Skip to main content

View Diary: Legal Aid Clinics Under Attack (120 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Child support is about CHILDREN. nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mikey, GoldnI
    •  That, in and of itself, is a political (0+ / 0-)


      •  Only if you're a dick ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ... who lives in a mindset that sees men as being under attack as opposed to being the group that pretty much rules the world.

        •  I would have hoped that a legal education (0+ / 0-)

          would have taught you to understand that people can disagree with you but still have a defensible argument.

          You can believe that your position is the correct or most moral position while still recognizing that your opinion is just that - a political opinion - and that contrary political opinions also exist.

          •  You don't have an argument (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            You have an attitude.

          •  You don't have a defensible argument (0+ / 0-)

            You're arguing, without any proof, that the women who would be using this clinic might just be a bunch of greedy bitches trying to shake down their innocent ex-husbands for every penny they can get.

            •  Nope... I am arguing that (0+ / 0-)

              their ex-husbands have just as much right to free legal representation as the women do and that Adam B himself has stated that the clinic has the political and social objective of supporting these women rather than their husbands, not just the objective of providing legal education to law students.

              This then raises the question of whether the legislature is acting reasonably when it determines that a law clinic has political and social objectives that the legislature does not support and therefore decides to defund it or limit its activities.

              •  ex-husbands? (0+ / 0-)

                We're not dealing with divorces here.

              •  Actually, let me be even more clear (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                The cases all involved unmarried men who got women pregnant and who refused to be responsible legally for their children.

                •  But don't you know (0+ / 0-)

                  What the "men's rights" people will argue in that situation?  "Oh, she's lying about him being the father!" or "Oh, she lied and said she was on the Pill!" or "Oh, I didn't even WANT to have the kid but now she's alienating it from me!"

                  •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    The tune is usually along the lines of "It's too high because my kid doesn't really need that much, and I don't want that B*)*(() to get anything."

                    As if somehow their toddler can rent his own apartment, do his own grocery shopping, take himself to the movies or for ice cream, or buy his own toiletries is such that the marginal benefit the custodial parent gets from any child support is a windfall allowing (usually her) to live high on the hog.

                    Notably, I HAVE supervised a clinic where we would do family law cases representing custodial parents that were both men and women.  And I have to tell you, women who are on the hook for child support and want to try to reduce the amount do not sound anywhere near as bitter and hatin' about their former paramours and what "he" might be 'getting' at their expense.

                    Misogyny at its finest, too often, when the default situation occurs and it's a man wanting free legal help to reduce his child support obligations.  Sadly.  I am someone who does believe that child support guidelines need far more flexibility when it comes to working class and low income non-custodial fathers.  But IME the ones who truly are hurting (i.e. struggling to live with the payments) still find a way to support their kids and only rarely seek lawyers as a first resort.  As opposed to most, unfortunately, who say that it's about their survival but 5 minutes into the interview it's clear that it ain't about the kids for them - it's about HER.


                    If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

                    by shanikka on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 10:34:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Several people have pointed out to you (0+ / 0-)

                That the men DO in fact get free legal representation if they are sued, it's the women who are not entitled to free representation as a matter of law.  Not to mention that the clinic's assistance wouldn't have even been necessary if it were truly a situation of an innocent, beleaguered father who just wanted to do what was best by his children.

                But you're not hearing any of that.  You've got your "men's rights" agenda to push and nothing is going to change that.

                •  People have made this claim... seems incorrect (0+ / 0-)

                  For example,

                  One question I hear frequently is whether you can get a court-appointed attorney in your divorce or child support case.  The answer is no.  There is no constitutional right to have an attorney provided for you in a private family court matter like there is in a criminal prosecution or even in a DSS abuse and neglect case.  This issue recently was before the South Carolina Supreme Court in Rebecca Price v. Michael D. Turner.

                  I think anyone who claims you do get a free lawyer needs to provide evidence.

    •  BTW, if it's all about the children (0+ / 0-)

      why weren't you representing the children?

      That could be quite interesting.  For example, suing mom for spending too much on discretionary personal expenses and too little on the child.

      After all, why should the amount of money that the non-custodial parent spends to support his child be mandated by the court but not that of the custodial parent?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site