitty husband and his 2 kids on the child support check for my sister and myself. Neither one of them ever bothered to get a job, we lived on welfare and were constantly evicted. My poor father fought tooth and nail for custody, but the mother knows how to raise a child best in the state of CA.

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

I know it was a long time ago, but I'm sorry man. Hearing stories like yours really makes me appreciate my father and be so grateful I was able to get at least 50% custody of my son.

[–]st00dup 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What's the 'after ex-husband missed £114 child support payment' got to do with it? What a pathetic attempt to blame shift. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

[–]Nomfwic 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What-the-actual-f**k!!!

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BenchoteMankoManko 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really long day

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