Post: #1

Two and a Half Men star Jon Cryer must pay child support for his son of whom he has custody. Here’s the opinion of the California appellate court.

Yes, it’s true. Jon Cryer has almost sole custody of his son with Sarah Trigger Cryer. She has 4% of the parenting time; he has the other 96%. So you’d think she’d be paying child support to him, but no. It’s the other way around. He’s paying her because a Los Angeles trial court ordered him to and the appellate court upheld the order.

As you read the appellate opinion, continually ask yourself that tried and true question “what would happen if the sexes were reversed?”

Jon and Sarah were married in 2000. Both were actors at the time. They had a son, but divorced in 2004 with Sarah getting primary custody and Jon paying child support. By 2009, Sarah’s life had gone from bad to worse. Apparently she hasn’t had an acting job since 2005. Indeed, if she’s had any job at all, it’s not reflected in the evidence before the court. For that matter, she seems entirely disinclined to look for work, for reasons which will become obvious.

Both Jon and Sarah remarried, but it took only a few years for Sarah’s second marriage to hit the skids. She had a son by that marriage too and maintained custody of both boys.

Soon though, Jon filed for a modification of custody saying that Sarah was an unfit parent who left the children unsupervised. His request was denied, but the court admonished Sarah for negligent parenting. In 2009, her child by her second husband was injured while under her care and both children were taken from her and given to their dads.

So Jon did the obvious thing; he asked the court to reduce his child support from $10,000 a month to nothing. After all, he was the custodial parent and custodial parents don’t pay child support, they receive it, right? Well, as the court admitted, that’s usually the case, but not here. Here, Jon must continue paying Sarah $8,000 a month even though she only sees the child 4% of the time.

Why? Because she’s a deadbeat, that’s why. I’m really not making this up. Sarah answered Jon’s request for a reduction of child support by saying it’s her only income, which apparently it is. That’s because she hasn’t had a job of any kind since 2005. Into the bargain, she’s not looking for one. In her last filing, she listed her monthly income (outside of child support) as zero and her monthly expenses as over $13,000.

So, according to both the trial and the appellate courts, because Sarah is too much of a deadbeat to even attempt to support herself, Jon must continue to support her with the child providing the weakest of pretexts for doing so.

How many times have fathers been told that they should stop griping about the countless injustices of the child support system because it’s all for the child? Yes it’s unfair they’re told, but just put a sock in it and pay; it’s for the child, don’t you see.

Well, this case gives the lie to that and doesn’t beat around the bush about it. No one believes that it takes $8,000 a month ($96,000 a year) to support a child 4% of the time. The money has nothing to do with child support; it has everything to do with deadbeat Mom support. In this case, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line, and it is this – Jon earns a lot of money, Sarah earns none; therefore Jon pays Sarah even though he’s the custodial parent. Simple.

Now no opinion in a custody case would be complete without genuflections to the best interests of the child, and this is no exception. Sarah told the court that, if Jon didn’t pay her ”child support,” she’d lose the house she lives in and that he helped her buy when they got divorced. Assuming that to be the case, that would mean that she’d have to live somewhere else.

According to both courts, that would be too traumatic for their son. Keep in mind that 4% of a month is a little over a day. So according to the court, asking the child to spend a day and a night with his mother in an apartment somewhere in Los Angeles would be so emotionally damaging to him that it warrants imposing child support on a custodial parent.

Of course it would be nothing of the sort. Millions of children in this country live their whole lives in worse conditions and muddle through perfectly well.

Into the bargain, cutting Sarah off Daddy welfare might actually encourage her to better herself. The judges didn’t manage to notice what everyone over the age of about 12 would – that the reason Sarah has no income and is making no effort to work and earn is that she’s living off of Jon. Take his income away from her and maybe she’d start lifting a finger. Hey, anything’s possible.

But the courts weren’t finished. Perhaps sensing the radical injustice of what they were doing, both tried another tack. Because Sarah’s children were taken from her by the Department of Children and Family Services due to her neglect, there was a dependency proceeding in juvenile court at the same time the child support issue was being litigated.

No one knew what the outcome of the dependency proceeding might have been; they only knew that Jon had custody and Sarah didn’t. That could have changed at any time. The juvenile court could have done anything from returning full custody to Sarah to terminating her parental rights altogether.

So according to the courts, nothing could be done about Jon’s child support obligation because, well, the juvenile court might alter the custody arrangement at any time. Let me remind you; I’m not making this up.

We all know that, if the juvenile court had altered the custody situation significantly, either Jon or Sarah could have gone to court and requested a modification of child support based on changed circumstances. And guess what. The courts know that too; they even said as much. But according to them, because circumstances might change in the future, their hands are tied; Jon has to keep paying to support his ex-wife because, well something might happen.

It’s hard to get more blatant than this. It’s Mommy support thinly disguised as child support. The child will never see one-tenth of this money. In fact, she’s using it to pay her lawyers in the dependency case.

And again, imagine if the sexes were reversed. Imagine a father saying “Judge, it’s true I can earn a living but haven’t lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it’s true I lost custody because I’m dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it’s child support.”

Would the judge laugh him out of court or toss him in jail? I can’t decide.



http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2011/0...s-custody/

Post: #2

This is a prime example of why the current cycle of western female privilege is unsustainable. This is lunacy, but it won't last for a few more generations at the most. As the economy goes further south child support payments like this simply won't be paid. The police will be too busy with more important matters than tracking down an increasing percentage of men who can't afford the payments, and women will actually have to work to please a bread winning man instead of gaming a system designed to give to validate their pussy pass at the soonest available opportunity.

Only in the west can an unemployed woman claim to spend 13,000 dollars a month on 'expenses' and be rewarded for it by the judicial system (justice for all, right?). This is a striking blow against the feminists that scream about oppression and a 'wage gap'. She has a median income better than most African countries just for being a woman and following her biological obligation to procreate, despite it sounding she's a hilariously incompetent mother and human being in general.

We will be punished for allowing such hubris to manifest because while as individuals we see through such corruption, as a gender western man has failed. We will bear the fruits of the discord and madness we failed to stop, but we won't be snuffed out by it. Once this darkness - men, as a collective and will once again be a master of their own destines and women. This part of history will serve as a warning to future generations that women need to be led, not followed.

Post: #3

The more I think about it, the more fitting divorce is as a metaphor or microcosm of the overall pyramid structure that is the U.S.'s macro situation. The older generations of women that were first to cash out reaped the greatest payouts from their husbands. Then the payouts decline through the natural process of guys figuring it out and protecting their net worth. Even the ones who are currently married discretely offshore their savings, or have learned to use trusts, or even reverse-engineer how women have been so successful in divorce.

And unlike Social Security or Medicaid, young men can actually choose not to participate in this scheme.

Post: #4

All that being said. I have zero sympathy for anyone who gets married from the past five years onwards.

Zero.

You are playing russian roulette if you get married. And the wife gets to decide how many bullets goes in the gun.

Post: #5

Whatever the pitfalls of marriage, it doesn't change that the court system is now revealed to be transparently anti-male.

Post: #6

Wow, so the character he plays on TV...a mostly single parent that gets screwed over and bossed around by his ex wife...is actually his real life.

Post: #7

I read through the appeals decision, and as fucked up as it sounds, the ruling looks valid and logically correct based on the fact pattern and the trial court rulings, and it doesn't look like the appeals court could have ruled any other way in view of the screwy California family laws. Poor guy is very likely stuck with the ruling.

Do not get married in California.

Post: #8

How does this have anything to do with marriage? It's about child support not alimony - he'd be in the same situation if they'd never gotten married. Can someone who's familiar with the laws tell me why imputed income doesn't count against her child support claim?

Post: #9

(08-13-2013 03:05 PM)Ensam Wrote:  How does this have anything to do with marriage? It's about child support not alimony - he'd be in the same situation if they'd never gotten married. Can someone who's familiar with the laws tell me why imputed income doesn't count against her child support claim?

Because the Family court does what it wants at its discretion:

"Jon argues that the trial court erred by declining to impute income to Sarah based on her earning ability. We do not find any fault with this decision. Whether earnings should be imputed to an unemployed parent is a matter “addressed to the trial court‟s sound discretion.” (Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2011) ¶ 6:440, p. 6-178, citing In re Marriage of Graham (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1321, 1326.) A court may impute income only when it is in the child‟s best interest. (Cheriton, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 301.) Jon does not explain how imputing income to Sarah would have been in child‟s best interest, and we discern no abuse of discretion."

Basically, he would have had to argue why imputing income on the wife would have been in the child's best interest, absent the trial court's decision to impute income. That's a tough argument to make in this case.

Post: #10

(08-13-2013 02:17 PM)Anaguma Wrote:  I read through the appeals decision, and as fucked up as it sounds, the ruling looks valid and logically correct based on the fact pattern and the trial court rulings, and it doesn't look like the appeals court could have ruled any other way in view of the screwy California family laws. Poor guy is very likely stuck with the ruling.

Do not get married in California.

If you are going to have sex, get a vasectomy. If you are going to live with a woman, do it in a country where you have a fighting chance of surviving a divorce as something more than a chronically broken individual.

Post: #11

(08-13-2013 03:23 PM)Anaguma Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:05 PM)Ensam Wrote:  How does this have anything to do with marriage? It's about child support not alimony - he'd be in the same situation if they'd never gotten married. Can someone who's familiar with the laws tell me why imputed income doesn't count against her child support claim?

Because the Family court does what it wants at its discretion:

"Jon argues that the trial court erred by declining to impute income to Sarah based on her earning ability. We do not find any fault with this decision. Whether earnings should be imputed to an unemployed parent is a matter “addressed to the trial court‟s sound discretion.” (Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2011) ¶ 6:440, p. 6-178, citing In re Marriage of Graham (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1321, 1326.) A court may impute income only when it is in the child‟s best interest. (Cheriton, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 301.) Jon does not explain how imputing income to Sarah would have been in child‟s best interest, and we discern no abuse of discretion."

Basically, he would have had to argue why imputing income on the wife would have been in the child's best interest, absent the trial court's decision to impute income. That's a tough argument to make in this case.

Lol. The judge says trial court can do whatever it wants ("sound discretion"), which completely fucks the man out of his money. And to add insult to injury, the dad has to prove that cutting his ex's salary is in the best interest of the child. Fucking LOL.

It's in the dad's fucking best interest to stop paying for his errant dysfunctional ex, because he is goddamn earning it. but that is seemingly moot to these people.

Edit to add:

I read the brief. Yes, it is all legally vanilla, but it is also clear: at the time he requested his child support be lowered, the child had been living with him. The court stymied his request because they assumed that the child could move back into the "family home" at any time, and the quality of the family home must be preserved "in the interest of the child"

So the mother gets a $10k a month housesitting fee while others get to vacillate over where the kid goes next.

Post: #12

This may be more of a California thing. One of my close friends has joint-custody of his 3 kids and while he does still pay some child support, it is a very low amount...well low enough that the mother has been pissed since the ruling and tries to start drama every chance she gets.

This is in Minnesota though.

What I do not understand is all this talk (not here but on other news media) about not as many folks not getting married, etc.

I mean, with these laws against the men, what did society THINK would happen?

Post: #13

(08-13-2013 12:38 PM)cardguy Wrote:  All that being said. I have zero sympathy for anyone who gets married from the past five years onwards.

Zero.

You are playing russian roulette if you get married. And the wife gets to decide how many bullets goes in the gun.

It's Russian Roulette, but with an automatic.

Post: #14

Bitch has crazy eyes. He should have known better than to knock her up.



Still fucked up and it'll probably get even more fucked if his show goes off the air and he gets imputed income based on how much he made during his last show. On the other hand assuming he has 10 more years of child support payments he'll end up shelling out $768,000 which I think is less than he makes on _one_ episode of two and a half men. Not that she deserves shit but this hurts his soul more than his pocket book.

Post: #15

Ensam hit in on the head. Bitches with crazy eyes are always crazy. What is it with women and these fucked up eyes?

Ok, so basically it goes like this:
Jon Cryer can't find work? Has to pay her the same amount.
Jon Cryer can find work. Has to pay her the same amount.
Ex wife can't find work? Has to pay her the same amount.
Ex wife can find work? Has to pay her same amount.
Jon Cryer has custody of son? Has to pay her same amount.
Jon Cryer doesn't have custody of son? Has to pay her same amount.

Post: #16

California is like a huge sewage treatment that's 200 years out of date. Money goes in for repairs, but instead of fixing the problems, they paint gay flowers making out on it to make it look pretty and pc. All the time shit keep flowing in. At some point it's going to explode. I just hope when it happens the powers that be find a way to contain the spill. I don't want all those turds spewing out across the U.S. and mooching off the rest of us. And stinking up the place.

Post: #17

The answer for "why" the courts would do this, is very simple.

Matching funds under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/07/12/...l-custody/

He makes a shit load of money. She makes none.

Every dollar they collect from him, the Federal Government gives the (bankrupt) State of CA matching dollars to fund the family court regime.

Post: #18

I have a cynical view of the federal government. I go the full mile, and ascribe deliberate, malicious motivations to every facet of it... but that truly caught me by surprise.

Is that for real??? What the fuck?

Post: #19

We need to do a thread on bitches with crazy eyes. Have scientists looked into this?

Post: #20

California is quickly becoming a complete
fucking joke.

My eyes are set on Miami and NYC plus some overseas trips for next year. LA has women and weather, but the taxes etc are pushing me for greener pastures.

Post: #21

(08-15-2013 05:21 PM)cardguy Wrote:  We need to do a thread on bitches with crazy eyes. Have scientists looked into this?

I saw a headline in the paper the other day that said in a new study theres something unique about the eyes of people with stuff like bipolar/schizophrenia etc.

Post: #22

(08-15-2013 05:21 PM)cardguy Wrote:  We need to do a thread on bitches with crazy eyes. Have scientists looked into this?

Check out the Polyvagal Theory proposed by Stephen Porges. http://www.wisebrain.org/Polyvagal_Theory.pdf

Facial expressions are windows into our emotional states. Permanent crazy eyes mean permanent bat shit crazy.